quarantine 'em

Division is multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. There is nothing else that it can be. To pretend that there's wiggle room/ambiguity here is unhelpful shading to ludicrous

math is about formal systems. the post cites at least two other variants that do something else useful with division by 0. it makes the case for why 1/0=0 is useful in some scenarios. why the mockery?

In a field, division is multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. You can redefine "division" to mean something else if you like but you're probably either no longer working in a field or no longer speaking conventional mathematical English

absolutely, the post is rather clear on that point- and leaving behind "conventional mathematical English" is a fairly common thing to do but also, to be fair, this is less a redefinition and more an extension

I'm okay with accepting that we're not working in a field anymore, we're programming. IEEE 754 defines division, particularly division by 0 in a very consistent, useful way But then why all the distracting lies about fields, why mention them at all

because they're not lies! all the proofs still work- 1/0=0 just defines *strictly more* things the 0^0 comparison in one of the quotes is a very apt analogy

"The field definition does not include division, nor do our definitions of addition or multiplication. This means we are free to define division however we want" is a lie

nope the post goes into this- division is *conventionally* multiplication by the inverse, but that's extra. and note that, when the inverse exists, that's still true here anyway. but at this point you're just arguing tangential trivialities