I wasn't looking to get in an argument, and knew even replyi...

d28413712171c33e...

npub162zpxufpw8pnuytaf0gfxzkqtvk9rvcwkvppa7x57y3n7qkfpg4shatdhy

hex

840c0fcd42331ac69430db5c80cc95a63f2a2a6db5d7f3259981a4bc4e1ed2ce

nevent

nevent1qqsggrq0e4prxxkxjscdkhyqej26v0e29fkmt4lnykvcrf9ufc0d9nsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsd9pqnwyshrse7z975h5ynptq9ktz3kv8txqs7lr20zgelqtys52caskgfh

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-03-16T22:25:29Z

↳ 回复 事件不存在

1f62b734adf055fd3d048e9fb9500c27856f6c902c6b9bb1535f9a501d87251f...

I wasn't looking to get in an argument, and knew even replying at all was likely a mistake, but went against my instincts and did it, for reasons unknown to me (I'd just awoken from a short nap, so maybe I was still a bit foggy). I'll cut to the chase and share what I think is a cleaner argument. If we limit our attention to just algebra, and fields in this case, the reason division by zero is undefined is that division in fields is just shorthand for multiplicative inverses (i.e., inverse of A is any element, B, which multiplied times A gives the multiplicative identity, 1). 0 x B = 0 always, it's "easy" to show using the axioms, thus there is no multiplicative inverse for 0 (I guess you might also need to show 0 <> 1). But many people don't really learn about number systems this way, and the "easy" part I mentioned above may not be so obvious (comes down to using the distributive property and axioms about 0). There's no need to go to limits or sequences, in other words.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "840c0fcd42331ac69430db5c80cc95a63f2a2a6db5d7f3259981a4bc4e1ed2ce",
  "pubkey": "d28413712171c33e117d4bd0930ac05b2c51b30eb3021ef8d4f1233f02c90a2b",
  "created_at": 1773699929,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "4b04d75e002924ca0c8c28f60dcb7a491ca3731f4eea27cfd9ba8b07ff24fde5",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "root",
      "e83b66a8ed2d37c07d1abea6e1b000a15549c69508fa4c5875556d52b0526c2b"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "1f62b734adf055fd3d048e9fb9500c27856f6c902c6b9bb1535f9a501d87251f",
      "wss://relay.damus.io/",
      "reply",
      "afdc57ffb349de3b044c50690adfbca104f47e14daeedf5a4c053b95d54bafb3"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "e83b66a8ed2d37c07d1abea6e1b000a15549c69508fa4c5875556d52b0526c2b"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "afdc57ffb349de3b044c50690adfbca104f47e14daeedf5a4c053b95d54bafb3"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I wasn't looking to get in an argument, and knew even replying at all was likely a mistake, but went against my instincts and did it, for reasons unknown to me (I'd just awoken from a short nap, so maybe I was still a bit foggy).\nI'll cut to the chase and share what I think is a cleaner argument. \nIf we limit our attention to just algebra, and fields in this case, the reason division by zero is undefined is that division in fields is just shorthand for multiplicative inverses (i.e., inverse of A is any element, B, which multiplied times A gives the multiplicative identity, 1). 0 x B = 0 always, it's \"easy\" to show using the axioms, thus there is no multiplicative inverse for 0 (I guess you might also need to show 0 \u003c\u003e 1). But many people don't really learn about number systems this way, and the \"easy\" part I mentioned above may not be so obvious (comes down to using the distributive property and axioms about 0). \nThere's no need to go to limits or sequences, in other words.",
  "sig": "b4ec39d488c13faee00bdb5c4ac018b9d67a7079199d786a1f6ccefc7aee4987a8f10be8d2a642707a3fc6356b0628499a61451bc538faedec90bec704f879a3"
}