"The field definition does *not* include division. This means we are free to define division however we want" is one of the stupider things I've read todayhttps://www.hillelwayne.com/post/divide-by-zero/ …
In a field, division is always multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. This is universally understood and unambiguous
-
-
> when the inverse exists, that's still true here anyway if it makes you happy, pick different words and the point remains
-
If this person picked different words I'd be infinitely happier. Call it "smivision" and use a double solidus, that would be 100% fine. But don't just randomly redefine known terms
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.