,
,
,
,
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 
with 
,
intersects the extension of 
at point 
.
is the midpoint of 
,
intersects the circumcircle of 
.
.
be positive real numbers such that 
.![\[ \frac{a_{1} a_{2} \cdots a_{n} \left[ 1 - (a_{1} + a_{2} + \cdots + a_{n}) \right] }{(a_{1} + a_{2} + \cdots + a_{n})( 1 - a_{1})(1 - a_{2}) \cdots (1 - a_{n})} \leq \frac{1}{ n^{n+1}}. \]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/6/5/5/65558feba82e32266d3d3cbdfea85e079483403f.png)
has how many digits?
with integer coefficients such that for all positive number 
and prime 
satisfying 
,
.
and 
.
.
have the digit 
and are divisible by 
?
![\[(2+0+2+4)\left((2\cdot2\cdot4)^2-\dfrac{2^2+0^2+2^2+4^2}{2+0+2+4}\right)=2024.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/0/7/0074cd2c9c2f8327db52e113ef2beefe98ceca90.png)
![\[(2+0+2+4)(2\cdot2\cdot4)^2-\left(2^2+0^2+2^2+4^2\right)=2024.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/d/5/4/d54152fae9e6e259dc464dbef3ed39272eb9e599.png)
Y by
The angle bisector of 
of triangle 
(
) cuts the circumcircle of that triangle in 
. The foot of the perpendicular from to 
is 
, and 
is the midpoint of 
. The line through parallel to 
cuts line 
in 
. Prove that the line 
passes through the midpoint of 
.
of triangle 
(
) cuts the circumcircle of that triangle in 
. The foot of the perpendicular from to 
is 
, and 
is the midpoint of 
. The line through parallel to 
cuts line 
in 
. Prove that the line 
passes through the midpoint of 
.This post has been edited 1 time. Last edited by Steve12345, Aug 10, 2020, 3:50 PM
Reason: (mistake AB not BC)
Reason: (mistake AB not BC)
be the midpoint of 
be the foot of 
.
is just the Simson line of 
with respect to 
.
is cyclic, 
and similarly 
,
we have 
.
,
,
is the midline of 
and thus must be parallel to 
be the midpoint of 
.
are collinear by Simsons line. By easy angle chasing we get 
and thus since 
we get 
are collinear too, hence proving the claim.
.
and 
.
. Now let 
.
cyclic we're done.
.
, 
, 
, 
and finally 
