What is wrong in this logic?

Question

1/0 undefined, not analyzable, not distinguishable.

2/0 undefined, not analyzable, not distinguishable.

=>Anything by nothing is undefined, cannot be analyzed.

=>You can not analyze a thing by nothing.

What is not 1 (you)? 0
Nothing= What is not one.
One = you

=> You cannot analyze a thing by what you are not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU CAN NEVER DISTINGUISH A THING BY WHAT YOU ARE NOT.
You can never understand a thing by what you are not.
You can never describe a thing by what you are not.
YOU CAN NEVER ANALYZE A THING BY WHAT YOU ARE NOT.

Answer 1

this can hurt you brain slow down

Answer 2

What is wrong is your understanding of why it is undefined,
many combinations of 1 and 0 are definable, just not 1/0. You can define 1+0, 1-0, and 1*0. So the fact that 1 and 0 are differant has nothing to do with it. Rather the dividing by zero is what causes the error. 0/0 is also undefined. Following your logic, this means that you cannot analyze a thing by what it is or by what it isn't.

Answer 3

The problem is thet the person is writing in absolutes or universals. the fact is that there are countless exception to these absolutes, for example you can put your self in another man's place and and determine how he would act in a given situation given the pattern in which he already acts. You are not that person but you are thinking like that person in oreder to make a decision that person would make. I can do all of the things that the person suggests I cannot simply by being what I am not. Read Jorge Borges and you will see that there are actually two of you, the you I recognize, and the you which you recognize. Both are real to the person perceiving the reality. The question is whose perception will win out in the world, mine or yours. If I win then you are what I say you are. Quite often that is the way it is. You die and somebody else writes your epitaph for you. So like i said, she needs to drop the absolutes and qualify the first clause with "for yourself"and add "being" for the second part.

As it reads right now, you can look in a mirror and see a table and then look again in that mirror and see a can on that table and distinguish that something has changed simply by looking in the mirror; and that makes it false.

Answer 4

No logic, no great theory is required when commonsense answer is available.

You need to be out of what you are analyzing for the analysis to be objective. Otherwise, it would be a subjective analysis giving biased results - in other words, if you put yourself into the object of analysis, the result will be f(x) rather than a straight x.
However, if the analysis is exclusively for yourself only and not meant to be shared or dispersed in any way outside of just your own self, you are free to get into it and analyze in depth with your own logic and bias and get as spicy a result as you want, and you alone will have to lump it.

Answer 5

your error lies in its application, zero cannot be divided.
as a human you have the capacity for rational thought, that does not mean you has the person applies it.
example would be, i am not a motorbike, but i can describe it.
i can distinguish a motor bike from a bus and i am neither.
i cannot understand a motorbike, because a motorbike has no rationale, i can understand the concept of a motorbike.
and of course i can Analise anything if i have the intellect to do so.
your rationale fails in its first assumption. therefore all your argument is dependant on that being correct, that is what is wrong with your logic. FL

Answer 6

Therefore you have to attack a problem by assuming, x = everything
hence 1/0 = x = everything as assumed and this is the first step
go on putting values for x i.e x = 1 etc till you get acceptable solution ; then use approximation to get nearly good answer.

Answer 7

Basics of maths says, division is repeated substraction...
Any number of zeros can be reduced from 1... 1 is a quantity, and zero represents another quantity (which happens to be 'nil').
The concept is more of a method to prove the capability of the division technique and its infallibility as a improvement on repeated substraction, than the notional result of 'not distinguishable' being used to equate or compare with a theory, which has inclination towards logic !
Thanks to Yahoo Answers, for everything, even for just so far !

Answer 8

Your logic is true. Things are the contents of the mind.Anything can be analyze by a thing or the mind. Nothing is not in the mind, there is always something in the mind.. To understand nothing the mind must not use its content. Understanding the limitation of the mind is not logic, it is enlightenment.

Answer 9

Thats pretty insightful. Are you saying that you don't understand this?

Basicly, anything divided by zero is undefined. Thats just a mathematical rule - nothing can be divided by zero.

And you can't define who you are by dividing yourself from what you're not. I can't really dummy it down more than that without an example put into first grader's words.

I am a color. If I am not Red, what am I?

Impossible to predict! I defined what I am not, but not what I am so therefore its impossible to say which color I am.

Answer 10

What the heck? I am going to try.

1. I can distinguish a flower by my eyes, But I am NOT the eye( I have the eye)
2.I can understand a thing by my thoughts. But I am NOT the thought ( I have thoughts)
3. I acn describe a thing by my mouth. But I am NOT the mouth. ( I have a mouth)
4. I can analyse a thing by my brian . but I am NOT my brain. ( iahve brain)

In other words what I have is NOt me but I have thse with me. Then , who am I ?

I am pure consciousness. Awareness. that is it.

( hey ! made it!)

Answer 11

emty skies you are wrong, if you say you are not red that means you had a reason for picking what you are not giving insight into what you trully are. Lets say survey done shows that 70% of people who dislike red love blue it is a good chance that you are the color blue.