The main problem with this concept is that it doesn't work. Then again, *none* of the "proposals" for dividing by zero work, because none of them make any sense. Not in any BIG metaphysical sense; mathematics isn't like that. It fails along with all other proposals because of the nitty-gritty details.

The reason *all* these methods fail is that they can never give a field or even a ring. You can't have a field, because

0 = (1/0) * 0 = 1

in a field, and that doesn't make sense. That's why you

*cannot* divide by zero in a field, no matter how hard you think you're trying. You can't have a ring, because

1/0 + 1 = (1 + 1*0)/0 = 1/0, so

1 = 0

You're

*guaranteed* to get

nonsense,

no matter what.

But enough of generalities. Here are the specifics of why this 'un doesn't work.

The Narrator somehow omits mention of *why* e chooses to write

1/0 = 10000000000000000000...

and not

1/0 = 12345678901234567890...

Anything which requires

arbitrary decisions is likely

false. This is an arbitrary decision, and it leads us deep

into the mud.

What are 2/0, 20/0 and 2000/0 in The Narrator's system?

2/0 = 20000...
20/0 = 20000...
2000/0 = 20000...

It follows, as day follows night, that 2/0=20/0=2000/0. After all, we write them down the same way. And yet 2/0*0=2, 20/0*0=20, 2000/0*0=2000. How do 3

equal numbers "

remember" how to become

the right one?

It gets worse. The Narrator claims that you can do arithmetic:

20^- * 30^- = 60^-

I read that as saying that 2000/0 * 3/0 = 6/0. Cool. Of course, since all these "division by zero"

gizmos end up being

equal, I suppose

it's no big deal.

We "can" also perform all arithmetic operations. Can we really?

60^- / 30^- = (6/0)/(3/0) = 2 (due to cancellation, or plain operating on the "infinite digits representation"), but also

60^- / 30^- = 20^- (due to The Narrator's multiplication example).

We immediately conclude that 2=2/0. And, since 2/0=anything/0, we see that 2=anything/0. Similar reasoning shows that anything=anything/0 (just multiply by 1/0=10^-), and so we see that 2=anything, so

anything = anything else.

This is SERIOUSLY COOL STUFF! I'll ask The Narrator for a $100 loan, and return just $2, because 2=anything, so 2=100! Tell hir what, I'll pay 50% interest, and return $3! At that rate of interest, I'm sure e will be delighted to lend me another $100!! WE'RE RICH!!!

That's the problem with nonsense: it doesn't work. Not because of **THE BIGOTRY OF SELF-APPOINTED "PROFESSORS" OF MATHEMATICS TOO BUSY PRESERVING THEIR CUSHY FACULTY POSITIONS TO CARE ABOUT NEW MATH.**. No, it doesn't work because it doesn't make sense.

I'll end with a challenge to the many zero divisors (I'm sure I've convinced few of them, and as we've seen 1=2, so if there's one zero divisor there are sure to be many more...). The "old math" which you disdain has some limited application in differential equations, analysis, algorithms, geometry, probability theory, and a few other fields. Bring *one* application of your favourite method of dividing by zero. You get to choose here! Pick any phenomenon, and demonstrate that your method is:

- Consistent (i.e. free of contradiction);
- Useful for modeling that phenomenom.

No, forget about fulfilling a+b. Pick which one you want to fulfill, and do that one.

You won't manage. It doesn't work.