Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

$$ \begin{align} \frac00 &= \frac{x^2-x^2}{x^2-x^2}\\ &= \frac{(x-x)(x+x)}{x(x-x)}\\ &= \frac{x+x}x\\ &= 2 \end{align} $$
Thus $\frac00=2$

How do I explain this fallacy?

share|cite|improve this question
There is no reason to believe that dividing zero by itself will give a meaningful answer. – Cameron Williams Aug 19 '13 at 5:02
That is why I said fallacy.. – gpuguy Aug 19 '13 at 5:07
Dividing by zero doesn't mean anything, it isn't defined. Dividing by a number is defined as multiplying with its multiplicative inverse, but zero doesn't have a multiplicative inverse. Therefore if you wanted to say anything about 0/0 you would fist have to define what you mean by that. – Vincent Pfenninger Aug 19 '13 at 5:23

You can't cancel $(x-x)$ factor in your third step as that would mean you are assuming $\dfrac{0}{0}=1$ in the first place.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. Can you give basic laws of mathematics in support of your argument. – gpuguy Aug 19 '13 at 5:12
@gpuguy "Given multiplication, define $a/b$ to be the unique value $y$ for which $b\cdot y=a$. Since no such $y$ exists when $a\neq 0$ and $b=0$, and since $y$ is not unique when $a=0$ and $b=0$, it is left undefined in these cases." So, here, it's a matter of definition. – NeuroFuzzy Aug 19 '13 at 5:46

Argument 1 :

zero/ zero itself is indeterminate . you cannot perform operations to it . I will tell why it is indeterminate then we can understand why we cannot operate on that

Try $x^2/x$ or $x/x^2$, as x goes to 0. In both cases, you have 0/0, but the first limit is 0 and the second is infinite. so this results in ambiguity , so your opration

$$\frac{0}{0} = \frac{x^2 - x^2}{x^2 - x^2}$$

you have assumed that 0/0 is 1

, which itself is wrong so whatever we prove with the wrong assumption is also wrong .

Argument 2:

You cannot cancel 0's or terms that give zeros .If that is possible then any number is equal to any number

$$ 0 = 0 $$ $$ 0 \times 2 = 0 \times 3 $$ cancel zero on both sides $$ 2 = 3 $$ This by itself will support why we should not cancel zero's. If you cancel it means you assumed the indeterminate 0/0 is equal to 1 , which is wrong as I proved in argument 1 .

share|cite|improve this answer

If in a fraction, both numerator and denominator have a non-zero common factor, say $a$, then technically we're not just cancelling $a$ out, we are replacing $\frac aa$ by 1, because if we divide $a$ by $a$ in long division format. we would be looking for a multiple of $a$ which would give back $a$, so we choose 1.

But in case, we are diving $(x-x)$ by $(x-x)$ in long division format, we try to look for a multiple of $(x-x)$ which gives back $(x-x)$. Now this multiple is not just $1$, it can be $2$ $((x-x)*2=0*2=0=(x-x))$, or it can be $10$ or $2000$ or anything. That's why $\frac{x-x}{x-x}$ has many answers, in short, it's indeterminate or undefined. Hence the fallacy.

share|cite|improve this answer

A good way to think of this is by looking at the equation, 0/0 = x. Multiply both sides to obtain 0x = 0. This equation is satisfied by all real numbers, and 2 is contained within the set of real numbers, so the proof's conclusion was not incorrect. It's just that one could use a similar proof to prove that 0/0 equals any other real number.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.