if your axioms support multiplication you’ll get division out of them for free
this is true... except when it isn't.
In mathematics, rings are algebraic structures that generalize fields: multiplication need not be commutative and multiplicative inverses need not exist
Right. The cells are dividing in half, which would be represented in math form by 1/0.5 = 2. Dividing by one half is the same thing as multiplying by 2, and division in general is really just a visually simplified way to multiply by a fraction of 1.
Any time you divide by some fraction of 1, you will necessarily end up with a larger number because you're doubling that division which reverses it back into multiplication, much in the same way as a negative x negative = positive. If that makes sense.
A mathematician would not be bothered by this. A high schooler taking algebra I might be though, if you phrased it the same way this post did.
a/b is the unique solution x to a = bx, if a solution exists. This definition is used for integers, rationals, real and complex numbers.
Defining a/b as a * (1/b) makes sense if you're learning arithmetic, but logically it's more contrived as you then need to define 1/b as the unique solution x to bx = 1, if one exists, which is essentially the first definition.
Computers don't subtract, and you can't just add a negative, a computer can't interpret a negative number, it can only store a flag that the number is negative. You need to use a couple addition tricks to subtract to numbers to ensure that the computer only has to add. It's addition all the way down.
Clever and I get the joke and it made me smile. If I recall my biology from 20 years ago I think the cell makes duplicates of its chromosomes then splits apart. So you have two cells inside one membrane that separates, 2 / 1 = 2. The way I first thought about it was one cell splitting in half, so half goes to one cell, the other half with the other, 1 / .5 = 2.
In short, I think the math works out fine, but the language you use to describe it can lead to comedy gold. You could say cells reproduce by division? I don't know, I'm not a biologist or mathematician. I'm a toilet poster.
this is true... except when it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)
Right. The cells are dividing in half, which would be represented in math form by 1/0.5 = 2. Dividing by one half is the same thing as multiplying by 2, and division in general is really just a visually simplified way to multiply by a fraction of 1.
Any time you divide by some fraction of 1, you will necessarily end up with a larger number because you're doubling that division which reverses it back into multiplication, much in the same way as a negative x negative = positive. If that makes sense.
A mathematician would not be bothered by this. A high schooler taking algebra I might be though, if you phrased it the same way this post did.
a/b is the unique solution x to a = bx, if a solution exists. This definition is used for integers, rationals, real and complex numbers.
Defining a/b as a * (1/b) makes sense if you're learning arithmetic, but logically it's more contrived as you then need to define 1/b as the unique solution x to bx = 1, if one exists, which is essentially the first definition.
That's me, a degree-holding full time computer scientist, just learning arithmetic I guess.
Bonus question: what even is subtraction? I'm 99% sure it doesn't exist since I've never used it, I only ever use addition.
Addition by the additive inverse.
Now you just replaced one incalculable thing with a different incalculable thing.
Eh?
Computers don't subtract, and you can't just add a negative, a computer can't interpret a negative number, it can only store a flag that the number is negative. You need to use a couple addition tricks to subtract to numbers to ensure that the computer only has to add. It's addition all the way down.
What does this have to do with computers?
Cells: 🫣🫨😢
1 ÷ 0.5
=2
It's simple, cells are fractions.
But it's turning 1 into 1/2+1/2 which is different than dividing by 2.
No, it's dividing 1 by 1/2 leading to 2.
The correct answer
A fundamental disregard for sets and their importance in higher mathematics.
cry harder, number boy.
Damn, owned
This could just as easily had been a reply with:
🤓
Really is.
Clever and I get the joke and it made me smile. If I recall my biology from 20 years ago I think the cell makes duplicates of its chromosomes then splits apart. So you have two cells inside one membrane that separates, 2 / 1 = 2. The way I first thought about it was one cell splitting in half, so half goes to one cell, the other half with the other, 1 / .5 = 2.
In short, I think the math works out fine, but the language you use to describe it can lead to comedy gold. You could say cells reproduce by division? I don't know, I'm not a biologist or mathematician. I'm a toilet poster.
No comments about Amitabh Bachchan's use for meme. Well it should have been a long time coming, I'm glad that it's now here.
Bollywood itself is a meme 🤭. Just watch their version of The Matrix. Dude starts singing with "Trinity", like wtf!??
Lol it gets wtf long before he starts dancing with trinity.
That's the problem whenever math meets physics: the former wins in the theory, but in the real world physics always triumphs:-).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_a_set?wprov=sfla1
The number of cells in partition is >= 1.
Engineers: Pass the ketchup!