Mathematical Proof Of God

[Ouroboros]

Even if one were to grant that the math is correct (which no one here does) it still would not be a "proof" for the existence of something that can be called "God". It would still be only an analogy, useful for teaching those new to faith, maybe.

Exactly. I said the same thing earlier. It's not a proof, but could be a sensible illustration to show how God can be infinite and yet we can be finite. We are the numbers. God is the set. No problem to use that as an analogy. But numbers and sets go hand-in-hand. There's a separation, but not an explanation for existence. Just take the set of whole numbers between 1 and 10. Let's call it S. Did the set S have to exist before the numbers 1,2,3...10 existed? Can the set S exist without the numbers? Can the numbers exist without that specific set? I think the answer is obvious. This applies to S even when it's infinite in all directions and dimensions.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Agree with the above.  To think that remarks about how math works constitute a proof for God is like thinking that from the meaning of the word "God," it follows that the entity denoted by that word exists independent of human minds.  Ignoratio elenchi fallacy, plus others.

[Guest nat]

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/dividing-by-zero.html

 

 

So let us try using our new "numbers".

For example, we know that zero times any number is zero:

Example: 0×1 = 0, 0×2 = 0, etc

So that should also be true for ¹/₀:

0 × (¹/₀) = 0

 

But we could also rearrange it a little like this:

0 × (¹/₀) = (⁰/₀) × 1 = 1

 

(Careful! I am not saying this is correct! , we are assuming that you can divide by zero, so 0/0 should work the same as 5/5, which is 1).

Arrggh! If you multiply ¹/₀ by zero you could get 0 or 1.

In fact you can't have both possibilites, so we cannot define ¹/₀ to be a number.

So it is undefined.

 

 

 

This very simple explanation  refutes exactly what you are trying to say Nat. 

 

0*infinity/0  could be 0 or infinity.  Therefore it doesn't work. 

 

This is why limits exist.   

When you multiply 1/0 * 0 you can get anything, just like infinity * 0, that is why it is undetermined. This says nothing about 1/0 itself. Moreover, 0/0 is not 1, it is undetermined. Lastly you can't compare multiplying a regular number *0 to 1/0 * 0. The above post is all wrong.

[Guest nat]

 

I won't presume to speak for Florduh however I think he probably sees where you would go with this. If math can prove your god then the next logical or theological step anyway would be to begin chatting about the bible god. In your case the ot one. Perhaps you weren't heading there but we have seen this trick, over and over, here and elsewhere. Get someone to agree about the existence of the imaginary being and then begin arguing for said being from the bible or elsewhere. I've done it myself when I was a theist so I know the apologetical tap dance quite well. And it doesn't matter whether you're a Jewish believer of a xtian one - your modus operandi is practically identical.

 

Not very nice to assume things you don't know and then condemn someone on your assumptions. Where did you learn manners from?

[midniterider]

I had thought that what Nat said about kabbalistic thought sounded rather like neo-Platonism, and in fact, the Wikipedia article on "ein sof" draws that parallel explicitly:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

 

I notice that in this article, one thinker described the infinite that, I think, Nat is talking about as not existing, ie. beyond being.  This is just like the neo-Platonic notion of The One that is beyond being, so it's called "not existing" - on the thinking that if The One is one, only one thing can be said of it, i.e. "one."  If you say two things of it, i.e. "one" and "being," it's no longer the pure One.  So the neo-Platonists spoke of the "not-existing One" beyond all being and the "existing One."  - thus giving themselves two Ones.  

 

Does Kabbalah do that, too?

 

BTW matter, on the other hand, both in Aristotle and in neo-Platonism, is pure receptivity.  It's what receives form.  

 

Someone on here recently (I forget who) spoke of Christianity as more "pagan" than Jewish.  Much research has also been done into the connections between "pagan" thought and late ancient and medieval Jewish philosophy.  I'm not an expert on it.

 

Reminds me a bit of non-duality. See Nisargadatta or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

 

 

 

The problem here arises from confusing infinity for an actual number.  It's just a placeholder for the phrase "as some variable increases without bound."  It really isn't that profound.

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others. But I still do think my logic is sound. And i don't confuse infinity with a number. Infinity is not a number. It is undefined. I like to think that division by 0 is infinity. I have already seen many uncomfortable with this. Even if it is not 0, the numbers as you get closer to 0 are getting so large, that it either reaches infinity or something like it. The semantics don't really interest me. infinity *0 is undetermined. Undetermined is not that same as undefined. Undetermined means that it can be this or that or anything. I don't want to argue semantics. The fact is that infinity times zero is not zero. That alone is an amazing fact! That alone is compelling. I think any logical person would agree. 

We will never understand God nor infinity. I think God gave us the gift of infinity in order to realize that He is also there even if we can't ever understand.

 

Are you saying you cannot debate this on an advanced level because you do not completely comprehend the processes involved? If so, then how would you view your logic as sound if you cannot understand the advanced processes involved? Division by 0 is infinity is what you like to think.  What you like to think and what is reality are two very different things.

[Voice]

We have a test of fire for Authentic Christian Believers.  If you survive we will take it down.  You should talk to nivek about your status.  

 

I've only read about a third of the replies so far, it's a good subject.  It will interest you to look up a professor from the UK, Dr. James Anderson, who wrote a series of proofs for division by zero.  Proofs touch on AI and other useful things.  I checked his personal website which has absolutely nothing on the subject, but his work is available elsewhere.  He built them all on the equation,

n / 0 = infinity.  

infinity defined as absolute infinity, not different orders of infinite magnitude.

 

The only way to work a graceful field unification model is through division by zero.  You can unify all imaginable fields via division by zero, religions, everything.  I literally celebrated when I found published proofs for that.  

 

In the 1980's division by zero was still termed "undefined," to say it could be anything.  

 

Null = empty set

 

Quantum theory has the closest mathematical relationships with God.  If you want to argue mathematical proofs for God.

 

I'm happy to encounter someone else who contemplates division by zero.  Eiffel Tower!

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

 

The problem here arises from confusing infinity for an actual number.  It's just a placeholder for the phrase "as some variable increases without bound."  It really isn't that profound.

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others. But I still do think my logic is sound. And i don't confuse infinity with a number. Infinity is not a number. It is undefined. I like to think that division by 0 is infinity. I have already seen many uncomfortable with this. Even if it is not 0, the numbers as you get closer to 0 are getting so large, that it either reaches infinity or something like it. The semantics don't really interest me. infinity *0 is undetermined. Undetermined is not that same as undefined. Undetermined means that it can be this or that or anything. I don't want to argue semantics. The fact is that infinity times zero is not zero. That alone is an amazing fact! That alone is compelling. I think any logical person would agree. 

We will never understand God nor infinity. I think God gave us the gift of infinity in order to realize that He is also there even if we can't ever understand.

 

Are you saying you cannot debate this on an advanced level because you do not completely comprehend the processes involved? If so, then how would you view your logic as sound if you cannot understand the advanced processes involved? Division by 0 is infinity is what you like to think.  What you like to think and what is reality are two very different things.

 

The point i was making with the advanced level stuff, was that sometimes you can have a proper discussion at the normal level, but someone who happens to be smart in a certain area will use that to evade and confuse the issue. In this case, there is really very little against saying X/0 =infinity. Some don't like that infinity is not a number, but so what, we still see it used in math. The biggest issue is that the limit tends towards both positive and negative infinity. Big deal. The square root of 25 is also +-5.

 

More importantly, the conventional approach that it not possible to divide by 0 also agrees that the answer is similar to infinity. They just don't like some of the quirkiness. Conventional math still agrees that when you divide by 0 is along the lines of infinity, and if worded properly everyone agrees you can say that as the denominator approaches 0 the answer heads towards infinity. Its just an easy way out to say that you cant divide by 0 without looking at the greater truth.

 

Moreover, my main point was that infinity *0 is not 0, it is undetermined according to all accounts. And I was using that as a platform to say that the original infinite source can bring out all things from nothing. This is a Jewish teaching, and I was showing this mathematically.

 

I also said that the fact that there is an original infinite source is self evident since there is the infinite past, so there has to have been an infinite source that was always there. This infinite source will never be understood, because we cannot understand infinity.   

[boftx]

nat,

 

There are two issues in play here, and you have even touched on them above.

 

First, what might make sense, or at least seem reasonable at first glance might not be true when examined in a rigorous manner. This does not mean that an expert is trying to twist things around, just that things are not always as they appear to be. No one was trying to twist your claims when they rebutted the math itself.

 

Second, no one would have any reason to object to you using it purely as an analogy (as you allude to in the above post) instead of claiming it as "proof" for "God" as you originally did. Specifically, you equated "God" to infinity (with some transition to "the infinite" here and there.) There is simply no basis for making that assertion. I will grant that presenting "God" as "the infinite" might be a valid premise, but that hardly constitutes proof that "God" is the infinite.

 

I do not know your background or area of expertise, all I can say is that you made claims using terms with very precise meanings to people in the field. The best way to approach such a discussion is to define your terms first so everyone knows the ground rules to avoid confusion.

[Guest nat]

We have a test of fire for Authentic Christian Believers.  If you survive we will take it down.  You should talk to nivek about your status.  

 

I've only read about a third of the replies so far, it's a good subject.  It will interest you to look up a professor from the UK, Dr. James Anderson, who wrote a series of proofs for division by zero.  Proofs touch on AI and other useful things.  I checked his personal website which has absolutely nothing on the subject, but his work is available elsewhere.  He built them all on the equation,

n / 0 = infinity.  

infinity defined as absolute infinity, not different orders of infinite magnitude.

 

The only way to work a graceful field unification model is through division by zero.  You can unify all imaginable fields via division by zero, religions, everything.  I literally celebrated when I found published proofs for that.  

 

In the 1980's division by zero was still termed "undefined," to say it could be anything.  

 

Null = empty set

 

Quantum theory has the closest mathematical relationships with God.  If you want to argue mathematical proofs for God.

 

I'm happy to encounter someone else who contemplates division by zero.  Eiffel Tower!

But I am not an authentic christian to begin with. I am Jewish. I would have no problem with authentic Jewish believer.

 

I would be very glad when conventional math finally gives in and says that division by 0 is infinity. It is much simpler on the psyche that way.

 

In regard to Quantum theory and God, you will likely enjoy my jests about the God called Quantum. In any case, I find it very strange when science makes rules just because of the results, without thinking about why it is that way. Certain things like relativity or uncertainty principals might be an element of the infinite source (or God), but science just makes it into a rule and goes on,without really thinking through what is behind the matter; why is there quantum uncertainty? Does it have to do with the unknown infinite source? Maybe.

[Guest nat]

nat,

 

There are two issues in play here, and you have even touched on them above.

 

First, what might make sense, or at least seem reasonable at first glance might not be true when examined in a rigorous manner. This does not mean that an expert is trying to twist things around, just that things are not always as they appear to be. No one was trying to twist your claims when they rebutted the math itself.

 

Second, no one would have any reason to object to you using it purely as an analogy (as you allude to in the above post) instead of claiming it as "proof" for "God" as you originally did. Specifically, you equated "God" to infinity (with some transition to "the infinite" here and there.) There is simply no basis for making that assertion. I will grant that presenting "God" as "the infinite" might be a valid premise, but that hardly constitutes proof that "God" is the infinite.

 

I do not know your background or area of expertise, all I can say is that you made claims using terms with very precise meanings to people in the field. The best way to approach such a discussion is to define your terms first so everyone knows the ground rules to avoid confusion.

It is true. Sometimes things are not as they seem to be. The problem, however, when you get to levels that are beyond most people is that you can no longer have a discussion. I wanted to stay away from that. If such demands a little flexibility of terms, then so be it. Along these lines, no matter what a person says, there will always be someone with the capability of splitting hairs showing some un-exactness here or there. I tried to keep this a bit flexible. There can always be further discussion on the finer points.

[Voice]

 

 

...

 

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

Stuff in red:  big assumptions.  Not a proof.

 

I must disagree with ficino in one regard, that "Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing." is an assumption. The idea that "God" did that might be an assumption, but the statement that Judaism teaches that is not.

 

Be that as it may, it in no way detracts from ficino's statement that the two remaining assumptions do not constitute a proof.

 

On a side note, like others have already said, I find it interesting and quite probably refreshing to have a Jew take part in these discussions.

 

 

I don't think this is assumption.  It's a statement with assigned values.  I rather like it, I think of it as art, creative expression.  Math is an artful language.

 

The authority of mathematics as a medium to define God.  Math is a language.  It's more universal than most and shaped by natural laws and other things, but it's a language and with cultural variation.  Some people mistake math for God.

[Voice]

 

 

I believe that God is infinite in all ways. Infinity is not all things. Infinity is never ending, and is not definable or understandable. So there is no way for me to explain it. Matter is not infinite because it can be divided. Infinity cannot be divided.

Surely you don't believe that God is infinite in that all predicates can be predicated of Him?

 

Not sure what you mean. God is not of this realm. God is infinite endless, undefined, and unknown. God as he appears to us in the bible is not the same thing as God himself. The bible defines God as this or that for our benefit. According to Kabbalah, the infinite God created defined forms of himself to interact with this world. 

 

 

You can't say God is not of this world or the point is mute.  All the buzz among believers is that God is part of this world.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

I believe that God is infinite in all ways. Infinity is not all things. Infinity is never ending, and is not definable or understandable. So there is no way for me to explain it. Matter is not infinite because it can be divided. Infinity cannot be divided.

Surely you don't believe that God is infinite in that all predicates can be predicated of Him?

 

Not sure what you mean. God is not of this realm. God is infinite endless, undefined, and unknown. God as he appears to us in the bible is not the same thing as God himself. The bible defines God as this or that for our benefit. According to Kabbalah, the infinite God created defined forms of himself to interact with this world. 

 

 

You can't say God is not of this world or the point is mute.  All the buzz among believers is that God is part of this world.

 

According to kabalah, God is part of this world only after a limitation on His infinite nature, which allows Him to be defined. Some explain it as looking at the infinite light through a colored glass. 

[Voice]

 

"Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything."

 

Can it be cheese?

 

 

It can be cheese.

GO PACKERS!

[Ravenstar]

"The point i was making with the advanced level stuff, was that sometimes you can have a proper discussion at the normal level, but someone who happens to be smart in a certain area will use that to evade and confuse the issue."

 

This statement is a strawman. It's purpose is to nullify the contributions of those who might actually know what they are talking about. You can not make assertions about mathematics and then ignore the actual math... or disqualify or misrepresent those who may actually understand it. It would be like me wanting to argue genetics... but I have only a cursory understanding of it - so I can make all sorts of stuff up (Like the christians do by describing DNA as a language- a 'code' written by a deity  sigh)

 

Go to "Answers in Genesis" for an example of this kind of argument (okay - it's an extreme example - but still).

 

Example: I'd love, at some point to discuss the concepts and new findings in consciousness studies from both a philosophical and scientific point of view - but until I have educated myself on it.. it's kind of a waste of time. AND I would necessarily have to define consciousness to even open such a topic. Maybe I'm wrong - but using a loaded word like 'god' with another really undefined word like 'infinity'.. seems to remove the necessary limits to actually have a constructive discussion of these concepts...

 

It's like the word 'theory'.. so many times in discussion when this word is used the parties conception of what a theory is, is different.. and constructive communication becomes impossible. Am I making sense here?

 

I actually find the concept of mathematics, quantum mechanics and 'god' rather fascinating.. but, as Matt Dillahunty says, you can't debate on 'god' until you have defined what that is. It's too loaded a word. In science... and math is the language of science in a way.. if one is going to 'prove' something.. that something must have a workable definition.

 

In a serious debate... definitions are agreed upon. I suggest that this topic is perfect for a serious debate - either in the Coliseum or the Arena because it seem to require the kind of formal limits necessary to avoid the hubris. There is great potential here for a sharing of knowledge (or philosophy/theology anyway)... if it's kept within certain limits.

 

I would approach this assertion as if I was speaking to someone who had no prior knowledge of 'god' or the supernatural. That seems to be a good place because it requires those definitions to build a proper foundation for the argument. It may need to go all the way back to Descartés and the foundation for the perception of reality.

 

Just some thoughts

[Ravenstar]

I like cheese! 

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Since we cannot distinguish between 'God' and 'Nature', then it raises the question "isn't God vestigial?" I.e. If "the universe" + "God" = "the universe", then "God" = 0?

 

If you want to insist on math, for me, it would seem having a deity involved would directly defy the law of conservation of matter. You know, that little scientific statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world, which in this case, generally speaking, has to do with stating that matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

 

This "god" created an isolated system. Therefore, he has to be above the laws of his own system, which goes back to assumptions and no proof.

[Guest nat]

"The point i was making with the advanced level stuff, was that sometimes you can have a proper discussion at the normal level, but someone who happens to be smart in a certain area will use that to evade and confuse the issue."

 

This statement is a strawman. It's purpose is to nullify the contributions of those who might actually know what they are talking about. You can not make assertions about mathematics and then ignore the actual math... or disqualify or misrepresent those who may actually understand it. It would be like me wanting to argue genetics... but I have only a cursory understanding of it - so I can make all sorts of stuff up (Like the christians do by describing DNA as a language- a 'code' written by a deity  sigh)

 

 

This is a complex issue and deserves as thread of its own. It can go both ways. Yes, people of greater knowledge have a great deal to contribute. But others who can't defend every last detail also have much to contribute. In this case, I have defended my logic and math numerous times. Even if I can't defend every last nitty gritty hair splitting distinction, does that mean that I have nothing to say? There is a tendency to use hair splitting techniques in order to disqualify a whole argument, when in reality the finer points are really just room for further discussion and not a reason to disqualify the whole argument. Its a complex issue for sure. But in this case, I have made and defended valid points, and the finer points surely give room for further discussion. 

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

"The point i was making with the advanced level stuff, was that sometimes you can have a proper discussion at the normal level, but someone who happens to be smart in a certain area will use that to evade and confuse the issue."

 

This statement is a strawman. It's purpose is to nullify the contributions of those who might actually know what they are talking about. You can not make assertions about mathematics and then ignore the actual math... or disqualify or misrepresent those who may actually understand it. It would be like me wanting to argue genetics... but I have only a cursory understanding of it - so I can make all sorts of stuff up (Like the christians do by describing DNA as a language- a 'code' written by a deity  sigh)

 

 

This is a complex issue and deserves as thread of its own. It can go both ways. Yes, people of greater knowledge have a great deal to contribute. But others who can't defend every last detail also have much to contribute. In this case, I have defended my logic and math numerous times. Even if I can't defend every last nitty gritty hair splitting distinction, does that mean that I have nothing to say? There is a tendency to use hair splitting techniques in order to disqualify a whole argument, when in reality the finer points are really just room for further discussion and not a reason to disqualify the whole argument. Its a complex issue for sure. But in this case, I have made and defended valid points, and the finer points surely give room for further discussion. 

 

I agree with you, but even in some of your own explanations on here you have used the phrase "I like to think that..."   Our pointing out this is not acceptable point of evidence is not splitting hairs.  What you like to think about a scientific fact is not the same as what it is. That is all we are trying to point out.

[Ravenstar]

You are ridiculously defensive.

 

NOT what I said at all. And of course laymen have things to contribute - but not by denying the facts/problems presented by those with the expertise. I still don't see any legitimate defense for what you have said.. but maybe I'm missing something. This isn't my area of expertise... I'm an historian, not a mathematician or philosopher. I am pretty sure however that to assert a proof of 'god' through any means, depends on what you mean by god. If it's something not within reality as we know it - then it's ridiculous to use a method (mathematics) which describes our reality. That would be pure speculation - an exercise in imagination, and not knowable.. because it's beyond reality.. which is IMHO, the land of fantasy - because there's no evidence for such a 'place'. If there was then it would be within our reality. See the circularity?

 

What I've read in this so far is that the math does not work... unless you change the definitions - which is kind of dishonest, in a way. I'm sure there are mathematicians out there who have tackled this... but I wouldn't understand the equations anyway.

 

Maybe it needs to be simplified to point form? IDK

 

If 'god' is infinity and everything is within infinity then 'god' is everything... and we are right back to pandeism. I don't care how you try to divide it (you can't divide infinity anyway because to divide something it must necessarily have a limit) - this is what it results in. This form of 'god' is as non-personal as you can get. I am god, you are god.. the rock is god... the universe itself is god and it's qualities are those that we have discovered through science. The universe (uni = one, so the all) would then be the manifestation of the qualities of the universe... hmmm... not seeing how that is any different from what scientists and nature already tell us.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

 

What I've read in this so far is that the math does not work... unless you change the definitions - which is kind of dishonest, in a way. I'm sure there are mathematicians out there who have tackled this... but I wouldn't understand the equations anyway.

 

I think he is interchanging the two different views of zero. One is how we use it everyday in the sense that zero is nothing. The other is symmetrical on a lot of levels. Symmetry math is where I think he is trying to go, but he is dragging regular everyday use of nothing in with it. You cannot mix the two whatsoever.

 

Example: In symmetry math, one of the conclusions we can draw is that for there to be a positive two apples , which represent matter, there must be a negative two apples , anti-matter, removed from the pattern that we observe. Finite form requires that the two positive apples are less than the whole of the four apples combined.

[Guest nat]

You are ridiculously defensive.

 

NOT what I said at all. And of course laymen have things to contribute - but not by denying the facts/problems presented by those with the expertise. I still don't see any legitimate defense for what you have said.. but maybe I'm missing something. This isn't my area of expertise... I'm an historian, not a mathematician or philosopher. I am pretty sure however that to assert a proof of 'god' through any means, depends on what you mean by god. If it's something not within reality as we know it - then it's ridiculous to use a method (mathematics) which describes our reality. That would be pure speculation - an exercise in imagination, and not knowable.. because it's beyond reality.. which is IMHO, the land of fantasy - because there's no evidence for such a 'place'. If there was then it would be within our reality. See the circularity?

 

What I've read in this so far is that the math does not work... unless you change the definitions - which is kind of dishonest, in a way. I'm sure there are mathematicians out there who have tackled this... but I wouldn't understand the equations anyway.

 

Maybe it needs to be simplified to point form? IDK

 

If 'god' is infinity and everything is within infinity then 'god' is everything... and we are right back to pandeism. I don't care how you try to divide it (you can't divide infinity anyway because to divide something it must necessarily have a limit) - this is what it results in. This form of 'god' is as non-personal as you can get. I am god, you are god.. the rock is god... the universe itself is god and it's qualities are those that we have discovered through science. The universe (uni = one, so the all) would then be the manifestation of the qualities of the universe... hmmm... not seeing how that is any different from what scientists and nature already tell us.

There is an inherent difficulty in proving something that is unknowable and beyond logic. That is for sure. But it can still be done, once you reach a point where it is impossible to go further. Infinity reaches this level because it beyond human comprehension. We reach a point that we can't go further. This wall will stop some people from a conclusion because of the inherent stop in knowledge, but in reality a self evident infinite unknowable exists. There is no way around it, because the infinite past is behind us, and human knowledge cannot grasp infinity. I attempt to prove nothing more than the self evident unknowable infinite source. And this involves no math at all. The not knowing part leaves no room for science, because it is terminal.  

The rest of what I am saying is an application of math to how the infinite can create anything through zero, and the math is solid since infinity times 0 is not 0, it can be anything. 

The infitne is not all, because all is finite and infinity is not. It is beyond everything. 

[Guest nat]

 

 

What I've read in this so far is that the math does not work... unless you change the definitions - which is kind of dishonest, in a way. I'm sure there are mathematicians out there who have tackled this... but I wouldn't understand the equations anyway.

 

I think he is interchanging the two different views of zero. One is how we use it everyday in the sense that zero is nothing. The other is symmetrical on a lot of levels. Symmetry math is where I think he is trying to go, but he is dragging regular everyday use of nothing in with it. You cannot mix the two whatsoever.

 

Example: In symmetry math, one of the conclusions we can draw is that for there to be a positive two apples , which represent matter, there must be a negative two apples , anti-matter, removed from the pattern that we observe. Finite form requires that the two positive apples are less than the whole of the four apples combined.

 

I am not sure of symmetry math. In everyday math, when you divide by 0, the answer is either infinity or it can be reworded that we approach infinity as we approach 0. Either way, the logic heads in the same direction. And I was more interested in infinity * 0. I was just using x/0 = infinity as an easy way to show that infinity * 0 can be anything (since anything divided by 0 is infinity). This uses the same logic as 6/3=2, so 2*3=6. In any case, it is conventionally accepted that infinity * 0 is indeterminate, that it can be anything.  

0/0 is also indeterminate since any number times 0 is 0, 0/0 can be any number. And infinity *0 is the same as 0/0, because infinity and 0 are opposite. In the same way 8/2 is the same as 8*1/2, You can multiply by the inverse of what you divide.

[leopardus]

To the orignal poster:

Do read the Wikipedia article on "dividing by zero". It's quite clear, correct, and easy to understand.

It might help you to grasp why your post and reasoning are based on incorrect understanding and are therefore fallacious.