LEGO Rock Raiders Rr÷0=

[pepper314]

I had just installed the multiple charater mod, and it ended up multiplying the maximum RR count by five. Combined with support stations (which doubles the maximum), you can rule the world. Or lose half of your team because they think it's a good idea to remove rubble in a LANDSLIDE.

Now they're dancing.

Edit: I was playing breathless and when I won, one of the RRs dropped some ore and the other was running. I looked like he'd been hugging the other RR who looked like he was trying to escape. Didn't get a screenshot.

[Addictgamer]

I don't get the topic title, but I do find the "Now they're dancing" part funny.

Hmm...Multiplying raider limit by 5...Weird.

[pepper314]

The point of the title (which I didn't even try to explain) is that if they were to devide by zero, their stupidity would increase infinetly. Which doesn't change anything because they already were that stupid.

[Addictgamer]

Ah. That makes sense.

I thought the title as about a mod that divides the health of objects by zero.

[McJobless]

I had just installed the multiple charater mod, and it ended up multiplying the maximum RR count by five. Combined with support stations (which doubles the maximum), you can rule the world. Or lose half of your team because they think it's a good idea to remove rubble in a LANDSLIDE.

Now they're dancing.

Good to hear my mod is going to good use...lol. I never knew it increased the RR count by 5 though...this is intreasting and may help me in (or hinder me) in SKN. Thanks for posting this.

BTW When did you join RRU? I haven't heard of you round these parts of the wild slimy internet...

Ah. That makes sense.

I thought the title as about a mod that divides the health of objects by zero.

...wait what? The very sentance makes modders minds explode...

[Cirevam]

Good to hear my mod is going to good use...lol. I never knew it increased the RR count by 5 though...

It doesn't, at least not when I do it. I changed many of my raiders' stats, including their OxygenCoefs, so that's probably the reason.

[Sonic322]

Just talking about the title for a second.

When you divide by 0 on a calculator you get E or ERROR.

When you divide by 0 on paper then the only logical answer would be 1 (which isn't the correct answer) like all other numbers divided by themselves.

It is really weird when you think about it considering 1 is bigger then 0.

[aLPHA]

A number divided by zero means that it has an infinite amount of numbers that could be multiplied by 0, and always end up with 0.

1*0=0

2*0=0

4857234982304582359023785*0=0

[Alexpanter]

Zero is nothing, you can't divide something between nothing.

[Tauka Usanake]

A number divided by zero means that it has an infinite amount of numbers that could be multiplied by 0, and always end up with 0.

1*0=0

2*0=0

4857234982304582359023785*0=0

I would like to comment on this little math. In Chemistry I learned a shortcut on volume/mass/density, which is Density=Mass/Volume. Form it into a triangle and you get:

M

DV

where D*V=M and M/D=V. It's used to find a missing value if you only have two. Now if using that order, 1*0=0 becomes 0/0=1; or 2*0=0 becomes 0/0=2. In a sense, 0 divided by 0 create an infinite amount of numbers. I guess that's how you break into the fourth dimension?

[TheDoctor]

1. When you divide by 0 on a calculator you get E or ERROR.

2. When you divide by 0 on paper then the only logical answer would be 1 (which isn't the correct answer) like all other numbers divided by themselves.

It is really weird when you think about it considering 1 is bigger then 0.

1. This is known.

2. How the hell do you come up with that? Say you have 50 beans, and 5 cans. You put 10 beans in each can. BUT, if you have NO cans, how many beans are in your nonexistent cans? 1? HAH.

[Tauka Usanake]

1. When you divide by 0 on a calculator you get E or ERROR.

2. When you divide by 0 on paper then the only logical answer would be 1 (which isn't the correct answer) like all other numbers divided by themselves.

It is really weird when you think about it considering 1 is bigger then 0.

1. This is known.

2. How the hell do you come up with that? Say you have 50 beans, and 5 cans. You put 10 beans in each can. BUT, if you have NO cans, how many beans are in your nonexistent cans? 1? HAH.

50 beans. You have one nonexistent can because all the beans are still together.

Also an example, but maybe in a wrong area, Combination nCr which you use to find how many different combinations you can have of "r" (selection) out of "n" (whole). I'm doing this off a calculator btw. Now if we were to do 5nCr0, then the only choice we would have groups wise is 1 because we only have one choice, none. The math for this also works out, but I forget it at the moment...

[Anonymouse]

The way I express it is that any division by zero will yield either of the two annoying numbers: Infinity or negative infinity. Because no matter how many zeroes you add together, you still won't get to the result.

[Cirevam]

50 beans. You have one nonexistent can because all the beans are still together.

Maybe I have two nonexistent cans with 25 beans each. Maybe I have five nonexistent cans with 10 beans each, or 50 cans with one bean each. Just because you put them in a physical pile doesn't mean that you only have one nonexistent can. I could have infinity nonexistent cans for all you know.

[Tauka Usanake]

50 beans. You have one nonexistent can because all the beans are still together.

Maybe I have two nonexistent cans with 25 beans each. Maybe I have five nonexistent cans with 10 beans each, or 50 cans with one bean each. Just because you put them in a physical pile doesn't mean that you only have one nonexistent can. I could have infinity nonexistent cans for all you know.

But they are non existent so all the beans are still together. They are not separated by cans because there are no cans.

[Sonic322]

1. When you divide by 0 on a calculator you get E or ERROR.

2. When you divide by 0 on paper then the only logical answer would be 1 (which isn't the correct answer) like all other numbers divided by themselves.

It is really weird when you think about it considering 1 is bigger then 0.

1. This is known.

2. How the hell do you come up with that?

Any number divided by itself it 1.

That is where I got that answer.

But 0 has no value so that is not the right answer but that would be the first thing to pop into your head.

1 / 1 = 1

2 / 2 = 1

3 / 3 = 1

4 / 4 = 1

5 / 5 = 1

6 / 6 = 1

7 / 7 = 1

8 / 8 = 1

9 / 9 = 1

0 / 0 = 1?

Don't get all butt hurt when I put my 2 sense in TheDoctor.

[PWNZOR]

0 is an exception. You can fit an infinite number of 0's into one 0, and it will still be 0. Thus, an underfined answer.

[TheDoctor]

Sonic forgets that n/n = 1 IF n does not = 0.

Hey sonic, what's the inverse of 0 aka 0^-1?

[Sonic322]

0 is an exception. You can fit an infinite number of 0's into one 0, and it will still be 0. Thus, an underfined answer.

I know because 0 has no value.

Sonic forgets that n/n = 1 IF n does not = 0.

Hey sonic, what's the inverse of 0 aka 0^-1?

I am not sure what you mean by this.

I didn't know there was a 0^-1

All I thought was that 0 and -0 was the exact same thing.

---

If 0 is nothing then wouldn't -0 be something?

[McJobless]

THE MATHS HURTS MY HEAD

[aLPHA]

unversed zero would be zero

[TheDoctor]

*reads the last few posts*

*blinks*

HEY GUISE HERES A HINT: it's the same as the slope of x=1 on a graph.

[aLPHA]

A line infinitely going on the Y axis?

[Sonic322]

To those who can't understand then that -0 thing was a joke.

[sciguy]

if y(x)=¹/_x (or y(x)=x^-1), then the limit of y(x) as x approaches 0 from the left (negative side) is equal to -infinity, and the limit of y(x) as x approaches 0 from the right (positive side) is equal to +infinity. therefore the limit of y(x) as x approaches 0 DNE. and y(0) is undefined as something cannot be divided by nothing.