Re: [Dev-C++] How connect c++ to a database?

[Alfred P. R. <al...@ya...>]

That's all in the calculus, and the concept of limits.
   
  In reality, think about what the zero operation means with respect to physics and quantum mechanics.  As long as you deal with limits, the conventional wisdom applies.  But at 0, things reach a boundary condition.   This is illustrated by the Dirac Delta Function
   
  First, for edification, let's address the identity: 1/(infinity) = 0, on a common object, an orange.  This orange, when divided, will eventually reach a slice which can't be further divided and still give you an orange slice.  That last slice, though of a molecular thickness, is still the last slice.  If you divide it further, you're not dealing with an orange anymore, rather you are dealing with constituent atoms and molecules.  So you don't get an infinite number of orange slices, rather you get a finite though large number of slices.
   
  So what happens when you actually divide by 0?  Physically, IMHO, you do not preform the operation.  The physical operation 0 is a null operation (as in addition and subtraction).  The logic is that if you try to divide an orange 0 times, you actually don't divide the orange by anything, i.e. 1/0 = 1 (with respect to physical objects).  However, the identity 1*0 = 0 still works because as you're not preforming the multiplication (0 is the null operator, hence no operation), therefore the sum of additions which make a multiplication isn't done, so the result is 0.
   
  This must be the reason why general relativity and quantum mechanics don't meet...;^)

Per Westermark <pw...@ia...> wrote:
  Why do you say that x/0 approximates to infinity?

x/0 approaches infinity if x gets closer and closer to zero from the
positive side.

It approaches -infinity if x gets closer and closer to zero from the
negative side.

Since limes x/0 -> infinity or -infinity depending on direction of
x->0, is x/0 infinity, negative infinity or something completely else -
the grand inconsistency you where thinking about :)

/Per W

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, lordSauron wrote:

> suppose I have a nonzero number x. x==x, right? so, x/0 should be
> precisely equal to itself, no? We don't know what it is, true, since
> it approximates to infinity, however, it should be the same unless I'm
> hitting some grand inconsistency no one has yet told me about.




Alfred P. Reaud