,
,
,
,
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 a function satisfying![\[
f(f(x)) = x^2 - 6x + 6
\quad \text{for all} \quad x \in \mathbb{Z}.
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/8/a/e/8aebed1e260316d675ca7d104d83fabcd8b5717e.png)
Given that![\[
f(i) < f(i+1) \quad \text{for} \quad i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/f/9/9f92574f9fe14e2e30c3e51e194c661fbd4ece07.png)
find the value of![\[
f(0) + f(1) + f(2) + \cdots + f(6).
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/4/0/7/4075d7efa78dda4c46a5cf764fb8852e8c0fb09b.png)
be an acute triangle with incentre 
and 
.
and 
intersect the circumcircle of 
and 
,
and 
such that 
and 
are parallelograms (with 
,
)
be the point of intersection of lines 
and 
.
,
be reals such that 
and 
.
,![\[
\frac{a}{b} + \frac{b}{c} + \frac{c}{a}.
\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/3/2/b/32b41635c159921e11245369e66185ec69b0d785.png)
.
![\[(2+0+2+4)\left((2\cdot2\cdot4)^2-\dfrac{2^2+0^2+2^2+4^2}{2+0+2+4}\right)=2024.\]](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)
:o
so 
and since 
is just 
therefore 
so 
Y by siavosh, Adventure10, Mango247
A quick solution:
Let R be the foot of the perpend. from X to BC. Let's assume Q and R are in the interior of the segms AC and BC (respectively) and P in the ext of AD. P, R, Q are colinear (Simson's thm). PQ tangent to circle XRD iff XRQ=XDR iff Pi-XCA=XDR iff XBA=XDR=XDC=ADB iff XBC+ABC=ADB=DAC+ACB iff XAC+ABC=DAC+ACD iff ABC=ACD=ACB iff AB=AC. It's the same for all the other cases.
Let R be the foot of the perpend. from X to BC. Let's assume Q and R are in the interior of the segms AC and BC (respectively) and P in the ext of AD. P, R, Q are colinear (Simson's thm). PQ tangent to circle XRD iff XRQ=XDR iff Pi-XCA=XDR iff XBA=XDR=XDC=ADB iff XBC+ABC=ADB=DAC+ACB iff XAC+ABC=DAC+ACD iff ABC=ACD=ACB iff AB=AC. It's the same for all the other cases.
be a triangle. 
is a point on the side 
.
meets the circumcircle again at 
.
is the foot of the perpendicular from 
,
is the foot of the perpendicular from 
.
is a tangent to the circle on diameter 
if and only if 
.
![[asy]
/* Geogebra to Asymptote conversion, documentation at artofproblemsolving.com/Wiki, go to User:Azjps/geogebra */
import graph; size(10cm);
real labelscalefactor = 0.5; /* changes label-to-point distance */
pen dps = linewidth(0.7) + fontsize(10); defaultpen(dps); /* default pen style */
pen dotstyle = black; /* point style */
real xmin = -4.603627333234334, xmax = 8.114996713560203, ymin = -2.032092176769243, ymax = 5.503651436984822; /* image dimensions */
/* draw figures */
draw((1.440000000000002,4.780000000000006)--(-1.659228685335962,2.891407519873402));
draw((-1.659228685335962,2.891407519873402)--(3.260000000000003,1.640000000000002));
draw((3.260000000000003,1.640000000000002)--(1.440000000000002,4.780000000000006));
draw(circle((0.8141449736680563,2.319791035692952), 2.538567048955324));
draw((1.440000000000002,4.780000000000006)--(-1.092292214876374,0.6435392920170349));
draw((-2.244684856553164,2.534645165537919)--(-1.092292214876374,0.6435392920170349));
draw((-1.092292214876374,0.6435392920170349)--(2.597840944535727,2.782406282504303));
draw((3.260000000000003,1.640000000000002)--(2.597840944535727,2.782406282504303));
draw((-1.092292214876374,0.6435392920170349)--(-0.5896709572115705,2.619321656513676));
draw(circle((-0.5351462559143464,1.553628717842023), 1.067086867404043));
draw((-2.244684856553164,2.534645165537919)--(2.597840944535727,2.782406282504303));
draw((-1.659228685335962,2.891407519873402)--(-2.244684856553164,2.534645165537919));
/* dots and labels */
dot((1.440000000000002,4.780000000000006),dotstyle);
label("$A$", (1.500654065679991,4.878415067284703), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((3.260000000000003,1.640000000000002),dotstyle);
label("$C$", (3.327002408751392,1.735779630107790), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((-1.659228685335962,2.891407519873402),dotstyle);
label("$B$", (-1.592620605467969,2.986252369508027), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((0.02199970304768386,2.463718143667010),dotstyle);
label("$D$", (0.08564543951656240,2.558459063923735), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((1.440000000000002,4.780000000000006),dotstyle);
dot((-1.092292214876374,0.6435392920170349),dotstyle);
label("$X$", (-1.033198590473125,0.7485643095286542), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((-2.244684856553164,2.534645165537919),dotstyle);
label("$Q$", (-2.184949797815450,2.640727007305330), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((2.597840944535727,2.782406282504303),dotstyle);
label("$P$", (2.668858861698635,2.887530837450114), NE * labelscalefactor);
dot((-0.5896709572115705,2.619321656513676),dotstyle);
label("$R$", (-0.5231373415072381,2.722994950686925), NE * labelscalefactor);
clip((xmin,ymin)--(xmin,ymax)--(xmax,ymax)--(xmax,ymin)--cycle);
/* end of picture */[/asy]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/4/c/a/4caaa50bab3bb935dcc21b861b31f2c8c0036c66.png)
on 
First, note that 
are collinear because they all lie on the Simson line of 
is tangent to 
iff 
However, note that 
Also, since 
and 
quadrilateral 
is cyclic, so 
Again, from cyclic quadrilateral 
we deduce that![\[\angle QBX = 180^{\circ} - \angle ABX = \angle ACX = \angle BCA + \angle BCX = \angle BCA + \angle BAD.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/0/f/4/0f456b24bceec454208ab796e4a72d6be9b56b86.png)
Hence, we need 
as desired. 
,
.
with 
as 
.
is tangent to 
,
.
,
lie on the Simson Line, 
at 
must hold. Note that 
,
.
,
,
is cyclic, 
.
,
.
is cyclic, 
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
