See, again with the added qualifications and sleight-of-hand redefinitions. It isn't equal to zero, it's just zero "in an extended number line". You're being argumentative and contrarian for its own sake, and I think you're probably intelligent enough to know full well that that's what you're doing, but not quite intelligent enough to realize that you shouldn't.

Also,

That seems pretty axiomatic, buddy.

you’re just wrong. I feel like you can’t accept that.

it’ll teach you about

Hey, you know what, I’ll make this easier for you.

Can you knock off the obnoxiously condescending phrases every other sentence? They don't add to your argument, they just make you sound like a prick.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Infinity isn't a real number, pal. So, I have to qualify it, because you'll say that it's impossible to divide by zero, chief. Unless you have an answer that isn't infinity, friend. I can remove the qualifier if you'd like, and the answer is still technically correct, boss. I am willing to accept I'm wrong if you can answer which number one divided by zero is, I could very well be wrong.

Apologies for my upbeat tone, I'm Canadian, you see, and I believe that we should always use a friendly tone when teaching people new things, ya scamp. I realize this probably comes across to you as arrogant, but I think that might be more related to you thinking I'm wrong when I'm not.

[–] webadict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

For reference, saying "in an extended number line" is the equivalent of saying "including infinity".

Like, if it's the real number line, extended real number line means real numbers and infinity and negative infinity.