,
,
,
,
or even expressions of those terms combined as if that would make them defined. I have made this post to answer these questions once and for all, and I politely ask everyone to link this post to threads that are talking about this issue.
,
isn't even rigorously defined in this expression. What exactly do we mean by 
.
,
does not exist in the first place, although you will see why in a calculus course. So the point is that 
?
indeterminate? In analysis (the theory behind calculus and beyond), limits involving an algebraic combination of functions in an independent variable may often be evaluated by replacing these functions by their limits. However, if the expression obtained after this substitution does not provide sufficient information to determine the original limit, then the expression is called an indeterminate form. For example, we could say that 
,
or ![\[0/0, \infty/\infty, \infty-\infty, \infty \times 0\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/2/6/0/260f97a1cf1ea8722ff97a29b83bac7bfe83e577.png)
etc etc. So what makes something undefined? In the broader scope, something being undefined refers to an expression which is not assigned an interpretation or a value. A function is said to be undefined for points outside its domain. For example, the function 
given by the mapping 
is undefined for 
.
is undefined because dividing by ![\[\overline{\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}\cup \{-\infty,+\infty\}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/9/3/993c78b62ec2c84b5d77daa8e9a8cd6f70fcf904.png)
So instead of treating infinity as an idea, we define infinity (positively and negatively, mind you) as actual numbers in the reals. The advantage of doing this is for two reasons. The first is because we can turn this thing into a totally ordered set. Specifically, we can let 
for each 
which means that via this order topology each subset has an infimum and supremum and 
is therefore compact. While this is nice from an analytic standpoint, extending the reals in this way can allow for interesting arithmetic! In ![\begin{align*}
a + \infty = \infty + a & = \infty, & a & \neq -\infty \\
a - \infty = -\infty + a & = -\infty, & a & \neq \infty \\
a \cdot (\pm\infty) = \pm\infty \cdot a & = \pm\infty, & a & \in (0, +\infty] \\
a \cdot (\pm\infty) = \pm\infty \cdot a & = \mp\infty, & a & \in [-\infty, 0) \\
\frac{a}{\pm\infty} & = 0, & a & \in \mathbb{R} \\
\frac{\pm\infty}{a} & = \pm\infty, & a & \in (0, +\infty) \\
\frac{\pm\infty}{a} & = \mp\infty, & a & \in (-\infty, 0).
\end{align*}](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/6/d/8/6d8fc1eca5c791d430a7168cd3b37a02104fa318.png)
So addition, multiplication, and division are all defined nicely. However, notice that we have some indeterminate forms here which are also undefined,![\[\infty-\infty,\frac{\pm\infty}{\pm\infty},\frac{\pm\infty}{0},0\cdot \pm\infty.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/0/b/a0b67076efcc014c78b2023be1151c84b57c1503.png)
So while we define certain things, we also left others undefined/indeterminate in the process! However, in the context of measure theory it is common to define 
as greenturtle3141 noted below. I encourage to reread what he wrote, it's great stuff! As you may notice, though, dividing by ![\[\mathbb{C}^*=\mathbb{C}\cup\{\tilde{\infty}\}\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/4/e/84ed3d6ab237df970333b87beaef5311caa46185.png)
which we call the Riemann Sphere (it actually forms a sphere, pretty cool right?). As a note, 
means complex infinity, since we are in the complex plane now. Here's the catch: division by ![\[\frac{z}{0}=\tilde{\infty},\frac{z}{\tilde{\infty}}=0.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/6/0/160cb939707708ff4e0930724df2928af11d7fd1.png)
where 
and 
Furthermore, we actually have some nice properties with multiplication that we didn't have before. In 
it holds that![\[\tilde{\infty}\times \tilde{\infty}=\tilde{\infty}\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/e/0/8e035b4841d20c5ad671c46355cc667ca01e533b.png)
but 
and 
are left as undefined (unless there is an explicit need to change that somehow). One could define the projectively extended reals as we did with ![\[{\widehat {\mathbb {R} }}=\mathbb {R} \cup \{\infty \}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/c/0/4/c044ff37849acad3b8b280b9753539225a1276ca.png)
They behave in a similar way to the Riemann Sphere, with division by 
such that every collection of 
.
on one side and a 
on the other. Harry has 
of these coins arranged in a line from left to right. He repeatedly performs the following operation: if there are exactly 
coins showing 
the process starting with the configuration 
would be 
,
,
be the number of operations before Harry stops. For example, 
and 
.
possible initial configurations 
be the foot of the altitude from the vertex 
in the acute-angled 
.
,
be the circumcentre of 
meets line 
at 
,
board where we identify the squares with pairs 
where 
and 
denote the row and column number of that square, respectively.
and places a pawn at the bottom left corner (i.e. on 
)
or 
if 
and 
if 
that Calvin could have picked such that he can make moves so that the pawn covers all the squares on the board without being on any square twice.
has how many digits?
and 
intersect at the point 
?
,
.
are chosen from 0 to 1. What is the probability that their positive difference is more than 
?
?
families, there are 
children respectively. If a random child from any of the families is chosen, what is the probability that the child has 
siblings? Express your answer as a common fraction.[/quote]
,
people, exactly 
such that 
.
,
such that 
.
.
has 
,
,
.
.
and the distance between 
and 
is 
Point 
such that 
What is 
and 
is the circumcenter of 
If 
what is 
,![\[ \textbf{(A)}\ 24 \qquad
\textbf{(B)}\ 30 \qquad
\textbf{(C)}\ 46 \qquad
\textbf{(D)}\ 66 \qquad
\textbf{(E)}\ 74
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/2/f/82ffc15072ca99f6cd1abc312781eb4827817356.png)
Y by MathLuis, mpcnotnpc, JollyEggsBanana, Rounak_iitr
Let 
be a triangle with incenter 
, and let 
be a point on side 
. Points 
and 
are chosen on lines 
and 
respectively such that 
is a parallelogram. Points 
and 
are chosen on side such that 
and 
are the angle bisectors of angles 
and 
respectively. Let 
be the circle tangent to segment 
, the extension of 
past , and the extension of 
past . Prove that is tangent to the circumcircle of triangle .
be a triangle with incenter 
, and let 
be a point on side 
. Points 
and 
are chosen on lines 
and 
respectively such that 
is a parallelogram. Points 
and 
are chosen on side such that 
and 
are the angle bisectors of angles 
and 
respectively. Let 
be the circle tangent to segment 
, the extension of 
past , and the extension of 
past . Prove that is tangent to the circumcircle of triangle .
and 
,
be midpoint of arc 
on 
,
be 
respectively now let reflection of 
over 
and reflection of 
over 
.
and 
are diameters on 
respectively, now let 
be the 
excenters of 
which implies 
cyclic and similarily 
is cyclic however since 
we also get that 
is cyclic and similarily 
is cyclic, however it doesn't end here...
so 
on 
however 
are symetric in 
are reflections of 
over 
are colinear, and similarily 
are colinear.
which means 
is cyclic and similarily we have 
cyclic, but also note that 
which means that 
are colinear.
which does in fact show that 
is isosceles and therefore 
,
,
where 
(clearly then 
is A-excenter of 
)
which means that 
is cyclic but by summing arcs we end up realising 
is diameter and in fact now this means 
is 
be the miquelpoint of 
then 
colinear and then Reim's twice gives 
and from double Reim's once again we have that 
and this is excellent news because now we can note that 
which shows that 
are tangent at 
and 
.
and 
be the projections of 
be the projections of 
be the tangency point of 
-
is tangent to 
is a parallelogram, by projecting onto 
.
Simplifying yields 
,
But 
With Thales' Theorem, 
so 
thus getting 
and the conclusion follows.
are in centres, 
meets 
in 
and tha
.
