Sort By:
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Mar 8, 2013
You know why that reminds me about the quantium gravity question? Because they can be both classified as divide by zero 'errors'.. Only in the case of QG, the tensor division result was interpreted to mean to approch , -infinate- gravity as the distance to the black hole got smaller and smaller... So, if we do the substitutions that the QG mathameticians did, an "infinite" judgements reward is possible... [Lolz - not bad for a collection of putz's that cant do math well, deliberately.... XD ..... ]
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 28, 2013
@Warlord: You're correct in saying that the result of division by zero is not defined. The jury is therefore recommending a non-existing award.

This is analogous to many sales processes with salesmen selling products that do not exist....
-6 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 28, 2013
And maybe not, in English it would ususally be "22 choose zero". Hm. I should look up translations before posting (it's "over" in German and a few related languages).
-18 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 28, 2013
Oookay, a spoiler.

22 over zero is a binomial coefficient (look it up e.g. on wikipedia, if you like). ANY binomial coefficient "something over zero" is one. So the square root is one, too.

But a number without a unit isn't much use, anyway. Does the jury mean "one dollar"? Or rather a percentage of the sum the other company sued for (one being 100%)?
+13 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 26, 2013
The other day, I was working at my home office translating a patent application that had been made to the USPTO. The application had been made by a major global manufacturer.
At one point, the specification stated that the ratio of two certain values was 0 : 0.3.
I checked the drawings to see what sort of mistake had been made, and the drawings said the same.
0 : 0.3.
I called in my high-school son, who is a whiz at advanced math, and we both stared dumfounded at this piece of "wisdom" that no doubt a patent examiner was also scratching his head over.
Get the new Dilbert app!