We all know how terrible Marx's understanding of economics was, but how many people knew that he was a terrible mathematician, as well? Here, behold this genius trying to define 0/0:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255609552_Calculus_A_Marxist_approach
"In calculating the derivative of a function from first principles, Marx did not like the notion of a limit. When considering (f(x) − f(a))/(x − a) he wanted to put x = a, after suitable cancelling or some other algebraic simplification, and write the result as 0/0. He did not see 0/0 as a fraction; he saw it as one symbol."
For those who don't know, 0/0 is undefined because it literally can't have any consistent definition. So this is equivalent to starting your reasoning with a premise like x and not x, which would imply, insensibly, that everything is true.
As Wikipedia puts it, if b ≠ 0 then the equation a/b = c is equivalent to a = b × c. Assuming that a/0 is a number c, then it must be that a = 0 × c = 0. However, the single number c would then have to be determined by the equation 0 = 0 × c, but every number satisfies this equation, so we cannot assign a numerical value to 0/0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
Weird how they ... somehow forgot ... to mention that in his list of math publications, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_manuscripts_of_Karl_Marx?wprov=sfla1
So if any of you are unfortunate enough to know Marx bros, you can point out that he was a terrible mathematician as well as a terrible economist.
Marx and his ideological brethren rely on a rejection of reality as a core notion of their thesis, to such an extent that you would believe them to be nihilists.
His economic theories are poor at rationing goods and services to the needs of the public, so far that he has to reject the notion that the public should be able to obtain what it desires, but instead that it should obtain what the smarter men gives them. It is doubtful that a group of 'smart' man could better allocate things to everyone than the public does with their wallets.
Marx is actually most famous for his formula: 2+2 = famine
ah yes, the marxian formula. Famous for it's implication's in the Stalin formula, 2*2 = Overbearing Government.
Amazing.
Marx was a slovenly, moronic drunkard who knocked up his maid and left her destitute. He never worked an honest day in his life. His "theories" were nothing more than an excuse for his worthless, degenerate life.
How old was his maid, again?
Just wondering if we can add "pedophile" to the list like we can for leftist luminaries like John Money.
good question!
have some sowell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heGapg-08yE&ab_channel=TomStephens
Not going to defend Marx, but wikipedia is not a credible source and you're basing the contradiction on an assumption that 0 = 0 x c, where c is a/0. It stands to reason that this is faulty logic, because 0 x c = a.
Division by zero can be done with a mathmatical construct, just like how the square root of negative numbers can be done by expanding into complex numbers by defining i x i = -1.
The problem is that defining 0/0 leads to inconsistencies and Marx does nothing to address them here.
I quoted that bit of Wikipedia because it's simple enough for anyone with basic arithmatic to understand.
The problem isn't that you can't define 0/0 to be some number, the problem is that it has too many possible answers. It's the reverse of the operation x * 0, which is 0 for all x. Because any number could've gone into the equation, any number should be able to come out of it when you reverse it, and trying to assign it a meaning fails because anything could be the answer.
It's like trying to do logic starting with the premise A and not-A. You can derive anything from that premise, so it tells you nothing whatsoever.
Your mistake is assuming x * 0 = 0, because that leads to a contradiction if 0/0 is defined. If x = a/0, then x * 0 = a
We don't define 0/0 because it contradicts the field axioms. More specifically, we would call that form "indeterminate" rather than assigning it any value.
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Indeterminate.html
You can prove that x * 0 = 0 from the field axioms:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldAxioms.html
Starting by using the distribution axiom on the equation x (y+0) we find that x * (y+0) = xy + x0.
But y+0=y due to the identity axiom, so x * (y+ 0)= x*y
So xy = x (y+0) = xy + x*0
So we can ignore the middle part and just look at the relation: xy = xy + x*0
Using the additive inverse rule, we can subtract xy from both sides, which gives us 0 = x0
Yeah, but those axioms only work when x/0 isn't a thing by convention. Not having x/0 be a thing is a lesser of two evils type of trade. You could make x/0=0, then we just change how we do math.
There are various types of non-standard analysis, but nobody has ever made any useful math with division by zero because when you can put anything into the equation, and you can get anything back out of it. That's why we gave up and called it "indeterminate" because there's just no definition where it has a consistent value. And trying to give it one breaks everything else so that you don't end up with a useful system.
It's about like doing logic with A and not-A, from which you can derive every single premise, including other contradictions. You end up with something useless, just like Marxism.
I concur. Just saying.
If 0 x c = a, then by definition a=0.
You guys do realize that Marx distanced himself from marxism?
News to me. But he isn't the first person to screw up the maths when proposing social theories; Thomas Malthus, whose dastardly and inhumane "Essay on Population" inspired Charles Darwin, totally cocked up the formulation regarding his calculations on food production and population. And Darwinism is predicated on awful math, too... don't even get me started.
He was also related to the Rothschilds who used their influence to get him out of German custody.
Reminder the Jews brainwashing your kids with synthetic hormones are proud capitalists AND love America
ask siri what 0 divided by 0 is . Its a laugh