trader_4 explained on 7/4/2016 :
On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 2:51:26 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
After serious thinking trader_4 wrote :
On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 11:40:02 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:


See, this is why you're the village idiot. V = IR. Just because I is
zero, that doesn't make R zero. You really should have taken basic
algebra.

Of course not, current and resistance are *inversely proportional* when
voltage is held invariant. The extremes would be zero and infinity.


Irrelevant. Put zero in for I, you get V = 0. Again, please take a course
in algebra.

Ohm's law is a formula. As such I should be able to 'plug in' two
values for two of the variables and obtain the third by using one of
the other two equations.

You are now giving me V=0 and I=0 so now I should be able to determine
what the resistance is. The formula (using algebra) can be manipulated
to R=V/I for this purpose and then that equation solved for R. If I is
zero, it doesn't work.


You can't use the formula when it requires dividing by zero. There is
no need to divide by zero to solve for V when I is zero. Capiche?
You just insist on trying to force division by zero, when it's not
required. Go back to the apples example.



Ohm's Law works for 'voltage drop' because 'voltage drop' *requires*
that there be (non-zero) current through a (non-zero) resistance. This
is the original point which started this discussion.

Ohm's law requires no such thing. Ohn's law is a straight line and it
goes right through the origin. Did you plot it yet? I mean this is
incredibly dumb. Simple electricity 101 test question:

You have a 100 ohm resistor. Per Ohm's law, what is the voltage with:

A - 1 amp flowing
B - 20 amps flowing
C - 0 amps flowing

Everyone else that has weighed in on this knows the correct answers are
100 volts, 2000 volts, 0 volts. You're the only dummy who says we
don't know what the voltage is in case C.

You're lucky to have so many imaginary friends, I only had one and that
was a long time ago.

Again, you are trying to force division by zero, when no division by
zero is needed. V = IR, it's all multiplication.

Except by the *formula* for Ohm's law it can be stated that I and R are
inversely proportional for any given V. So, as 'I' goes toward zero 'R'
goes toward infinity. If 'I' *is* zero then 'R' *is* infinity and you
are attempting to multiply zero by infinity to get a non-non-zero 'V'.


Try taking algebra and electricity 101 and get back to us

This is like saying I have groups of apples in threes. If I select
X groups, how many apples do I then have in total.

T = N x 3 5 groups I have 15 apples total

You just pulled an 'N' and a 'T' out of your hat, and what happened to
'X'? Oh, I see, it shrunk and became a little 'x'. Are you trying to
come up with 3.141592 . . .?

Maybe you need an apple puree formula?


That's why you're the village idiot. Everyone else saw what I meant.


How many apples do I have with N=0? Equation gives 0, a valid number.

Of course, but you might have zero groups of 528 apples or zero groups
of 498745 apples or zero groups any number of apples to get the same
total number of apples. An equation makes no claims of the
relationships between the values.

Your answer, "You can't do that because you could transform that
equation into:

T/N = 3.

And OMG we're dividing by Zero!

I thought 'N' was five.

Maybe you need a nap?


You need to take HS algebra.


The number of apples per group and the number of groups of apples and
the number of total apples in your example are not claiming to be a
formula, so the relationships between them is not important.


T = N x 3 most certainly is a formula. It gives the total number
of apples. Again, you're really lost here.


If on the other hand you claim that the number of apples per group is
inversely proportional to the number of groups of apples for any given
number of total apples then yes, because it is a formula when the
relationships are considered.

Why are you allowing me to troll you like this, are you some kind of
mathochist?

Good to see you admit you're a troll.

You're very rude to people here, so I thought you would like some
competition. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


I'm only rude to assholes like you that can't do basic algebra
and then lecture the rest of us, who can.

I'll test your theory tomorrow. I don't know exactly how far away work
is, but I do know that if I travel at a rate of a mile a minute I can
time myself and derive the distance using D=RT as an equation.

Better yet, to save gas, I will get in my truck in the driveway and
won't even start it. My rate will be zero and you say that the time
doesn't matter and the distance becomes zero.

When my neighbor gets upset about his cornfield suddenly becoming a
parking lot and his house being demolished by a factory landing on it,
I will tell him that some idiot on USENET convinced me to do it as an
experiment.

I'm putting *my* money on the time being infinite when the rate is zero
and my workplace staying right where it is because of D=RT being a
formula. It's a good thing too, because we're not zoned for industry up
here.

I'm sure my boss will forgive me for not working tomorrow when I
explain that the alternative was to have his factory dropped on a
farmhouse and a cornfield in a non-industrial zone.

If you are correct, it should make the evening news, so have someone
read the newspaper to you - or just look at the photos that are likely
to accompany the story. Everybody has a camera these days.