How do you explain to a 5th grader why division by zero is meaningless?









up vote
77
down vote

favorite
19












I wish to explain my younger brother: he is interested and curious, but he cannot grasp the concepts of limits and integration just yet. What is the best mathematical way to justify not allowing division by zero?







share|cite|improve this question

















  • 63




    How do you divide, say, $5$ apples between zero people? There is no meaningful way to distribute the apples.
    – Alvin Lepik
    Aug 15 at 10:36






  • 12




    Division by zero should not be justified at all.
    – Peter
    Aug 15 at 11:39






  • 23




    Just ask Siri. It explains this very well.
    – DonielF
    Aug 15 at 15:32






  • 12




    This would also fit well on the Mathematics Educators site.
    – Chase Ryan Taylor
    Aug 15 at 16:10






  • 21




    "Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends." - Siri
    – jkd
    Aug 15 at 19:12














up vote
77
down vote

favorite
19












I wish to explain my younger brother: he is interested and curious, but he cannot grasp the concepts of limits and integration just yet. What is the best mathematical way to justify not allowing division by zero?







share|cite|improve this question

















  • 63




    How do you divide, say, $5$ apples between zero people? There is no meaningful way to distribute the apples.
    – Alvin Lepik
    Aug 15 at 10:36






  • 12




    Division by zero should not be justified at all.
    – Peter
    Aug 15 at 11:39






  • 23




    Just ask Siri. It explains this very well.
    – DonielF
    Aug 15 at 15:32






  • 12




    This would also fit well on the Mathematics Educators site.
    – Chase Ryan Taylor
    Aug 15 at 16:10






  • 21




    "Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends." - Siri
    – jkd
    Aug 15 at 19:12












up vote
77
down vote

favorite
19









up vote
77
down vote

favorite
19






19





I wish to explain my younger brother: he is interested and curious, but he cannot grasp the concepts of limits and integration just yet. What is the best mathematical way to justify not allowing division by zero?







share|cite|improve this question













I wish to explain my younger brother: he is interested and curious, but he cannot grasp the concepts of limits and integration just yet. What is the best mathematical way to justify not allowing division by zero?









share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









SQB

1,6241926




1,6241926









asked Aug 15 at 10:33









Shubh Khandelwal

537128




537128







  • 63




    How do you divide, say, $5$ apples between zero people? There is no meaningful way to distribute the apples.
    – Alvin Lepik
    Aug 15 at 10:36






  • 12




    Division by zero should not be justified at all.
    – Peter
    Aug 15 at 11:39






  • 23




    Just ask Siri. It explains this very well.
    – DonielF
    Aug 15 at 15:32






  • 12




    This would also fit well on the Mathematics Educators site.
    – Chase Ryan Taylor
    Aug 15 at 16:10






  • 21




    "Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends." - Siri
    – jkd
    Aug 15 at 19:12












  • 63




    How do you divide, say, $5$ apples between zero people? There is no meaningful way to distribute the apples.
    – Alvin Lepik
    Aug 15 at 10:36






  • 12




    Division by zero should not be justified at all.
    – Peter
    Aug 15 at 11:39






  • 23




    Just ask Siri. It explains this very well.
    – DonielF
    Aug 15 at 15:32






  • 12




    This would also fit well on the Mathematics Educators site.
    – Chase Ryan Taylor
    Aug 15 at 16:10






  • 21




    "Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends." - Siri
    – jkd
    Aug 15 at 19:12







63




63




How do you divide, say, $5$ apples between zero people? There is no meaningful way to distribute the apples.
– Alvin Lepik
Aug 15 at 10:36




How do you divide, say, $5$ apples between zero people? There is no meaningful way to distribute the apples.
– Alvin Lepik
Aug 15 at 10:36




12




12




Division by zero should not be justified at all.
– Peter
Aug 15 at 11:39




Division by zero should not be justified at all.
– Peter
Aug 15 at 11:39




23




23




Just ask Siri. It explains this very well.
– DonielF
Aug 15 at 15:32




Just ask Siri. It explains this very well.
– DonielF
Aug 15 at 15:32




12




12




This would also fit well on the Mathematics Educators site.
– Chase Ryan Taylor
Aug 15 at 16:10




This would also fit well on the Mathematics Educators site.
– Chase Ryan Taylor
Aug 15 at 16:10




21




21




"Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends." - Siri
– jkd
Aug 15 at 19:12




"Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and you are sad that you have no friends." - Siri
– jkd
Aug 15 at 19:12










18 Answers
18






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
206
down vote



accepted










“One of the ways to look at division is as how many of the smaller number you need to make up the bigger number, right? So 20/4 means: how many groups of 4 do you need to make 20? If you want 20 apples, how many bags of 4 apples do you need to buy?



So for dividing by 0, how many bags of 0 apples would make up 20 apples in total? It’s impossible — however many bags of 0 apples you buy, you’ll never get any apples — you’ll certainly never get to 20 apples! So there’s no possible answer, when you try to divide 20 by 0.”






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 62




    A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
    – Peeyush Kushwaha
    Aug 15 at 13:17






  • 36




    @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
    – ilkkachu
    Aug 15 at 13:22







  • 43




    @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    Aug 15 at 15:14






  • 8




    @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
    – ilkkachu
    Aug 15 at 15:36






  • 12




    @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    2 days ago

















up vote
62
down vote













When we first start teaching multiplication, we use successive additions. So,



3 x 4 = 3 | 3
+ 3 | 6
+ 3 | 9
+ 3 | 12
=12


Division can be taught as successive subtractions. So 12 / 3 becomes,



12 - 3 -> 9 (1)
9 - 3 -> 6 (2)
6 - 3 -> 3 (3)
3 - 3 -> 0 (4)


Now apply the second algorithm with zero as a divisor. Tell your brother to get back to you when he's done.



While this algorithmic approach is not rigorous, I think it is probably a good way of developing an intuitive understanding of the concept.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 5




    I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
    – theREALyumdub
    Aug 15 at 13:49






  • 31




    I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
    – Chris Cudmore
    Aug 15 at 13:54






  • 2




    I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
    – theREALyumdub
    Aug 15 at 13:58






  • 3




    @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
    – Carsten S
    Aug 15 at 17:55






  • 5




    @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
    – Derek Elkins
    Aug 15 at 19:13

















up vote
31
down vote













New story



Suppose that we can divide numbers with $0$. So if I would divide $1$ with zero i would get some new number name it $a$. Now what can we say about this number $a$?



Remember:



If I divide say $21$ with $3$ we get $7$. Why? Because $3cdot 7 = 21$.



And similiary if I divide $36$ with $9$ we get $4$. Why? Because $9cdot 4 = 36$.



So if I divide $1$ with $0$ and we get $a$ then we have $acdot 0 =1$ which is clearly nonsense since $acdot 0 =0$.



(I hope this is better explanation?)




Older explanation:



Suppose that $1over 0$ is some number $a$. So $$1over 0 =a.$$ Remember that $$boxedbover c = diff b = ccdot d$$ So we get $$1= acdot 0=0$$ a contradiction. So $1over 0$ doesn't exist.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 88




    5th grader.....
    – Lightness Races in Orbit
    Aug 15 at 18:02






  • 3




    I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
    – greedoid
    2 days ago






  • 3




    The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
    – Nat
    2 days ago







  • 1




    You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
    – Rob
    2 days ago







  • 1




    I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
    – Prince M
    2 days ago

















up vote
17
down vote













An explanation that might make sense to a fifth grader is one that gets to the heart of why we have invented these operations in the first place.



Multiplication is a trick we use to add similar things to form a sum. When we say 5 x 3, what we really mean is take five things of size three each and add them all together. We invented this trick because we are frequently in the situation where we have many of a similar thing, and we wish to know their sum.



Division is the same trick but the other way. When we say 15 / 3, we are asking the question "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three starting from nothing to make a thing of size fifteen?" We'd have to add five things of size three together to make a thing of size fifteen. Again, division is just a trick we use to answer questions about sums.



Now it becomes clear why division by zero is not defined. There is no number of times you can add zero to itself to get a non-zero sum.



A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!



For non-zero divided by zero, there is no number at all of times that you can add zero to itself to get non-zero. For zero divided by zero, every number of times you add zero to itself, you get zero, so the solution is not unique. We like our mathematical questions to have unique answers where possible and so we by convention say that 0 / 0 is also not defined.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 3




    Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
    – Sentinel
    2 days ago






  • 2




    "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
    – Monty Harder
    2 days ago











  • @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
    – Eric Lippert
    2 days ago






  • 2




    "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
    – Monty Harder
    2 days ago

















up vote
11
down vote













The Wikipedia article Division by zero lists the usual arguments why there is no good choice for the result of such an operation.



I prefer the algebraic argument, that there is no multiplicative inverse of $0$,
this would need you to explain a bit about algebra.



The argument from calculus, looking at limits of $1/x$, I find also useful, but perphaps harder to explain.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
    – Cort Ammon
    yesterday

















up vote
7
down vote













How many nothings do you need to add together to get 12?






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 4




    Add all the nothings!
    – Don Branson
    Aug 15 at 19:54






  • 4




    @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
    – Sentinel
    2 days ago










  • Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
    – Ian D. Scott
    yesterday










  • @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
    – mathreadler
    yesterday











  • @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
    – mathreadler
    yesterday


















up vote
6
down vote













Division by zero is meaningless because that's what we decided division means. All you can do is explain why such a convention is a useful one for ordinary arithmetic.



It might even help to demonstrate some other context (e.g. arithmetic in the projectively extended number line) where it can be useful to define division by zero, so that the student is able to compare and contrast the reasons why we might or might not like to define something.



Your question might be better placed on https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I believe your first sentence is circular logic
    – Ruadhan2300
    Aug 15 at 15:59










  • @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
    – 6005
    yesterday











  • That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
    – 6005
    yesterday










  • Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
    – Ruadhan2300
    yesterday

















up vote
5
down vote













Ask Siri.




Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among
zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't
make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and
you are sad that you have no friends.







share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 5




    If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 15 at 22:43











  • That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
    – Sentinel
    yesterday

















up vote
5
down vote













You shouldn't try to do that. Instead make counter question.



"What should it be, then?" and let them think about it.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    I don't have kids (my wife says one 3-year-old in the house is enough for her) and it's been a while since I was in the 5th grade (although at work sometimes...), but I'll give it a go.



    I know you're too old to play with blocks, but lets start with 12 blocks.



    Let's start with $12/6$ - that's $2$, right? Take $6$ at a time and there are two "sets". There are $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$.



    Then $12/4$ is $3$ - $3$ sets of $4$ in $12$.



    Then $12/3$ is $4$ - $4$ sets of $3$ in $12$ (commutation of the last case).



    Then $12/2$ is $6$ - $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$ (commutation of first case).



    Then $12/1$ is $12$ - $1$ set of $12$ in $12$ (degenerate case).



    Notice the size of the result set is getting bigger as the denominator (the number on the bottom) gets smaller.



    Before we go to $0$ let's try something between $1$ and $0$ - $1/2$ or $0.5$. Think of just splitting each block into two (take a hatchet to the wooden blocks blocks, or just imagine it if mom doesn't want you handling a hatchet).



    $12/0.5$ is $24$ - $24$ sets of $0.5$ (half-pieces) in $12$



    $12/0.25$ is $48 - 48$ sets of $0.25$ (quarter-pieces) in $12$



    $12/0.125$ is $96 - 96$ sets of $0.125$ (pieces of eight**) in $12$



    $12/0.0625$ is $192 - 192$ sets of $0.0625$ (pieces of 16) in $12$



    The close you get to zero, the larger the set you get gets.



    $12/0.000000001$ (a billionth) is $12$ billion sets of a billionth of a block (aka, sawdust)



    The as you approach zero, the resulting set size is too large to represent (not enough paper in this room, not enough memory on this computer) and the size of the pieces approach zero.



    A cheat for "Too large to represent" is "infinity".




    ** pirate reference - do 5th graders still like pirates these days?






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
      – Ruadhan2300
      Aug 15 at 14:30











    • This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
      – htmlcoderexe
      2 days ago










    • A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
      – Acccumulation
      2 days ago

















    up vote
    4
    down vote













    One would need to first explain what we mean by division. That is, what does $/$ mean in the expression $a/b,$ where $a$ and $b$ are integers?



    Well, whatever it is, it is a way of combining two numbers. Now recall that every time we defined an operation (say addition), we always had a unique result as the product of the combination, so that we would like this to continue to hold. What else? We define $/$ indirectly, by looking at what we want $a/b$ to mean. Well, we want it to stand for the number $c$ which when multiplied together with $b$ recovers $a.$ (Recall how we similarly defined subtraction as the inverse operation of $+.$)



    Therefore, in summary, if we let $a/b=c,$ then by definition this equality is equivalent to $c×b=a.$ Also, we want $c$ to be unique for all possible integers $a$ and $b.$



    Now consider the expression $a/0.$ First let us take $ane0.$ Then if we let $a/0=c,$ it follows by definition that $c×0=a.$ But with the way we defined multiplication (remind him of this), we required that $0$ must make any number vanish, so that there simply is no such $c$ as we seek. If now we let $a=0,$ then we want a unique $c$ such that $c×0=0.$ But again, by the property $r×0=0,,,forall r$ which we've previously allowed in defining $×,$ we have infinitely many candidates for $c$ and there is no other condition we can impose to select one uniquely. We therefore do not allow ourselves to divide by $0$ in any case, in order to avoid all that mess.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      4
      down vote













      @Jack M and and @greedoid probably highlight a good point: division does not exist. It's only the inverse operation of multiplication.

      You could explain your brother the complete truth: dividing 20 by 5 is about finding the only answer (if it exists) to this question: what number can be multiplied by 5 to give 20?. The unique answer is easy: 4 times 5 is 20.

      And the division is only another phrasing to say the exact same thing: 20 divided by 5 is 4.

      Can you always find one and only one answer? Yup, almost always...

      There's only one exception...



      What number, multiplied by 0, gives 20? There's none.

      So "division" by 0 has no meaning, since we cannot find any number that satisfies our definition.



      You could even draw his attention by mentioning that most grown-ups don't know there's no such thing as "division", and that's the first step to learn about "E-vector spaces", "rings" and other funny-named artefacts when he's in college... or before that!



      Note: what if he raises a question about "0/0"?

      OK, let's try: "what number, multiplied by 0, gives 0?" All of them! We cannot find one and only one answer, so, it's still impossible to divide 0 by 0!






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
        – Alvin Lepik
        2 days ago

















      up vote
      2
      down vote













      Division is sharing:



      1 / 10:



      10 boys in a class grab at a toy -- they rip the toy to tiny bits!



      1 / 2:



      2 boys fight for a toy -- they rip the toy in half!



      1 / 0:



      A different toy is alone -- he is a special boy!






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Because before you think about dividing something, it is more important to consider if you have someone to divide it for (he/she/it must be present, exist, etc). If you do not have anyone who can 'benefit' from the division, no point in dividing. Non rigorous, pragmatic, heuristic approach. It might pave the way for more reasoned proofs and demonstrations.






        share|cite|improve this answer





















        • This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
          – XavierStuvw
          yesterday


















        up vote
        1
        down vote













        The way I taught it, even to junior college students who were taking elementary mathematics courses, was with a calculator.



        I would show them that 1/1 = 1, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.01 = 100, and so on. I would ask them if they saw how the numbers kept getting bigger as we divided by smaller and smaller numbers. Then I would ask them what they thought would happen when we hit zero. "We would get the biggest possible number that exists, right? But there is no biggest number. So dividing by zero gives you a number that doesn't exist. Does that make any sense? No. So we say that dividing by zero is undefined."






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          up vote
          0
          down vote













          To divide means to subtract many times.



          It might be a duplicated answer and I apologize, in case. But, according to my experience as a teacher, this worked well.



          The point, as others had observed, is what does "to divide" mean. This sometimes looked obscure to the students, whereas the concept of subtraction was more clear.



          Thus, once you convey the message that "to divide" means "to subtract many times", everything becomes more clear.



          How many times can we subtract $3$ from $10$? Well, usually my students got this.



          How many times can we subtract $0$ from $10$? Well, how many times we want!



          So there is not a precise answer, because any answer is good. This made more clear the sense of "not defined", at least to my students.



          Hope it helps!






          share|cite|improve this answer




























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Explain him the problems, don't enforce him as an "official view".



            Explain him, what are the problems of the division by zero.



            Let him to think about a possible solution.



            You might also explain, that also the negative numbers don't have a suqare root, but this problem had a solution, the imaginary numbers. Let him try to think about a similar solution for the division by zero.






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Number of marbles : Number of boxes = Number of marbles in each box.



              20 marbles : 4 boxes = 5 marbles per box



              0 marbles : 4 boxes = 0 marbles per box



              20 marbles : 0 boxes = "how many marbles in each box while no box?" ---> undefined!






              share|cite|improve this answer




















                protected by Daniel Fischer♦ Aug 15 at 18:03



                Thank you for your interest in this question.
                Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














                18 Answers
                18






                active

                oldest

                votes








                18 Answers
                18






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes








                up vote
                206
                down vote



                accepted










                “One of the ways to look at division is as how many of the smaller number you need to make up the bigger number, right? So 20/4 means: how many groups of 4 do you need to make 20? If you want 20 apples, how many bags of 4 apples do you need to buy?



                So for dividing by 0, how many bags of 0 apples would make up 20 apples in total? It’s impossible — however many bags of 0 apples you buy, you’ll never get any apples — you’ll certainly never get to 20 apples! So there’s no possible answer, when you try to divide 20 by 0.”






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 62




                  A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
                  – Peeyush Kushwaha
                  Aug 15 at 13:17






                • 36




                  @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 13:22







                • 43




                  @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  Aug 15 at 15:14






                • 8




                  @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 15:36






                • 12




                  @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  2 days ago














                up vote
                206
                down vote



                accepted










                “One of the ways to look at division is as how many of the smaller number you need to make up the bigger number, right? So 20/4 means: how many groups of 4 do you need to make 20? If you want 20 apples, how many bags of 4 apples do you need to buy?



                So for dividing by 0, how many bags of 0 apples would make up 20 apples in total? It’s impossible — however many bags of 0 apples you buy, you’ll never get any apples — you’ll certainly never get to 20 apples! So there’s no possible answer, when you try to divide 20 by 0.”






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 62




                  A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
                  – Peeyush Kushwaha
                  Aug 15 at 13:17






                • 36




                  @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 13:22







                • 43




                  @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  Aug 15 at 15:14






                • 8




                  @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 15:36






                • 12




                  @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  2 days ago












                up vote
                206
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                206
                down vote



                accepted






                “One of the ways to look at division is as how many of the smaller number you need to make up the bigger number, right? So 20/4 means: how many groups of 4 do you need to make 20? If you want 20 apples, how many bags of 4 apples do you need to buy?



                So for dividing by 0, how many bags of 0 apples would make up 20 apples in total? It’s impossible — however many bags of 0 apples you buy, you’ll never get any apples — you’ll certainly never get to 20 apples! So there’s no possible answer, when you try to divide 20 by 0.”






                share|cite|improve this answer













                “One of the ways to look at division is as how many of the smaller number you need to make up the bigger number, right? So 20/4 means: how many groups of 4 do you need to make 20? If you want 20 apples, how many bags of 4 apples do you need to buy?



                So for dividing by 0, how many bags of 0 apples would make up 20 apples in total? It’s impossible — however many bags of 0 apples you buy, you’ll never get any apples — you’ll certainly never get to 20 apples! So there’s no possible answer, when you try to divide 20 by 0.”







                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 15 at 11:42









                Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine

                4,96241740




                4,96241740







                • 62




                  A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
                  – Peeyush Kushwaha
                  Aug 15 at 13:17






                • 36




                  @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 13:22







                • 43




                  @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  Aug 15 at 15:14






                • 8




                  @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 15:36






                • 12




                  @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  2 days ago












                • 62




                  A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
                  – Peeyush Kushwaha
                  Aug 15 at 13:17






                • 36




                  @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 13:22







                • 43




                  @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  Aug 15 at 15:14






                • 8




                  @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
                  – ilkkachu
                  Aug 15 at 15:36






                • 12




                  @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
                  – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                  2 days ago







                62




                62




                A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
                – Peeyush Kushwaha
                Aug 15 at 13:17




                A good enough answer till the little brother grows up and asks why it can't be $+infty$
                – Peeyush Kushwaha
                Aug 15 at 13:17




                36




                36




                @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
                – ilkkachu
                Aug 15 at 13:22





                @PeeyushKushwaha, then you introduce them to a number system where 1/0 is $infty$
                – ilkkachu
                Aug 15 at 13:22





                43




                43




                @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
                – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                Aug 15 at 15:14




                @JackM: If you look at my answer carefully, you’ll see I really am describing division as the inverse of multiplication (specifically, in ℕ), and arguing that 0 has no multiplicative inverse. I’m just presenting it concretely, because to just about anyone short of a mathematically fairly mature undergraduate, that’s clearer and more convincing than a formal algebraic proof. This isn’t “dumbing down” either — the real-world understanding of division has just as much claim to being the “real thing”, and mathematics was being done well for centuries without modern notions of definition and proof.
                – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                Aug 15 at 15:14




                8




                8




                @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
                – ilkkachu
                Aug 15 at 15:36




                @ctrl-alt-delor, that's why I said to pick a system where it works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
                – ilkkachu
                Aug 15 at 15:36




                12




                12




                @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
                – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                2 days ago




                @Kimball: I wanted to conjure up the image of OP talking to their younger brother, rather than of me addressing OP.
                – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
                2 days ago










                up vote
                62
                down vote













                When we first start teaching multiplication, we use successive additions. So,



                3 x 4 = 3 | 3
                + 3 | 6
                + 3 | 9
                + 3 | 12
                =12


                Division can be taught as successive subtractions. So 12 / 3 becomes,



                12 - 3 -> 9 (1)
                9 - 3 -> 6 (2)
                6 - 3 -> 3 (3)
                3 - 3 -> 0 (4)


                Now apply the second algorithm with zero as a divisor. Tell your brother to get back to you when he's done.



                While this algorithmic approach is not rigorous, I think it is probably a good way of developing an intuitive understanding of the concept.






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 5




                  I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:49






                • 31




                  I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
                  – Chris Cudmore
                  Aug 15 at 13:54






                • 2




                  I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:58






                • 3




                  @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
                  – Carsten S
                  Aug 15 at 17:55






                • 5




                  @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
                  – Derek Elkins
                  Aug 15 at 19:13














                up vote
                62
                down vote













                When we first start teaching multiplication, we use successive additions. So,



                3 x 4 = 3 | 3
                + 3 | 6
                + 3 | 9
                + 3 | 12
                =12


                Division can be taught as successive subtractions. So 12 / 3 becomes,



                12 - 3 -> 9 (1)
                9 - 3 -> 6 (2)
                6 - 3 -> 3 (3)
                3 - 3 -> 0 (4)


                Now apply the second algorithm with zero as a divisor. Tell your brother to get back to you when he's done.



                While this algorithmic approach is not rigorous, I think it is probably a good way of developing an intuitive understanding of the concept.






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 5




                  I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:49






                • 31




                  I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
                  – Chris Cudmore
                  Aug 15 at 13:54






                • 2




                  I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:58






                • 3




                  @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
                  – Carsten S
                  Aug 15 at 17:55






                • 5




                  @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
                  – Derek Elkins
                  Aug 15 at 19:13












                up vote
                62
                down vote










                up vote
                62
                down vote









                When we first start teaching multiplication, we use successive additions. So,



                3 x 4 = 3 | 3
                + 3 | 6
                + 3 | 9
                + 3 | 12
                =12


                Division can be taught as successive subtractions. So 12 / 3 becomes,



                12 - 3 -> 9 (1)
                9 - 3 -> 6 (2)
                6 - 3 -> 3 (3)
                3 - 3 -> 0 (4)


                Now apply the second algorithm with zero as a divisor. Tell your brother to get back to you when he's done.



                While this algorithmic approach is not rigorous, I think it is probably a good way of developing an intuitive understanding of the concept.






                share|cite|improve this answer













                When we first start teaching multiplication, we use successive additions. So,



                3 x 4 = 3 | 3
                + 3 | 6
                + 3 | 9
                + 3 | 12
                =12


                Division can be taught as successive subtractions. So 12 / 3 becomes,



                12 - 3 -> 9 (1)
                9 - 3 -> 6 (2)
                6 - 3 -> 3 (3)
                3 - 3 -> 0 (4)


                Now apply the second algorithm with zero as a divisor. Tell your brother to get back to you when he's done.



                While this algorithmic approach is not rigorous, I think it is probably a good way of developing an intuitive understanding of the concept.







                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 15 at 13:32









                Chris Cudmore

                3,4481815




                3,4481815







                • 5




                  I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:49






                • 31




                  I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
                  – Chris Cudmore
                  Aug 15 at 13:54






                • 2




                  I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:58






                • 3




                  @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
                  – Carsten S
                  Aug 15 at 17:55






                • 5




                  @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
                  – Derek Elkins
                  Aug 15 at 19:13












                • 5




                  I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:49






                • 31




                  I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
                  – Chris Cudmore
                  Aug 15 at 13:54






                • 2




                  I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
                  – theREALyumdub
                  Aug 15 at 13:58






                • 3




                  @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
                  – Carsten S
                  Aug 15 at 17:55






                • 5




                  @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
                  – Derek Elkins
                  Aug 15 at 19:13







                5




                5




                I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
                – theREALyumdub
                Aug 15 at 13:49




                I should comment that in some schools of thought, teaching young students that multiplication is repeated addition can be hindering. I've certainly seen kids who only count on their fingers - they can't actually multiply, just multiple add. So there are arguments from Ring Theory to education where you may be wrong, although it is perfectly reasonable to say in the integers.
                – theREALyumdub
                Aug 15 at 13:49




                31




                31




                I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
                – Chris Cudmore
                Aug 15 at 13:54




                I can't comment on the first part, but for the second part; We're talking about a 9 year old. One of the problems with mathematical pedagogy is we prioritize rigour over understanding. I suggest we provide the understanding first, then make it rigourous. After all, we have thousands of years of mathematical development before the hard rigour came in in the 19th century.
                – Chris Cudmore
                Aug 15 at 13:54




                2




                2




                I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
                – theREALyumdub
                Aug 15 at 13:58




                I agree completely, and I have hit walls with mathematics involving rigour and a lack of understanding. I was more making the point that this sounds much like a computerized argument, and I have blindly heard of education arguments against this method of approach for young children - it's more or less my best understanding of division, but it can be made more abstract and perhaps more practical for education.
                – theREALyumdub
                Aug 15 at 13:58




                3




                3




                @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
                – Carsten S
                Aug 15 at 17:55




                @theREALyumdub, the ring theorist will appreciate that every abelian group is a $mathbb Z$-module in a natural way.
                – Carsten S
                Aug 15 at 17:55




                5




                5




                @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
                – Derek Elkins
                Aug 15 at 19:13




                @ChrisCudmore Seeing as most college educated people never get a rigorous definition of almost any of the mathematical concepts they were taught, I don't think an over-emphasis on rigor is the problem. You seem to be confusing calculation with rigor. Frankly, I don't think the wave of formalization had almost any impact on how math was/is taught, at least pre-college. I strongly suspect that there is even more of an emphasis of intuitive understanding in grade school classrooms now than in the 1810s say.
                – Derek Elkins
                Aug 15 at 19:13










                up vote
                31
                down vote













                New story



                Suppose that we can divide numbers with $0$. So if I would divide $1$ with zero i would get some new number name it $a$. Now what can we say about this number $a$?



                Remember:



                If I divide say $21$ with $3$ we get $7$. Why? Because $3cdot 7 = 21$.



                And similiary if I divide $36$ with $9$ we get $4$. Why? Because $9cdot 4 = 36$.



                So if I divide $1$ with $0$ and we get $a$ then we have $acdot 0 =1$ which is clearly nonsense since $acdot 0 =0$.



                (I hope this is better explanation?)




                Older explanation:



                Suppose that $1over 0$ is some number $a$. So $$1over 0 =a.$$ Remember that $$boxedbover c = diff b = ccdot d$$ So we get $$1= acdot 0=0$$ a contradiction. So $1over 0$ doesn't exist.






                share|cite|improve this answer



















                • 88




                  5th grader.....
                  – Lightness Races in Orbit
                  Aug 15 at 18:02






                • 3




                  I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
                  – greedoid
                  2 days ago






                • 3




                  The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
                  – Nat
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
                  – Rob
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
                  – Prince M
                  2 days ago














                up vote
                31
                down vote













                New story



                Suppose that we can divide numbers with $0$. So if I would divide $1$ with zero i would get some new number name it $a$. Now what can we say about this number $a$?



                Remember:



                If I divide say $21$ with $3$ we get $7$. Why? Because $3cdot 7 = 21$.



                And similiary if I divide $36$ with $9$ we get $4$. Why? Because $9cdot 4 = 36$.



                So if I divide $1$ with $0$ and we get $a$ then we have $acdot 0 =1$ which is clearly nonsense since $acdot 0 =0$.



                (I hope this is better explanation?)




                Older explanation:



                Suppose that $1over 0$ is some number $a$. So $$1over 0 =a.$$ Remember that $$boxedbover c = diff b = ccdot d$$ So we get $$1= acdot 0=0$$ a contradiction. So $1over 0$ doesn't exist.






                share|cite|improve this answer



















                • 88




                  5th grader.....
                  – Lightness Races in Orbit
                  Aug 15 at 18:02






                • 3




                  I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
                  – greedoid
                  2 days ago






                • 3




                  The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
                  – Nat
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
                  – Rob
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
                  – Prince M
                  2 days ago












                up vote
                31
                down vote










                up vote
                31
                down vote









                New story



                Suppose that we can divide numbers with $0$. So if I would divide $1$ with zero i would get some new number name it $a$. Now what can we say about this number $a$?



                Remember:



                If I divide say $21$ with $3$ we get $7$. Why? Because $3cdot 7 = 21$.



                And similiary if I divide $36$ with $9$ we get $4$. Why? Because $9cdot 4 = 36$.



                So if I divide $1$ with $0$ and we get $a$ then we have $acdot 0 =1$ which is clearly nonsense since $acdot 0 =0$.



                (I hope this is better explanation?)




                Older explanation:



                Suppose that $1over 0$ is some number $a$. So $$1over 0 =a.$$ Remember that $$boxedbover c = diff b = ccdot d$$ So we get $$1= acdot 0=0$$ a contradiction. So $1over 0$ doesn't exist.






                share|cite|improve this answer















                New story



                Suppose that we can divide numbers with $0$. So if I would divide $1$ with zero i would get some new number name it $a$. Now what can we say about this number $a$?



                Remember:



                If I divide say $21$ with $3$ we get $7$. Why? Because $3cdot 7 = 21$.



                And similiary if I divide $36$ with $9$ we get $4$. Why? Because $9cdot 4 = 36$.



                So if I divide $1$ with $0$ and we get $a$ then we have $acdot 0 =1$ which is clearly nonsense since $acdot 0 =0$.



                (I hope this is better explanation?)




                Older explanation:



                Suppose that $1over 0$ is some number $a$. So $$1over 0 =a.$$ Remember that $$boxedbover c = diff b = ccdot d$$ So we get $$1= acdot 0=0$$ a contradiction. So $1over 0$ doesn't exist.







                share|cite|improve this answer















                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 days ago


























                answered Aug 15 at 10:36









                greedoid

                26.6k93574




                26.6k93574







                • 88




                  5th grader.....
                  – Lightness Races in Orbit
                  Aug 15 at 18:02






                • 3




                  I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
                  – greedoid
                  2 days ago






                • 3




                  The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
                  – Nat
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
                  – Rob
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
                  – Prince M
                  2 days ago












                • 88




                  5th grader.....
                  – Lightness Races in Orbit
                  Aug 15 at 18:02






                • 3




                  I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
                  – greedoid
                  2 days ago






                • 3




                  The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
                  – Nat
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
                  – Rob
                  2 days ago







                • 1




                  I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
                  – Prince M
                  2 days ago







                88




                88




                5th grader.....
                – Lightness Races in Orbit
                Aug 15 at 18:02




                5th grader.....
                – Lightness Races in Orbit
                Aug 15 at 18:02




                3




                3




                I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
                – greedoid
                2 days ago




                I see a lot of people doesn't like this answer although it is perfectly correct. I agree it is perhaps to advance for 5th grader but then again how else could I do it? There is a nice way Peter gave, but what if brother asks what is 5/4. How many bags with 4 apples do we need to get 5 apples?
                – greedoid
                2 days ago




                3




                3




                The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
                – Nat
                2 days ago





                The logic proposed in this answer seems constructive, but a plain-English explanation would probably be more helpful. Separately, it's probably best to avoid saying that $frac10$ "doesn't exist"; it'd seem a bit better to say that $frac10$ doesn't cleanly match up with a number.
                – Nat
                2 days ago





                1




                1




                You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
                – Rob
                2 days ago





                You have to be careful when declaring contradictions. If you arrive at a "contradiction", it's actually a consequence of asserting the truth of the statements used. If you arrive at $12 = 0$ as a result, it really is just asserting a mod 12 system. if you accept $frac10 = a$ as a statement, then you are in a mod 1 system as a consequence. Suppose that you assert a statement that only after millions of manipulations asserts that $0 = 2^32$. Not only is it not a "contradiction", but it leads to the most general solution. On a computer, you have to deal with this frequently.
                – Rob
                2 days ago





                1




                1




                I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
                – Prince M
                2 days ago




                I really think we should be striving to get to a point where the 'older argument' is something a fifth grader can comprehend.
                – Prince M
                2 days ago










                up vote
                17
                down vote













                An explanation that might make sense to a fifth grader is one that gets to the heart of why we have invented these operations in the first place.



                Multiplication is a trick we use to add similar things to form a sum. When we say 5 x 3, what we really mean is take five things of size three each and add them all together. We invented this trick because we are frequently in the situation where we have many of a similar thing, and we wish to know their sum.



                Division is the same trick but the other way. When we say 15 / 3, we are asking the question "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three starting from nothing to make a thing of size fifteen?" We'd have to add five things of size three together to make a thing of size fifteen. Again, division is just a trick we use to answer questions about sums.



                Now it becomes clear why division by zero is not defined. There is no number of times you can add zero to itself to get a non-zero sum.



                A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!



                For non-zero divided by zero, there is no number at all of times that you can add zero to itself to get non-zero. For zero divided by zero, every number of times you add zero to itself, you get zero, so the solution is not unique. We like our mathematical questions to have unique answers where possible and so we by convention say that 0 / 0 is also not defined.






                share|cite|improve this answer



















                • 3




                  Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago











                • @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
                  – Eric Lippert
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago














                up vote
                17
                down vote













                An explanation that might make sense to a fifth grader is one that gets to the heart of why we have invented these operations in the first place.



                Multiplication is a trick we use to add similar things to form a sum. When we say 5 x 3, what we really mean is take five things of size three each and add them all together. We invented this trick because we are frequently in the situation where we have many of a similar thing, and we wish to know their sum.



                Division is the same trick but the other way. When we say 15 / 3, we are asking the question "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three starting from nothing to make a thing of size fifteen?" We'd have to add five things of size three together to make a thing of size fifteen. Again, division is just a trick we use to answer questions about sums.



                Now it becomes clear why division by zero is not defined. There is no number of times you can add zero to itself to get a non-zero sum.



                A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!



                For non-zero divided by zero, there is no number at all of times that you can add zero to itself to get non-zero. For zero divided by zero, every number of times you add zero to itself, you get zero, so the solution is not unique. We like our mathematical questions to have unique answers where possible and so we by convention say that 0 / 0 is also not defined.






                share|cite|improve this answer



















                • 3




                  Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago











                • @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
                  – Eric Lippert
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago












                up vote
                17
                down vote










                up vote
                17
                down vote









                An explanation that might make sense to a fifth grader is one that gets to the heart of why we have invented these operations in the first place.



                Multiplication is a trick we use to add similar things to form a sum. When we say 5 x 3, what we really mean is take five things of size three each and add them all together. We invented this trick because we are frequently in the situation where we have many of a similar thing, and we wish to know their sum.



                Division is the same trick but the other way. When we say 15 / 3, we are asking the question "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three starting from nothing to make a thing of size fifteen?" We'd have to add five things of size three together to make a thing of size fifteen. Again, division is just a trick we use to answer questions about sums.



                Now it becomes clear why division by zero is not defined. There is no number of times you can add zero to itself to get a non-zero sum.



                A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!



                For non-zero divided by zero, there is no number at all of times that you can add zero to itself to get non-zero. For zero divided by zero, every number of times you add zero to itself, you get zero, so the solution is not unique. We like our mathematical questions to have unique answers where possible and so we by convention say that 0 / 0 is also not defined.






                share|cite|improve this answer















                An explanation that might make sense to a fifth grader is one that gets to the heart of why we have invented these operations in the first place.



                Multiplication is a trick we use to add similar things to form a sum. When we say 5 x 3, what we really mean is take five things of size three each and add them all together. We invented this trick because we are frequently in the situation where we have many of a similar thing, and we wish to know their sum.



                Division is the same trick but the other way. When we say 15 / 3, we are asking the question "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three starting from nothing to make a thing of size fifteen?" We'd have to add five things of size three together to make a thing of size fifteen. Again, division is just a trick we use to answer questions about sums.



                Now it becomes clear why division by zero is not defined. There is no number of times you can add zero to itself to get a non-zero sum.



                A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!



                For non-zero divided by zero, there is no number at all of times that you can add zero to itself to get non-zero. For zero divided by zero, every number of times you add zero to itself, you get zero, so the solution is not unique. We like our mathematical questions to have unique answers where possible and so we by convention say that 0 / 0 is also not defined.







                share|cite|improve this answer















                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 days ago


























                answered Aug 15 at 13:20









                Eric Lippert

                3,0861318




                3,0861318







                • 3




                  Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago











                • @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
                  – Eric Lippert
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago












                • 3




                  Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago











                • @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
                  – Eric Lippert
                  2 days ago






                • 2




                  "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
                  – Monty Harder
                  2 days ago







                3




                3




                Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
                – Sentinel
                2 days ago




                Actually I have never thought of division like that. 15/2 has always meant 'how big is each half when you cut it in two' to me.
                – Sentinel
                2 days ago




                2




                2




                "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
                – Monty Harder
                2 days ago





                "how many times would we have to add a thing of size three to itself to make a thing of size fifteen?" 3+3=6; 6+3=9; 9+3=12; 12+3=15. I count four additions. Your question is therefore not worded correctly. It's not adding three to itself, it's "Starting with zero (nothing), how many 3s do you need to add to get 15?"
                – Monty Harder
                2 days ago













                @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
                – Eric Lippert
                2 days ago




                @MontyHarder: Good point; I'll change the wording.
                – Eric Lippert
                2 days ago




                2




                2




                "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
                – Monty Harder
                2 days ago




                "A sophisticated fifth grader would then note that 0 / 0 is by this definition defined as zero. Going into why 0 / 0 is not defined would require more work!" Simple enough. Grab a plate and set it on the table and say "there are 0 cookies on this plate". Grab another and set it down. "there are 0 cookies on each plate, for a total of 0 cookies. If you leave the room and all you know is that there are 0 total cookies, how can you know how many empty plates I put on the table (or picked back up) when you were gone?"
                – Monty Harder
                2 days ago










                up vote
                11
                down vote













                The Wikipedia article Division by zero lists the usual arguments why there is no good choice for the result of such an operation.



                I prefer the algebraic argument, that there is no multiplicative inverse of $0$,
                this would need you to explain a bit about algebra.



                The argument from calculus, looking at limits of $1/x$, I find also useful, but perphaps harder to explain.






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 1




                  To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
                  – Cort Ammon
                  yesterday














                up vote
                11
                down vote













                The Wikipedia article Division by zero lists the usual arguments why there is no good choice for the result of such an operation.



                I prefer the algebraic argument, that there is no multiplicative inverse of $0$,
                this would need you to explain a bit about algebra.



                The argument from calculus, looking at limits of $1/x$, I find also useful, but perphaps harder to explain.






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 1




                  To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
                  – Cort Ammon
                  yesterday












                up vote
                11
                down vote










                up vote
                11
                down vote









                The Wikipedia article Division by zero lists the usual arguments why there is no good choice for the result of such an operation.



                I prefer the algebraic argument, that there is no multiplicative inverse of $0$,
                this would need you to explain a bit about algebra.



                The argument from calculus, looking at limits of $1/x$, I find also useful, but perphaps harder to explain.






                share|cite|improve this answer













                The Wikipedia article Division by zero lists the usual arguments why there is no good choice for the result of such an operation.



                I prefer the algebraic argument, that there is no multiplicative inverse of $0$,
                this would need you to explain a bit about algebra.



                The argument from calculus, looking at limits of $1/x$, I find also useful, but perphaps harder to explain.







                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 15 at 10:43









                mvw

                30.6k22251




                30.6k22251







                • 1




                  To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
                  – Cort Ammon
                  yesterday












                • 1




                  To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
                  – Cort Ammon
                  yesterday







                1




                1




                To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
                – Cort Ammon
                yesterday




                To me this is the answer, though I would combine it with "let the 5th grader try to come up with some ideas, and help them see why they fail." Personally, I like this approach because then, when they come across the sqrt(-1), they're going to be more comfortable when we say "actually, there is a good choice for how to deal with this."
                – Cort Ammon
                yesterday










                up vote
                7
                down vote













                How many nothings do you need to add together to get 12?






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 4




                  Add all the nothings!
                  – Don Branson
                  Aug 15 at 19:54






                • 4




                  @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago










                • Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
                  – Ian D. Scott
                  yesterday










                • @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday











                • @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday















                up vote
                7
                down vote













                How many nothings do you need to add together to get 12?






                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 4




                  Add all the nothings!
                  – Don Branson
                  Aug 15 at 19:54






                • 4




                  @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago










                • Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
                  – Ian D. Scott
                  yesterday










                • @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday











                • @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday













                up vote
                7
                down vote










                up vote
                7
                down vote









                How many nothings do you need to add together to get 12?






                share|cite|improve this answer













                How many nothings do you need to add together to get 12?







                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 15 at 19:54









                Sentinel

                2904




                2904







                • 4




                  Add all the nothings!
                  – Don Branson
                  Aug 15 at 19:54






                • 4




                  @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago










                • Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
                  – Ian D. Scott
                  yesterday










                • @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday











                • @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday













                • 4




                  Add all the nothings!
                  – Don Branson
                  Aug 15 at 19:54






                • 4




                  @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
                  – Sentinel
                  2 days ago










                • Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
                  – Ian D. Scott
                  yesterday










                • @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday











                • @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
                  – mathreadler
                  yesterday








                4




                4




                Add all the nothings!
                – Don Branson
                Aug 15 at 19:54




                Add all the nothings!
                – Don Branson
                Aug 15 at 19:54




                4




                4




                @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
                – Sentinel
                2 days ago




                @Sentinel Ok, Donnie. I did that. I found all the nothings and added them, but I still have nothing. What now?
                – Sentinel
                2 days ago












                Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
                – Ian D. Scott
                yesterday




                Not in 5th grade, maybe, but by 7th or 8th I think I might have asked "what if you added an infinite number of nothings?" Running into the same issue as some other explainations.
                – Ian D. Scott
                yesterday












                @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
                – mathreadler
                yesterday





                @DonBranson Of course. Mathematicians have done for 4 centuries already... Infinitesimals.. :) Imagine integrating constant function with value 12 over $[0,1]$ or value 1 over $[0,12]$
                – mathreadler
                yesterday













                @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
                – mathreadler
                yesterday





                @IanD.Scott infinitesimals and calculus. That is why you should not tell kids that/why you can't divide by 0. Playing with the idea of multiplying "almost 0" with infinity is so fruitful it is more valuable if they wrestle around a bit with it for themselves. It is not inconceivable that a kid could come up with some variant of infinitesimal calculus based on adding infinite many very small slices.
                – mathreadler
                yesterday











                up vote
                6
                down vote













                Division by zero is meaningless because that's what we decided division means. All you can do is explain why such a convention is a useful one for ordinary arithmetic.



                It might even help to demonstrate some other context (e.g. arithmetic in the projectively extended number line) where it can be useful to define division by zero, so that the student is able to compare and contrast the reasons why we might or might not like to define something.



                Your question might be better placed on https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • I believe your first sentence is circular logic
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  Aug 15 at 15:59










                • @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
                  – 6005
                  yesterday











                • That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
                  – 6005
                  yesterday










                • Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  yesterday














                up vote
                6
                down vote













                Division by zero is meaningless because that's what we decided division means. All you can do is explain why such a convention is a useful one for ordinary arithmetic.



                It might even help to demonstrate some other context (e.g. arithmetic in the projectively extended number line) where it can be useful to define division by zero, so that the student is able to compare and contrast the reasons why we might or might not like to define something.



                Your question might be better placed on https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/






                share|cite|improve this answer





















                • I believe your first sentence is circular logic
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  Aug 15 at 15:59










                • @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
                  – 6005
                  yesterday











                • That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
                  – 6005
                  yesterday










                • Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  yesterday












                up vote
                6
                down vote










                up vote
                6
                down vote









                Division by zero is meaningless because that's what we decided division means. All you can do is explain why such a convention is a useful one for ordinary arithmetic.



                It might even help to demonstrate some other context (e.g. arithmetic in the projectively extended number line) where it can be useful to define division by zero, so that the student is able to compare and contrast the reasons why we might or might not like to define something.



                Your question might be better placed on https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/






                share|cite|improve this answer













                Division by zero is meaningless because that's what we decided division means. All you can do is explain why such a convention is a useful one for ordinary arithmetic.



                It might even help to demonstrate some other context (e.g. arithmetic in the projectively extended number line) where it can be useful to define division by zero, so that the student is able to compare and contrast the reasons why we might or might not like to define something.



                Your question might be better placed on https://matheducators.stackexchange.com/







                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 15 at 10:58









                Hurkyl

                108k9112253




                108k9112253











                • I believe your first sentence is circular logic
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  Aug 15 at 15:59










                • @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
                  – 6005
                  yesterday











                • That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
                  – 6005
                  yesterday










                • Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  yesterday
















                • I believe your first sentence is circular logic
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  Aug 15 at 15:59










                • @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
                  – 6005
                  yesterday











                • That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
                  – 6005
                  yesterday










                • Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
                  – Ruadhan2300
                  yesterday















                I believe your first sentence is circular logic
                – Ruadhan2300
                Aug 15 at 15:59




                I believe your first sentence is circular logic
                – Ruadhan2300
                Aug 15 at 15:59












                @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
                – 6005
                yesterday





                @Ruadhan2300 No, it's not circular. I think Hurkyl's point is that all mathematical concepts are just definitions that we decided on. You could define division differently, as $1/0 = 37$ and still develop all of modern mathematics; it would only be less convenient, not less "correct".
                – 6005
                yesterday













                That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
                – 6005
                yesterday




                That being said, I think this meta-explanation may be a bit too difficult to grasp for a 5th grader. At that stage, most students think of definitions as immutable truth.
                – 6005
                yesterday












                Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
                – Ruadhan2300
                yesterday




                Much like most of science, all mathematics is rooted in modelling reality. The rules and concepts we produce exist entirely because we found they apply to real situations and remain consistently effective. I maintain that "because that's the definition we gave it" is circular and unhelpful.
                – Ruadhan2300
                yesterday










                up vote
                5
                down vote













                Ask Siri.




                Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among
                zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't
                make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and
                you are sad that you have no friends.







                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 5




                  If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
                  – Chronocidal
                  Aug 15 at 22:43











                • That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
                  – Sentinel
                  yesterday














                up vote
                5
                down vote













                Ask Siri.




                Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among
                zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't
                make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and
                you are sad that you have no friends.







                share|cite|improve this answer

















                • 5




                  If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
                  – Chronocidal
                  Aug 15 at 22:43











                • That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
                  – Sentinel
                  yesterday












                up vote
                5
                down vote










                up vote
                5
                down vote









                Ask Siri.




                Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among
                zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't
                make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and
                you are sad that you have no friends.







                share|cite|improve this answer













                Ask Siri.




                Imagine that you have zero cookies and you split them evenly among
                zero friends. How many cookies does each person get? See? It doesn't
                make sense. And Cookie Monster is sad that there are no cookies, and
                you are sad that you have no friends.








                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 15 at 21:09









                Evorlor

                218111




                218111







                • 5




                  If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
                  – Chronocidal
                  Aug 15 at 22:43











                • That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
                  – Sentinel
                  yesterday












                • 5




                  If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
                  – Chronocidal
                  Aug 15 at 22:43











                • That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
                  – Sentinel
                  yesterday







                5




                5




                If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
                – Chronocidal
                Aug 15 at 22:43





                If you include your imaginary friend, then the general form for dividing $X$ cookies is $-Xi$, because $(0+i) * (-Xi) = X$
                – Chronocidal
                Aug 15 at 22:43













                That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
                – Sentinel
                yesterday




                That is like saying that division by two is slicing evenly in half. Most other answers here think it is about groups of two.
                – Sentinel
                yesterday










                up vote
                5
                down vote













                You shouldn't try to do that. Instead make counter question.



                "What should it be, then?" and let them think about it.






                share|cite|improve this answer

























                  up vote
                  5
                  down vote













                  You shouldn't try to do that. Instead make counter question.



                  "What should it be, then?" and let them think about it.






                  share|cite|improve this answer























                    up vote
                    5
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    5
                    down vote









                    You shouldn't try to do that. Instead make counter question.



                    "What should it be, then?" and let them think about it.






                    share|cite|improve this answer













                    You shouldn't try to do that. Instead make counter question.



                    "What should it be, then?" and let them think about it.







                    share|cite|improve this answer













                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    answered 2 days ago









                    mathreadler

                    13.6k71857




                    13.6k71857




















                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote













                        I don't have kids (my wife says one 3-year-old in the house is enough for her) and it's been a while since I was in the 5th grade (although at work sometimes...), but I'll give it a go.



                        I know you're too old to play with blocks, but lets start with 12 blocks.



                        Let's start with $12/6$ - that's $2$, right? Take $6$ at a time and there are two "sets". There are $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/4$ is $3$ - $3$ sets of $4$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/3$ is $4$ - $4$ sets of $3$ in $12$ (commutation of the last case).



                        Then $12/2$ is $6$ - $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$ (commutation of first case).



                        Then $12/1$ is $12$ - $1$ set of $12$ in $12$ (degenerate case).



                        Notice the size of the result set is getting bigger as the denominator (the number on the bottom) gets smaller.



                        Before we go to $0$ let's try something between $1$ and $0$ - $1/2$ or $0.5$. Think of just splitting each block into two (take a hatchet to the wooden blocks blocks, or just imagine it if mom doesn't want you handling a hatchet).



                        $12/0.5$ is $24$ - $24$ sets of $0.5$ (half-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.25$ is $48 - 48$ sets of $0.25$ (quarter-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.125$ is $96 - 96$ sets of $0.125$ (pieces of eight**) in $12$



                        $12/0.0625$ is $192 - 192$ sets of $0.0625$ (pieces of 16) in $12$



                        The close you get to zero, the larger the set you get gets.



                        $12/0.000000001$ (a billionth) is $12$ billion sets of a billionth of a block (aka, sawdust)



                        The as you approach zero, the resulting set size is too large to represent (not enough paper in this room, not enough memory on this computer) and the size of the pieces approach zero.



                        A cheat for "Too large to represent" is "infinity".




                        ** pirate reference - do 5th graders still like pirates these days?






                        share|cite|improve this answer























                        • The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
                          – Ruadhan2300
                          Aug 15 at 14:30











                        • This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
                          – htmlcoderexe
                          2 days ago










                        • A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
                          – Acccumulation
                          2 days ago














                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote













                        I don't have kids (my wife says one 3-year-old in the house is enough for her) and it's been a while since I was in the 5th grade (although at work sometimes...), but I'll give it a go.



                        I know you're too old to play with blocks, but lets start with 12 blocks.



                        Let's start with $12/6$ - that's $2$, right? Take $6$ at a time and there are two "sets". There are $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/4$ is $3$ - $3$ sets of $4$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/3$ is $4$ - $4$ sets of $3$ in $12$ (commutation of the last case).



                        Then $12/2$ is $6$ - $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$ (commutation of first case).



                        Then $12/1$ is $12$ - $1$ set of $12$ in $12$ (degenerate case).



                        Notice the size of the result set is getting bigger as the denominator (the number on the bottom) gets smaller.



                        Before we go to $0$ let's try something between $1$ and $0$ - $1/2$ or $0.5$. Think of just splitting each block into two (take a hatchet to the wooden blocks blocks, or just imagine it if mom doesn't want you handling a hatchet).



                        $12/0.5$ is $24$ - $24$ sets of $0.5$ (half-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.25$ is $48 - 48$ sets of $0.25$ (quarter-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.125$ is $96 - 96$ sets of $0.125$ (pieces of eight**) in $12$



                        $12/0.0625$ is $192 - 192$ sets of $0.0625$ (pieces of 16) in $12$



                        The close you get to zero, the larger the set you get gets.



                        $12/0.000000001$ (a billionth) is $12$ billion sets of a billionth of a block (aka, sawdust)



                        The as you approach zero, the resulting set size is too large to represent (not enough paper in this room, not enough memory on this computer) and the size of the pieces approach zero.



                        A cheat for "Too large to represent" is "infinity".




                        ** pirate reference - do 5th graders still like pirates these days?






                        share|cite|improve this answer























                        • The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
                          – Ruadhan2300
                          Aug 15 at 14:30











                        • This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
                          – htmlcoderexe
                          2 days ago










                        • A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
                          – Acccumulation
                          2 days ago












                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote










                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote









                        I don't have kids (my wife says one 3-year-old in the house is enough for her) and it's been a while since I was in the 5th grade (although at work sometimes...), but I'll give it a go.



                        I know you're too old to play with blocks, but lets start with 12 blocks.



                        Let's start with $12/6$ - that's $2$, right? Take $6$ at a time and there are two "sets". There are $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/4$ is $3$ - $3$ sets of $4$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/3$ is $4$ - $4$ sets of $3$ in $12$ (commutation of the last case).



                        Then $12/2$ is $6$ - $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$ (commutation of first case).



                        Then $12/1$ is $12$ - $1$ set of $12$ in $12$ (degenerate case).



                        Notice the size of the result set is getting bigger as the denominator (the number on the bottom) gets smaller.



                        Before we go to $0$ let's try something between $1$ and $0$ - $1/2$ or $0.5$. Think of just splitting each block into two (take a hatchet to the wooden blocks blocks, or just imagine it if mom doesn't want you handling a hatchet).



                        $12/0.5$ is $24$ - $24$ sets of $0.5$ (half-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.25$ is $48 - 48$ sets of $0.25$ (quarter-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.125$ is $96 - 96$ sets of $0.125$ (pieces of eight**) in $12$



                        $12/0.0625$ is $192 - 192$ sets of $0.0625$ (pieces of 16) in $12$



                        The close you get to zero, the larger the set you get gets.



                        $12/0.000000001$ (a billionth) is $12$ billion sets of a billionth of a block (aka, sawdust)



                        The as you approach zero, the resulting set size is too large to represent (not enough paper in this room, not enough memory on this computer) and the size of the pieces approach zero.



                        A cheat for "Too large to represent" is "infinity".




                        ** pirate reference - do 5th graders still like pirates these days?






                        share|cite|improve this answer















                        I don't have kids (my wife says one 3-year-old in the house is enough for her) and it's been a while since I was in the 5th grade (although at work sometimes...), but I'll give it a go.



                        I know you're too old to play with blocks, but lets start with 12 blocks.



                        Let's start with $12/6$ - that's $2$, right? Take $6$ at a time and there are two "sets". There are $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/4$ is $3$ - $3$ sets of $4$ in $12$.



                        Then $12/3$ is $4$ - $4$ sets of $3$ in $12$ (commutation of the last case).



                        Then $12/2$ is $6$ - $2$ sets of $6$ in $12$ (commutation of first case).



                        Then $12/1$ is $12$ - $1$ set of $12$ in $12$ (degenerate case).



                        Notice the size of the result set is getting bigger as the denominator (the number on the bottom) gets smaller.



                        Before we go to $0$ let's try something between $1$ and $0$ - $1/2$ or $0.5$. Think of just splitting each block into two (take a hatchet to the wooden blocks blocks, or just imagine it if mom doesn't want you handling a hatchet).



                        $12/0.5$ is $24$ - $24$ sets of $0.5$ (half-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.25$ is $48 - 48$ sets of $0.25$ (quarter-pieces) in $12$



                        $12/0.125$ is $96 - 96$ sets of $0.125$ (pieces of eight**) in $12$



                        $12/0.0625$ is $192 - 192$ sets of $0.0625$ (pieces of 16) in $12$



                        The close you get to zero, the larger the set you get gets.



                        $12/0.000000001$ (a billionth) is $12$ billion sets of a billionth of a block (aka, sawdust)



                        The as you approach zero, the resulting set size is too large to represent (not enough paper in this room, not enough memory on this computer) and the size of the pieces approach zero.



                        A cheat for "Too large to represent" is "infinity".




                        ** pirate reference - do 5th graders still like pirates these days?







                        share|cite|improve this answer















                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        edited Aug 15 at 14:05









                        JayTuma

                        978116




                        978116











                        answered Aug 15 at 13:41









                        Nufosmatic

                        491




                        491











                        • The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
                          – Ruadhan2300
                          Aug 15 at 14:30











                        • This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
                          – htmlcoderexe
                          2 days ago










                        • A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
                          – Acccumulation
                          2 days ago
















                        • The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
                          – Ruadhan2300
                          Aug 15 at 14:30











                        • This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
                          – htmlcoderexe
                          2 days ago










                        • A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
                          – Acccumulation
                          2 days ago















                        The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
                        – Ruadhan2300
                        Aug 15 at 14:30





                        The problem I think is a conceptual one, As you describe, it's actually talking about sets, and while you can have a single set containing everything, you can't logically have less sets than you started with. "I want you to put all of these objects into a box too small for any of them" would be a similar task. The only appropriate response is to take Exception at the impossible task.
                        – Ruadhan2300
                        Aug 15 at 14:30













                        This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
                        – htmlcoderexe
                        2 days ago




                        This is how my grandma explained it to me when I was like 5. I got it immediately and it stuck with me ever since.
                        – htmlcoderexe
                        2 days ago












                        A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
                        – Acccumulation
                        2 days ago




                        A "piece of eight" (or, in what is perhaps a more "piraty" version, "piece o' eight") was a Spanish coin that was worth eight Spanish reales. So the piece of eight was the whole, while the real was the eighth. Another term for a real was a "bit". This survives in a bit being one-eighth of a byte, and in "shave and a hair-cut, two bits [i.e. 25 cents]". So you could say "half-piece, quarter-piece, bit-piece".
                        – Acccumulation
                        2 days ago










                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote













                        One would need to first explain what we mean by division. That is, what does $/$ mean in the expression $a/b,$ where $a$ and $b$ are integers?



                        Well, whatever it is, it is a way of combining two numbers. Now recall that every time we defined an operation (say addition), we always had a unique result as the product of the combination, so that we would like this to continue to hold. What else? We define $/$ indirectly, by looking at what we want $a/b$ to mean. Well, we want it to stand for the number $c$ which when multiplied together with $b$ recovers $a.$ (Recall how we similarly defined subtraction as the inverse operation of $+.$)



                        Therefore, in summary, if we let $a/b=c,$ then by definition this equality is equivalent to $c×b=a.$ Also, we want $c$ to be unique for all possible integers $a$ and $b.$



                        Now consider the expression $a/0.$ First let us take $ane0.$ Then if we let $a/0=c,$ it follows by definition that $c×0=a.$ But with the way we defined multiplication (remind him of this), we required that $0$ must make any number vanish, so that there simply is no such $c$ as we seek. If now we let $a=0,$ then we want a unique $c$ such that $c×0=0.$ But again, by the property $r×0=0,,,forall r$ which we've previously allowed in defining $×,$ we have infinitely many candidates for $c$ and there is no other condition we can impose to select one uniquely. We therefore do not allow ourselves to divide by $0$ in any case, in order to avoid all that mess.






                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          4
                          down vote













                          One would need to first explain what we mean by division. That is, what does $/$ mean in the expression $a/b,$ where $a$ and $b$ are integers?



                          Well, whatever it is, it is a way of combining two numbers. Now recall that every time we defined an operation (say addition), we always had a unique result as the product of the combination, so that we would like this to continue to hold. What else? We define $/$ indirectly, by looking at what we want $a/b$ to mean. Well, we want it to stand for the number $c$ which when multiplied together with $b$ recovers $a.$ (Recall how we similarly defined subtraction as the inverse operation of $+.$)



                          Therefore, in summary, if we let $a/b=c,$ then by definition this equality is equivalent to $c×b=a.$ Also, we want $c$ to be unique for all possible integers $a$ and $b.$



                          Now consider the expression $a/0.$ First let us take $ane0.$ Then if we let $a/0=c,$ it follows by definition that $c×0=a.$ But with the way we defined multiplication (remind him of this), we required that $0$ must make any number vanish, so that there simply is no such $c$ as we seek. If now we let $a=0,$ then we want a unique $c$ such that $c×0=0.$ But again, by the property $r×0=0,,,forall r$ which we've previously allowed in defining $×,$ we have infinitely many candidates for $c$ and there is no other condition we can impose to select one uniquely. We therefore do not allow ourselves to divide by $0$ in any case, in order to avoid all that mess.






                          share|cite|improve this answer























                            up vote
                            4
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            4
                            down vote









                            One would need to first explain what we mean by division. That is, what does $/$ mean in the expression $a/b,$ where $a$ and $b$ are integers?



                            Well, whatever it is, it is a way of combining two numbers. Now recall that every time we defined an operation (say addition), we always had a unique result as the product of the combination, so that we would like this to continue to hold. What else? We define $/$ indirectly, by looking at what we want $a/b$ to mean. Well, we want it to stand for the number $c$ which when multiplied together with $b$ recovers $a.$ (Recall how we similarly defined subtraction as the inverse operation of $+.$)



                            Therefore, in summary, if we let $a/b=c,$ then by definition this equality is equivalent to $c×b=a.$ Also, we want $c$ to be unique for all possible integers $a$ and $b.$



                            Now consider the expression $a/0.$ First let us take $ane0.$ Then if we let $a/0=c,$ it follows by definition that $c×0=a.$ But with the way we defined multiplication (remind him of this), we required that $0$ must make any number vanish, so that there simply is no such $c$ as we seek. If now we let $a=0,$ then we want a unique $c$ such that $c×0=0.$ But again, by the property $r×0=0,,,forall r$ which we've previously allowed in defining $×,$ we have infinitely many candidates for $c$ and there is no other condition we can impose to select one uniquely. We therefore do not allow ourselves to divide by $0$ in any case, in order to avoid all that mess.






                            share|cite|improve this answer













                            One would need to first explain what we mean by division. That is, what does $/$ mean in the expression $a/b,$ where $a$ and $b$ are integers?



                            Well, whatever it is, it is a way of combining two numbers. Now recall that every time we defined an operation (say addition), we always had a unique result as the product of the combination, so that we would like this to continue to hold. What else? We define $/$ indirectly, by looking at what we want $a/b$ to mean. Well, we want it to stand for the number $c$ which when multiplied together with $b$ recovers $a.$ (Recall how we similarly defined subtraction as the inverse operation of $+.$)



                            Therefore, in summary, if we let $a/b=c,$ then by definition this equality is equivalent to $c×b=a.$ Also, we want $c$ to be unique for all possible integers $a$ and $b.$



                            Now consider the expression $a/0.$ First let us take $ane0.$ Then if we let $a/0=c,$ it follows by definition that $c×0=a.$ But with the way we defined multiplication (remind him of this), we required that $0$ must make any number vanish, so that there simply is no such $c$ as we seek. If now we let $a=0,$ then we want a unique $c$ such that $c×0=0.$ But again, by the property $r×0=0,,,forall r$ which we've previously allowed in defining $×,$ we have infinitely many candidates for $c$ and there is no other condition we can impose to select one uniquely. We therefore do not allow ourselves to divide by $0$ in any case, in order to avoid all that mess.







                            share|cite|improve this answer













                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            answered Aug 15 at 17:53









                            Allawonder

                            1,647414




                            1,647414




















                                up vote
                                4
                                down vote













                                @Jack M and and @greedoid probably highlight a good point: division does not exist. It's only the inverse operation of multiplication.

                                You could explain your brother the complete truth: dividing 20 by 5 is about finding the only answer (if it exists) to this question: what number can be multiplied by 5 to give 20?. The unique answer is easy: 4 times 5 is 20.

                                And the division is only another phrasing to say the exact same thing: 20 divided by 5 is 4.

                                Can you always find one and only one answer? Yup, almost always...

                                There's only one exception...



                                What number, multiplied by 0, gives 20? There's none.

                                So "division" by 0 has no meaning, since we cannot find any number that satisfies our definition.



                                You could even draw his attention by mentioning that most grown-ups don't know there's no such thing as "division", and that's the first step to learn about "E-vector spaces", "rings" and other funny-named artefacts when he's in college... or before that!



                                Note: what if he raises a question about "0/0"?

                                OK, let's try: "what number, multiplied by 0, gives 0?" All of them! We cannot find one and only one answer, so, it's still impossible to divide 0 by 0!






                                share|cite|improve this answer























                                • There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
                                  – Alvin Lepik
                                  2 days ago














                                up vote
                                4
                                down vote













                                @Jack M and and @greedoid probably highlight a good point: division does not exist. It's only the inverse operation of multiplication.

                                You could explain your brother the complete truth: dividing 20 by 5 is about finding the only answer (if it exists) to this question: what number can be multiplied by 5 to give 20?. The unique answer is easy: 4 times 5 is 20.

                                And the division is only another phrasing to say the exact same thing: 20 divided by 5 is 4.

                                Can you always find one and only one answer? Yup, almost always...

                                There's only one exception...



                                What number, multiplied by 0, gives 20? There's none.

                                So "division" by 0 has no meaning, since we cannot find any number that satisfies our definition.



                                You could even draw his attention by mentioning that most grown-ups don't know there's no such thing as "division", and that's the first step to learn about "E-vector spaces", "rings" and other funny-named artefacts when he's in college... or before that!



                                Note: what if he raises a question about "0/0"?

                                OK, let's try: "what number, multiplied by 0, gives 0?" All of them! We cannot find one and only one answer, so, it's still impossible to divide 0 by 0!






                                share|cite|improve this answer























                                • There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
                                  – Alvin Lepik
                                  2 days ago












                                up vote
                                4
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                4
                                down vote









                                @Jack M and and @greedoid probably highlight a good point: division does not exist. It's only the inverse operation of multiplication.

                                You could explain your brother the complete truth: dividing 20 by 5 is about finding the only answer (if it exists) to this question: what number can be multiplied by 5 to give 20?. The unique answer is easy: 4 times 5 is 20.

                                And the division is only another phrasing to say the exact same thing: 20 divided by 5 is 4.

                                Can you always find one and only one answer? Yup, almost always...

                                There's only one exception...



                                What number, multiplied by 0, gives 20? There's none.

                                So "division" by 0 has no meaning, since we cannot find any number that satisfies our definition.



                                You could even draw his attention by mentioning that most grown-ups don't know there's no such thing as "division", and that's the first step to learn about "E-vector spaces", "rings" and other funny-named artefacts when he's in college... or before that!



                                Note: what if he raises a question about "0/0"?

                                OK, let's try: "what number, multiplied by 0, gives 0?" All of them! We cannot find one and only one answer, so, it's still impossible to divide 0 by 0!






                                share|cite|improve this answer















                                @Jack M and and @greedoid probably highlight a good point: division does not exist. It's only the inverse operation of multiplication.

                                You could explain your brother the complete truth: dividing 20 by 5 is about finding the only answer (if it exists) to this question: what number can be multiplied by 5 to give 20?. The unique answer is easy: 4 times 5 is 20.

                                And the division is only another phrasing to say the exact same thing: 20 divided by 5 is 4.

                                Can you always find one and only one answer? Yup, almost always...

                                There's only one exception...



                                What number, multiplied by 0, gives 20? There's none.

                                So "division" by 0 has no meaning, since we cannot find any number that satisfies our definition.



                                You could even draw his attention by mentioning that most grown-ups don't know there's no such thing as "division", and that's the first step to learn about "E-vector spaces", "rings" and other funny-named artefacts when he's in college... or before that!



                                Note: what if he raises a question about "0/0"?

                                OK, let's try: "what number, multiplied by 0, gives 0?" All of them! We cannot find one and only one answer, so, it's still impossible to divide 0 by 0!







                                share|cite|improve this answer















                                share|cite|improve this answer



                                share|cite|improve this answer








                                edited 2 days ago


























                                answered Aug 15 at 17:56









                                Evariste

                                1493




                                1493











                                • There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
                                  – Alvin Lepik
                                  2 days ago
















                                • There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
                                  – Alvin Lepik
                                  2 days ago















                                There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
                                – Alvin Lepik
                                2 days ago




                                There are a lot of buzzwords for a 5th grader, but the explanation is good.
                                – Alvin Lepik
                                2 days ago










                                up vote
                                2
                                down vote













                                Division is sharing:



                                1 / 10:



                                10 boys in a class grab at a toy -- they rip the toy to tiny bits!



                                1 / 2:



                                2 boys fight for a toy -- they rip the toy in half!



                                1 / 0:



                                A different toy is alone -- he is a special boy!






                                share|cite|improve this answer

























                                  up vote
                                  2
                                  down vote













                                  Division is sharing:



                                  1 / 10:



                                  10 boys in a class grab at a toy -- they rip the toy to tiny bits!



                                  1 / 2:



                                  2 boys fight for a toy -- they rip the toy in half!



                                  1 / 0:



                                  A different toy is alone -- he is a special boy!






                                  share|cite|improve this answer























                                    up vote
                                    2
                                    down vote










                                    up vote
                                    2
                                    down vote









                                    Division is sharing:



                                    1 / 10:



                                    10 boys in a class grab at a toy -- they rip the toy to tiny bits!



                                    1 / 2:



                                    2 boys fight for a toy -- they rip the toy in half!



                                    1 / 0:



                                    A different toy is alone -- he is a special boy!






                                    share|cite|improve this answer













                                    Division is sharing:



                                    1 / 10:



                                    10 boys in a class grab at a toy -- they rip the toy to tiny bits!



                                    1 / 2:



                                    2 boys fight for a toy -- they rip the toy in half!



                                    1 / 0:



                                    A different toy is alone -- he is a special boy!







                                    share|cite|improve this answer













                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer











                                    answered 2 days ago









                                    Jason

                                    1626




                                    1626




















                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote













                                        Because before you think about dividing something, it is more important to consider if you have someone to divide it for (he/she/it must be present, exist, etc). If you do not have anyone who can 'benefit' from the division, no point in dividing. Non rigorous, pragmatic, heuristic approach. It might pave the way for more reasoned proofs and demonstrations.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer





















                                        • This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
                                          – XavierStuvw
                                          yesterday















                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote













                                        Because before you think about dividing something, it is more important to consider if you have someone to divide it for (he/she/it must be present, exist, etc). If you do not have anyone who can 'benefit' from the division, no point in dividing. Non rigorous, pragmatic, heuristic approach. It might pave the way for more reasoned proofs and demonstrations.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer





















                                        • This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
                                          – XavierStuvw
                                          yesterday













                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote










                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote









                                        Because before you think about dividing something, it is more important to consider if you have someone to divide it for (he/she/it must be present, exist, etc). If you do not have anyone who can 'benefit' from the division, no point in dividing. Non rigorous, pragmatic, heuristic approach. It might pave the way for more reasoned proofs and demonstrations.






                                        share|cite|improve this answer













                                        Because before you think about dividing something, it is more important to consider if you have someone to divide it for (he/she/it must be present, exist, etc). If you do not have anyone who can 'benefit' from the division, no point in dividing. Non rigorous, pragmatic, heuristic approach. It might pave the way for more reasoned proofs and demonstrations.







                                        share|cite|improve this answer













                                        share|cite|improve this answer



                                        share|cite|improve this answer











                                        answered 2 days ago









                                        XavierStuvw

                                        1496




                                        1496











                                        • This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
                                          – XavierStuvw
                                          yesterday

















                                        • This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
                                          – XavierStuvw
                                          yesterday
















                                        This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
                                        – XavierStuvw
                                        yesterday





                                        This is indeed similar with the 'division is sharing' concept in the answer of @Jason given here
                                        – XavierStuvw
                                        yesterday











                                        up vote
                                        1
                                        down vote













                                        The way I taught it, even to junior college students who were taking elementary mathematics courses, was with a calculator.



                                        I would show them that 1/1 = 1, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.01 = 100, and so on. I would ask them if they saw how the numbers kept getting bigger as we divided by smaller and smaller numbers. Then I would ask them what they thought would happen when we hit zero. "We would get the biggest possible number that exists, right? But there is no biggest number. So dividing by zero gives you a number that doesn't exist. Does that make any sense? No. So we say that dividing by zero is undefined."






                                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                                          up vote
                                          1
                                          down vote













                                          The way I taught it, even to junior college students who were taking elementary mathematics courses, was with a calculator.



                                          I would show them that 1/1 = 1, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.01 = 100, and so on. I would ask them if they saw how the numbers kept getting bigger as we divided by smaller and smaller numbers. Then I would ask them what they thought would happen when we hit zero. "We would get the biggest possible number that exists, right? But there is no biggest number. So dividing by zero gives you a number that doesn't exist. Does that make any sense? No. So we say that dividing by zero is undefined."






                                          share|cite|improve this answer























                                            up vote
                                            1
                                            down vote










                                            up vote
                                            1
                                            down vote









                                            The way I taught it, even to junior college students who were taking elementary mathematics courses, was with a calculator.



                                            I would show them that 1/1 = 1, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.01 = 100, and so on. I would ask them if they saw how the numbers kept getting bigger as we divided by smaller and smaller numbers. Then I would ask them what they thought would happen when we hit zero. "We would get the biggest possible number that exists, right? But there is no biggest number. So dividing by zero gives you a number that doesn't exist. Does that make any sense? No. So we say that dividing by zero is undefined."






                                            share|cite|improve this answer













                                            The way I taught it, even to junior college students who were taking elementary mathematics courses, was with a calculator.



                                            I would show them that 1/1 = 1, 1/0.1 = 10, 1/0.01 = 100, and so on. I would ask them if they saw how the numbers kept getting bigger as we divided by smaller and smaller numbers. Then I would ask them what they thought would happen when we hit zero. "We would get the biggest possible number that exists, right? But there is no biggest number. So dividing by zero gives you a number that doesn't exist. Does that make any sense? No. So we say that dividing by zero is undefined."







                                            share|cite|improve this answer













                                            share|cite|improve this answer



                                            share|cite|improve this answer











                                            answered yesterday









                                            user2303321

                                            1234




                                            1234




















                                                up vote
                                                0
                                                down vote













                                                To divide means to subtract many times.



                                                It might be a duplicated answer and I apologize, in case. But, according to my experience as a teacher, this worked well.



                                                The point, as others had observed, is what does "to divide" mean. This sometimes looked obscure to the students, whereas the concept of subtraction was more clear.



                                                Thus, once you convey the message that "to divide" means "to subtract many times", everything becomes more clear.



                                                How many times can we subtract $3$ from $10$? Well, usually my students got this.



                                                How many times can we subtract $0$ from $10$? Well, how many times we want!



                                                So there is not a precise answer, because any answer is good. This made more clear the sense of "not defined", at least to my students.



                                                Hope it helps!






                                                share|cite|improve this answer

























                                                  up vote
                                                  0
                                                  down vote













                                                  To divide means to subtract many times.



                                                  It might be a duplicated answer and I apologize, in case. But, according to my experience as a teacher, this worked well.



                                                  The point, as others had observed, is what does "to divide" mean. This sometimes looked obscure to the students, whereas the concept of subtraction was more clear.



                                                  Thus, once you convey the message that "to divide" means "to subtract many times", everything becomes more clear.



                                                  How many times can we subtract $3$ from $10$? Well, usually my students got this.



                                                  How many times can we subtract $0$ from $10$? Well, how many times we want!



                                                  So there is not a precise answer, because any answer is good. This made more clear the sense of "not defined", at least to my students.



                                                  Hope it helps!






                                                  share|cite|improve this answer























                                                    up vote
                                                    0
                                                    down vote










                                                    up vote
                                                    0
                                                    down vote









                                                    To divide means to subtract many times.



                                                    It might be a duplicated answer and I apologize, in case. But, according to my experience as a teacher, this worked well.



                                                    The point, as others had observed, is what does "to divide" mean. This sometimes looked obscure to the students, whereas the concept of subtraction was more clear.



                                                    Thus, once you convey the message that "to divide" means "to subtract many times", everything becomes more clear.



                                                    How many times can we subtract $3$ from $10$? Well, usually my students got this.



                                                    How many times can we subtract $0$ from $10$? Well, how many times we want!



                                                    So there is not a precise answer, because any answer is good. This made more clear the sense of "not defined", at least to my students.



                                                    Hope it helps!






                                                    share|cite|improve this answer













                                                    To divide means to subtract many times.



                                                    It might be a duplicated answer and I apologize, in case. But, according to my experience as a teacher, this worked well.



                                                    The point, as others had observed, is what does "to divide" mean. This sometimes looked obscure to the students, whereas the concept of subtraction was more clear.



                                                    Thus, once you convey the message that "to divide" means "to subtract many times", everything becomes more clear.



                                                    How many times can we subtract $3$ from $10$? Well, usually my students got this.



                                                    How many times can we subtract $0$ from $10$? Well, how many times we want!



                                                    So there is not a precise answer, because any answer is good. This made more clear the sense of "not defined", at least to my students.



                                                    Hope it helps!







                                                    share|cite|improve this answer













                                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                                    share|cite|improve this answer











                                                    answered yesterday









                                                    Andrea Prunotto

                                                    712316




                                                    712316




















                                                        up vote
                                                        0
                                                        down vote













                                                        Explain him the problems, don't enforce him as an "official view".



                                                        Explain him, what are the problems of the division by zero.



                                                        Let him to think about a possible solution.



                                                        You might also explain, that also the negative numbers don't have a suqare root, but this problem had a solution, the imaginary numbers. Let him try to think about a similar solution for the division by zero.






                                                        share|cite|improve this answer

























                                                          up vote
                                                          0
                                                          down vote













                                                          Explain him the problems, don't enforce him as an "official view".



                                                          Explain him, what are the problems of the division by zero.



                                                          Let him to think about a possible solution.



                                                          You might also explain, that also the negative numbers don't have a suqare root, but this problem had a solution, the imaginary numbers. Let him try to think about a similar solution for the division by zero.






                                                          share|cite|improve this answer























                                                            up vote
                                                            0
                                                            down vote










                                                            up vote
                                                            0
                                                            down vote









                                                            Explain him the problems, don't enforce him as an "official view".



                                                            Explain him, what are the problems of the division by zero.



                                                            Let him to think about a possible solution.



                                                            You might also explain, that also the negative numbers don't have a suqare root, but this problem had a solution, the imaginary numbers. Let him try to think about a similar solution for the division by zero.






                                                            share|cite|improve this answer













                                                            Explain him the problems, don't enforce him as an "official view".



                                                            Explain him, what are the problems of the division by zero.



                                                            Let him to think about a possible solution.



                                                            You might also explain, that also the negative numbers don't have a suqare root, but this problem had a solution, the imaginary numbers. Let him try to think about a similar solution for the division by zero.







                                                            share|cite|improve this answer













                                                            share|cite|improve this answer



                                                            share|cite|improve this answer











                                                            answered yesterday









                                                            peterh

                                                            2,14531631




                                                            2,14531631




















                                                                up vote
                                                                0
                                                                down vote













                                                                Number of marbles : Number of boxes = Number of marbles in each box.



                                                                20 marbles : 4 boxes = 5 marbles per box



                                                                0 marbles : 4 boxes = 0 marbles per box



                                                                20 marbles : 0 boxes = "how many marbles in each box while no box?" ---> undefined!






                                                                share|cite|improve this answer

























                                                                  up vote
                                                                  0
                                                                  down vote













                                                                  Number of marbles : Number of boxes = Number of marbles in each box.



                                                                  20 marbles : 4 boxes = 5 marbles per box



                                                                  0 marbles : 4 boxes = 0 marbles per box



                                                                  20 marbles : 0 boxes = "how many marbles in each box while no box?" ---> undefined!






                                                                  share|cite|improve this answer























                                                                    up vote
                                                                    0
                                                                    down vote










                                                                    up vote
                                                                    0
                                                                    down vote









                                                                    Number of marbles : Number of boxes = Number of marbles in each box.



                                                                    20 marbles : 4 boxes = 5 marbles per box



                                                                    0 marbles : 4 boxes = 0 marbles per box



                                                                    20 marbles : 0 boxes = "how many marbles in each box while no box?" ---> undefined!






                                                                    share|cite|improve this answer













                                                                    Number of marbles : Number of boxes = Number of marbles in each box.



                                                                    20 marbles : 4 boxes = 5 marbles per box



                                                                    0 marbles : 4 boxes = 0 marbles per box



                                                                    20 marbles : 0 boxes = "how many marbles in each box while no box?" ---> undefined!







                                                                    share|cite|improve this answer













                                                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                                                    share|cite|improve this answer











                                                                    answered 9 hours ago









                                                                    Friendly Ghost

                                                                    16018




                                                                    16018















                                                                        protected by Daniel Fischer♦ Aug 15 at 18:03



                                                                        Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                                                        Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                                                        Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                                                        ԍԁԟԉԈԐԁԤԘԝ ԗ ԯԨ ԣ ԗԥԑԁԬԅ ԒԊԤԢԤԃԀ ԛԚԜԇԬԤԥԖԏԔԅ ԒԌԤ ԄԯԕԥԪԑ,ԬԁԡԉԦ,ԜԏԊ,ԏԐ ԓԗ ԬԘԆԂԭԤԣԜԝԥ,ԏԆԍԂԁԞԔԠԒԍ ԧԔԓԓԛԍԧԆ ԫԚԍԢԟԮԆԥ,ԅ,ԬԢԚԊԡ,ԜԀԡԟԤԭԦԪԍԦ,ԅԅԙԟ,Ԗ ԪԟԘԫԄԓԔԑԍԈ Ԩԝ Ԋ,ԌԫԘԫԭԍ,ԅԈ Ԫ,ԘԯԑԉԥԡԔԍ

                                                                        How to change the default border color of fbox? [duplicate]

                                                                        Henj