,
,
,
,
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 
and 
. Prove that
Let 
be reals such that 
. Prove that
spheres centered at 
,
and 
,
points 
outside of 
as the number of sets 
such that the midpoint of 
lies entirely inside of 
?
where the 
are positive integers such that each 
and none of two consecutive terms when summed are equal to 
.
:o
so 
and since 
is just 
therefore 
so 
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 
,
people, exactly 
such that 
.
lies on diagonal 
such that 
.
.
.
Y by PikaPika999
Convex quadrilateral 
is described on a circle 
, and is not a trapezius inscribed in a circle. Let the tangency points of and 
be 
respectively. A circle with a center 
, different from is tangent to the segement 
and lines 
. A circle with center 
, different from is tangent to segment 
and lines 
. A circle with center 
, different from is tangent to segment 
and lines . A circle with center 
, different from is tangent to segment 
and lines . Prove that the lines 
are concurrent.
is described on a circle 
, and is not a trapezius inscribed in a circle. Let the tangency points of and 
be 
respectively. A circle with a center 
, different from is tangent to the segement 
and lines 
. A circle with center 
, different from is tangent to segment 
and lines 
. A circle with center 
, different from is tangent to segment 
and lines . A circle with center 
, different from is tangent to segment 
and lines . Prove that the lines 
are concurrent.
and 
are homothetical, that is, there is a homothety which sends one into the other. Then lines 
would all pass through the center of homothety.
because both are perpendicular to the angle bisector of angle 
,
.
is perpendicular to the angle bisector of angle formed by 
is the angle bisector of angle formed by 
.
are collinear as all of them lie on the angle bisector of 
.
and 
.![\[
\angle I_KSC=180-\angle I_MSC= 180-\angle PSC=\angle SPC+\angle SCP=\frac{1}{2}(180-(\beta+\gamma))+\gamma=90+\frac{\gamma-\beta}{2}
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/2/f/0/2f0a53dfa8cb06240301eef2f5132d5c56d79930.png)
and![\[
\angle KMC = \angle KNM = 180-(\angle DNM+\angle ANK)=180-\frac{1}{2}(\angle NDM+\angle NAK)=180-\frac{1}{2}(180-\beta+\gamma)=90+\frac{\gamma-\beta}{2}
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/e/8/d/e8d9613bb6a3edbbdf25c33572024622a6f01f92.png)
thus lines 
are parallel.
all lie on the external angle bisector of 
so they're collinear and 
,
.
so pairs of triangles 
and 
are homothetic and we're done.
