,
,
,
,
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 
be an acute triangle and 
its orthocenter. Let 
be a point on the parallel through 
to 
such that 
.
and 
as points on the parallels through 
to 
and through 
to 
similarly. If 
are positioned around the sides of 
,
it's circumcenter. Let 
and 
the intersection of the circumcircle of 
,
is the reflection of 
the midpoint of 
,
and the parallel through 
,
and the perpendicular through 
and 
a point on 
,
is the midpoint of 
.
lie on a line.
is inscribed in a circle 
.
— the circle inscribed in a segment 
circle of 
— the centers of circles 
and 
are parallel.
be cyclic quadrilateral. Let 
intersect at 
intersect at 
.
.
with the diagonals of 
and 
are tangent at a fixed point.
However, I quickly saw that 
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 
.
lies on diagonal 
.
.
has 
,
,
.
.
Y by Adventure10, Mango247
Find the greatest positive integer 
, such that one of the 
letters 
can be placed in each cell of a table with rows and 
columns, and has the following property: For any two distinct rows in the table, there exists at most one column, such that the entries of these two rows in such a column are the same letter.
, such that one of the 
letters 
can be placed in each cell of a table with rows and 
columns, and has the following property: For any two distinct rows in the table, there exists at most one column, such that the entries of these two rows in such a column are the same letter.
.
be the number of letters 
,
and 
.
and similarly for 
.
,
.
.
yields
.
.
.
,
,
and 
are the numbers of 
and 
column respectively.
we have: 
connect with 
,
column. Then the degree 
of each pair is at
:
By double counting we have
and thus 
then 
and thus, by 
we have 
and we have a contradiction.
then 
and thus, by 
and we have a contradiction.
and a configuration for 
is not difficult to find.
pairs in 
we have at most 
pairs.
,
,
be the number of squares containing 
in column 
.
implies that there exists a pair that collides at more than one column by pigeonhole. Similarly, if 
means it is impossible by pigeonhole as well. This condition is not broken at 
