the vanity project Jan 5, 2011 Rating: 3
Did you just divide this photo by zero Bruce?
tjo Jan 12, 2011 Rating: 2
yeah, i like how you keep it simple :)
Bruce Anderson Jan 8, 2011 Rating: -1
Tried...but it just wouldn't work (since, in mathematics, division by zero is "undefined;" continuity (at least at this level) demands reciprocals, and since the multiplication of any number by zero produces zero, then the inverse computation can provide no reciprocal. "Zero" is a "number, in much the same sense as "black" is a "color." The primary function in math of zero is to act as a "place holder;" you'll notice that the first ten numbers in our system of math consist of "1," through "10;" or "one," through "ten," if you prefer. We could have employed something other than a "1" followed by a "0," to designate the number "ten;" (the Romans did this, but it proved to be pretty clumsy) but then we would have had to introduce another "place holder," in any case. Wouldn't we? Then we would have to go through the bother of providing a "proof" that this surrogate also produced no product -- other than itself, when applied to multiplication. Better to keep it simple.
soutie Jan 5, 2011 Rating: 0
still looking for that misssing dollar ( heres a hint : if there is 2 there is a few). bagged a barrel with my first wave of the year. shazam. after a 5 week layoff too.
Spongerdudette Jan 4, 2011 Rating: 2
Another amazing shot Bruce +5.
Get Joggly Jan 5, 2011 Rating: 0
Im thinking its easily done , but can't think/find of another example. Fresh and original !
Bruce Anderson Jan 4, 2011 Rating: 3
Thank you, spongerdudette.