Okay, barring the part of this discussion where I point out that you've simultaneously mis-named laws of mathematics and left out the part of said laws that accounts for the situations you say cause your "non-existant zero" theory to be true...
...No. You know what? Let's revisit that.
2/1=2 Simple, yes? But watch as we decrease the value of the denominator.
2/.5=4
2/.25=8
... See the pattern? It's a limit function, with n as the denominator of any fraction. As the limit of n approaches 0, the value of the numerator (we'll call it x from here on out) increases exponentially toward infinity. In math, for a limit to exist, the values of x as n approaches whatever number must approach an actual number. Infinity is not a number, therefore, the limit does not exist (saying it has a limit of infinity is merely a way of describing in what way the limit does not exist, or how it would behave were it to exist, with exceptions steeped in calculus that is far beyond the scope of the internet debate.
The rest of your argument is null (just like zero, amirite?), since we use the practical example of dividing objects into equal parts as a tool to teach math to children. When you advance into higher levels of mathematics, you begin to approach principles that cannot be shown in such a manner (like dividing a pizza into 1/4th parts, like I did to the number 2 earlier). Granted, that's a terrible example, and is an improper fraction and blah blah blah...
Anyway, to get back to your original point: does zero exist? It has to. Much of mathematics, and certain crucial equations need a null value (zero) in order to produce a valid answer.
Consequently, if you're looking for something present in mathematics that can be construed to say "Math r pointless, yay!", you might want to try Russell's Paradox, since all mathematics and Number Theory is based on Logic (not the kind you just tried to use here, the mathematical kind).
...No. You know what? Let's revisit that.
Have to stop you here. The reason 0/0 is not equal to 1 is very simple. I'll use the number 2 to help illustrate why you're wrong.claymorez said:
2/1=2 Simple, yes? But watch as we decrease the value of the denominator.
2/.5=4
2/.25=8
... See the pattern? It's a limit function, with n as the denominator of any fraction. As the limit of n approaches 0, the value of the numerator (we'll call it x from here on out) increases exponentially toward infinity. In math, for a limit to exist, the values of x as n approaches whatever number must approach an actual number. Infinity is not a number, therefore, the limit does not exist (saying it has a limit of infinity is merely a way of describing in what way the limit does not exist, or how it would behave were it to exist, with exceptions steeped in calculus that is far beyond the scope of the internet debate.
The rule in Mathematics you're citing here actually has an exception for zero, in case you forgot to read that far ahead.claymorez said:
The rest of your argument is null (just like zero, amirite?), since we use the practical example of dividing objects into equal parts as a tool to teach math to children. When you advance into higher levels of mathematics, you begin to approach principles that cannot be shown in such a manner (like dividing a pizza into 1/4th parts, like I did to the number 2 earlier). Granted, that's a terrible example, and is an improper fraction and blah blah blah...
Anyway, to get back to your original point: does zero exist? It has to. Much of mathematics, and certain crucial equations need a null value (zero) in order to produce a valid answer.
Consequently, if you're looking for something present in mathematics that can be construed to say "Math r pointless, yay!", you might want to try Russell's Paradox, since all mathematics and Number Theory is based on Logic (not the kind you just tried to use here, the mathematical kind).
