AoPS Academy
, 
,
, 
, why 
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.. It is usually regarded that 
, not because this works numerically but because it is convenient to define it this way. You will see the convenience of defining other undefined things later on in this post.? The issue here is that 
isn't even rigorously defined in this expression. What exactly do we mean by ? Unless the example in question is put in context in a formal manner, then we say that is meaningless.? Suppose that 
. Then we would have 
, absurd. A more rigorous treatment of the idea is that 
does not exist in the first place, although you will see why in a calculus course. So the point is that is undefined.
? An article from brilliant has a good explanation. Alternatively, you can just use a geometric series. Notice that
? Usually this is considered to be an indeterminate form, but I would also wager that this is also undefined.
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 is an indeterminate form.
, 
or , obtained by applying the algebraic limit theorem (a theorem in analysis, look this up for details) in the process of attempting to determine a limit, which fails to restrict that limit to one specific value or infinity, and thus does not determine the limit being calculated. This is why it is called indeterminate. Some examples of indeterminate forms are![\[0/0, \infty/\infty, \infty-\infty, \infty \times 0\]](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 
. On the other hand, 
is undefined because dividing by is not defined in arithmetic by definition. In other words, something is undefined when it is not defined in some mathematical context. is considered both indeterminate and undefined (but in the context of a limit then it is considered in indeterminate form). Additionally, this notion of something being undefined also means that we can define it in some way. To rephrase, this means that technically, we can make something that is undefined to something that is defined as long as we define it. I'll show you what I mean.![\[\overline{\mathbb{R}}=\mathbb{R}\cup \{-\infty,+\infty\}.\]](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 it is perfectly OK to say that,![\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 is undefined still! Is there a place where it isn't? Kind of. To do this, we can extend the complex numbers! More formally, we can define this extension as![\[\mathbb{C}^*=\mathbb{C}\cup\{\tilde{\infty}\}\]](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 is allowed here! In fact, we have![\[\frac{z}{0}=\tilde{\infty},\frac{z}{\tilde{\infty}}=0.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/6/0/160cb939707708ff4e0930724df2928af11d7fd1.png)
where 
and are left undefined. We also have
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 , by defining them as![\[{\widehat {\mathbb {R} }}=\mathbb {R} \cup \{\infty \}.\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/c/0/4/c044ff37849acad3b8b280b9753539225a1276ca.png)
They behave in a similar way to the Riemann Sphere, with division by also being allowed with the same indeterminate forms (in addition to some other ones).
, 
, 
define 
to be the semiperimeter of 
. Let 
be a triangle and let 
be on side 
such that![\[\frac{s(ABD)}{BD}=\frac{s(ACD)}{CD}\]](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/9/4/f/94f0bcb2cf847452d6e6197d5bb9b6f0ffd72f6d.png)
Let 
be a point on 
. Let 
and 
be on 
and 
such that 
and 
. Prove that there exists a line 
parallel to such that the circumcircles of 
and 
intersect at two fixed points.
such that 
and 
are coprime if and only if 
?
be a positive integer. Suppose given any real 
with decimal representation 
, one can color the digits 
with colors so that the following hold:
except those of this color, the resulting decimal number is rational.. be a positive integer. Consider a 
array of square unit cells. Two corner cells that lie on the same longest diagonal are colored black, and the rest of the array is white. A move consists of choosing a row or a column and changing the color of every cell in the chosen row or column.
and 
are numbers that work, but 
and 
don't work.)
be the expected number of flips to get HTT after getting an H. = (case TT) 1/3 * 1/3 * 2 + (case TH) 1/3 * 2/3 * (+2) + (case H) 2/3 * (+1)= 12) + (case T) 1/3*(1+E)![$\sqrt[2]{2}$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/8/6/1869ac018fb72a26a12ab14499cbf1b1c13b4a10.png)
, ![$\sqrt[3]{3}$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/1/7/a/17a6bb5dc11696b8650b6d3a11e770f861f4c326.png)
, and ![$\sqrt[5]{5}$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/a/b/9/ab90f2d42dc24065e2a64988fe76f22eb9359799.png)
.
such that: 
. Find the maximum: 
such that: . Find the maximum: 
such that: . Find the maximum: 
so we only need to study the inequality for negative numbers and the function is convex for 
.
and the maximum value is equal to 
.
so we only need to study the inequality for negative numbers and the function is convex for .
, we get:
Therefore, it is enough to study the function for 
. But the function 
is convex for 
with convex constraints, so it is enough to check the borders where we get a maximum at equal to .
, we get:Therefore, it is enough to study the function for . But the function is convex for with convex constraints, so it is enough to check the borders where we get a maximum at equal to .
we obtain a greater value. Why don't we get a greater value with a condition 
?
we obtain a greater value. Why don't we get a greater value with a condition ? as it does not verify the condition !!!! I know you are a very smart guy 
, but not sure what do you mean with your suggestion.
be real numbers such as 
and . Prove that:
we obtain a greater value. Why don't we get a greater value with a condition ? as it does not verify the condition !!!!
is convex on ![$[-2,0]$](http://latex.artofproblemsolving.com/5/5/a/55a2deada78acc1831c348210e10b1e6a6ede5a9.png)
and without condition you can get a maximal value by checking 
.? If for any you'll obtain that the condition indeed occurs, so your reasoning is true. Otherwise, your reasoning is total wrong, I think.
is convex on and without condition you can get a maximal value by checking .? If for any you'll obtain that the condition indeed occurs, so your reasoning is true. Otherwise, your reasoning is total wrong, I think. is essential to finding not just the border conditions. Check my example:
and 
.. But the function is convex for with convex constraints, so it is enough to check the borders where we get a maximum at equal to .
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 
.
,
lies on diagonal 
.
.
has 
,
,
.
.
Prove that