A property of 1/0

x/0 = y

x = y * 0

x would always be 0

therefore

1/0 makes 1 = 0, (...)/0 makes (...) = 0

is this right or wrong or something else?

1dividedby0.com made a point that it is a matter of point of view / vantage point. Is this guy right? How?

Exploring Infinity v.31

Infinity is the largest number of divergent arrays of counting numbers, and it is the same figure for all of them. 

That's how I look at it

So Infinitely small is not for the number, but for the magnitude of the smallness. Which is beyond huge

---------------------------

Is infinity minus one infinity? I see no reason why infinity minus one could be infinity.

Is infinity plus one a bigger infinity than the initial infinity? The initial infinity must have been defined for it to be able to be increased in number. So they are no longer infinity

Assuming the space is infinite, is infinite km's of space smaller than infinite m's of space?

Is 1000 km of string the same with 1000 m of string? no

Is infinite km of space the same with infinite m of space? yes

So these arguments are my ways of defending my position, any response? please

-----------------------------

So the understanding of Infinity contains the element of "Uncomparable largeness" in respect to the counting number that is to be assigned to the order of magnitude.

So the key to this comprehension is to firstly always think in terms of relativity... or at least it is my most straight forward precondition/way to be able to achieve so. 

-----------------------------

Edit 23/04/2021

Ok so there was a definition problem. I still think people should distinct between limitlessness vs finite numbers that are so big they are inarticulable. These are two different things

-----------------------------

Let's define infinity as limitlessness, what is 1/infinity? I tend to not say zero as the answer, I rather say infinitely small. 

What is 1/0 then, well, when we say 2 divided by 2, we are saying 2 divided by 2 equal segments and each segments were equal to... 1 is the answer (1,1). When we say 1 divided by 3, we are saying 1 divided by 3 equal segments and each segments were equal to 0.333333... is the answer (0.333,0.333,0.333). When we say 1 divided by zero, we should be saying 1 divided by 0 equal segments and each segments were equal to 1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc. It would be an array of ORs that were stretched to who knows where, I don't know maybe (...) or infinity.

Table:

Numerator: 1

Divided by infinity of the same segments = ([infinitely small],...to the infinity)

Divided by 1/(...) of the same segments a.k.a super small segment = ([...])

Divided by 3 of the same segments = ([0.333],[0.333],[0.333])

Divided by 2 of the same segments = ([0.5],[0.5])

Divided by 1 of the same segments = ([1])

Divided by 1/2 of the same segments a.k.a half a segment = ([2])

Divided by 1/3 of the same segments a.k.a a third of a segment = ([3])

Divided by 1/(...) of the same segements a.k.a a super small fraction of a segment = ([...])

Divided by 1/infinitely_small of the same segment a.k.a an infinitely small fraction of a segment = (infinity) 

Divided by 0 of the same segment  (1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc) a.k.a irregulars

Divided by 1/0 of the same segment (I'm not sure about this but 0 is my answer for now). 

So any number divided by irregulars would yield the sum of the numbers in the array

HOWEVER: This irregular thing is kind of weird, it seems like it could contain anything anywhere...

Edit: Oh, because it's an array the answer is in it not the sum of it.

Edit: so for example you get this (nice video from Josh Hush, accessed April 2021): 
2b = b (irregulars) the irregulars' value would be 2. 

It depends on the equation, it shouldn't be just any number I feel.

-------------------------------------

Filling triangles within circles will have this behavior:

Length of the bases of the triangles = r / (Total number of triangles / 4)

So when comes to finding the area of a circle using this method, pay attention that:

The infinitesimal = 4r / The (...)

This one is wrong too... 4(2r^0.5)/The (...) ?

r' = 0.5 δ'

r'' = 0.5 δ''

r''' = 0.5 δ'''

etc

δ' = 4r/(...)'

δ'' = 4(0.5 δ')/(...)'

δ''' = 4(0.5 δ'')/(...)'

etc

So,

[1/2 * δ' r * (...)'] + [1/2 * δ'' * r' * (...)' * 1/2] + [1/2 * δ''' * r'' * (...)' * 1/2] + etc...

Now, this should go make pi if I could simplify it,

No, the arch was not half a circle. That was wrong

To Achieve Understanding v.02

I remembered a saying by Mr. Richard Saul Wurman that said, if I'm not mistaken:

Understanding is relative to the information you already know, or something like that... "You already understand information relative to what you already understand", there you go (thank you Google). 

But a concept appeared in my head about "Replace Abstraction", not only true understanding is about updating your existing ones, but also about updating your previous abstraction. So if your abstractions weren't updated then you haven't understood anything. 

So we might think that understanding should provide certainty in replacement of abstractions, but our mind proceeds towards abstractions... time follows behind wisdom. If we were to separate wisdom and knowledge as wisdom is about how to deal with the unknown and knowledge is about knowing. Then understanding should gave birth to new abstractions as well.

So it is ok to have unanswered new questions in class, or in your mind while learning, moreover it should be the climax of your understanding. Also it is incomplete to assume successful presentation if the audience didn't came up with new questions, or it is incomplete to assume that the subject has been understood if the abstractions in you weren't renewed after being exposed to new concepts.