i would not expect 1/0 to be zero. as you divide by smaller numbers, the quotient gets bigger, so i can't understand why someone would expect /0 to be zero.
Paraphrasing you: "If I have five apples and were to divide them among 0 people, how many does each person get?" This sums up one approach to this problem, and can be thought of in a more intuitive manner than the limit approach. The answer could be zero. Or 1. Or 37. In fact, any number makes as much sense as the question. Which is why either an exception is raised, (or +- Inf is returned for floats, but that's just the limit approach). But perhaps it would be more fun just to return a random number on divide by zero :)
Like everything in life, it depends...
For example:
Storage has 5 items that need to be processed.
5 items need to be split equaly between available processes.
There are currently 0 available processes so 5 / 0 = 0 items to be processed is more correct than either 5 or Nan or infinity.
Your example is quite vague (e.g. are we dealing with an integer number of items and processes?) and in general if something looks kinda like a division it doesn't mean it is exactly division. Just like in math, we have the power to simply say: if COND -> divide normally, else -> do something else.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think the issue stems from 0 meaning both 0 of "something"/"a concept" and "nil."
If I have 5 apples and divide them in to 0 buckets of apples, that makes sense. If I have 5 apples and divide them into 0 buckets of tractor; that doesn't make sense.
It's more like you had five apples and divided them among zero people, which means not even you get to keep them. They were thrown in the trash instead. The answer is zero.
Policy can encourage wage growth, subsidies can be given out, and politicians could increase both the minimum wage and public sector wages whenever they choose.
Honestly at this point we start getting into a long discussion such as benefits of unionisation and why we should support it alongside collective bargaining and the fact that rising the minimum wage floor raises wages of other low paying jobs.
At some point though I’m throwing academic sources to the voter at which point I’ve probably lost the discourse because it’s hard to reason about.
The reality is I don’t do any of the above. I’m not even interested in debating the point anymore. People don’t want to hear long winded academic discourse on the best economic approaches to anything.
I’ve bluntly completely lost faith in American democracy. The candidate with the biggest budget has won consistently and the biggest budget comes mostly from corporate donations via PACs.
I view this as the major contributing cause to the current situation. The cyclic dependencies among issues that need attention mean that explaining a fix simply and truthfully is no longer possible. In the current system, a simple explanation is a prerequisite for winning the votes to implement anything. Parties acting in good faith don’t stand a chance.
> completely lost faith in American democracy
Exactly. It doesn’t function without intangibles like “good faith” or “norms” which have been discarded.
I don't really know the details of the US election. But two things that I know are that Kamala couldn't be pro-union, what sucks for her, and Trump spent a really huge amount of time talking about ways to increase people's salaries that can't possibly work, but were actual proposals he made.
the vast majority of landlords are small potatoes not worth talking about. understand that, when people talk about landlords, they're probably talking about the landlords of the vast majority of rentals.
reply