How To Divide By Zero

Ever since elementary school, I was always told that you can't divide by zero.  After all, zero designates nonexistence, and you can't divide by nothing.  But as of today, I am convinced otherwise.  As my thoughts wandered a bit at work (as they often do), I wondered if there is some way that zero can be divided by, even if it's some lame excuse.  And believe me, I'm great at lame excuses.  Once I even found two different (and quite lame) ways to justify adding two and two and getting five.  It was in trying to come up with a lame excuse that I found the answer.  It was more a problem of logic than anything.  And it's something we do all the time and just never realize it.

To understand how to divide by zero, one must first understand the absolute basics of what division is.  Division is taking a certain quantity and evenly distributing said quantity to a number of locations.  Simple as that.  Now when one only uses whole numbers and doesn't split any of the components into smaller pieces, one often ends up with remainders.  For example, if you have 42 apples and want to put them evenly into five baskets, each basket would have eight apples with a remainder of two.  Now here's where it gets a little weird.  What if you couldn't find the baskets to put the apples into?  Then 42 apples not split into any baskets (basket quantity = 0), then the per-basket quantity is zero with a remainder of 42.

Now let's put it into somewhat practical use.  Twenty school children at recess want to play a game of football.  It doesn't matter if it's American Football or International Football (Soccer).  They are just going to play some sort of football.  Now don't pick nits.  Anyway, we can assume that there will be two teams, as football (any type) tends to be played.  So we know that, after the teams are chosen, that each team should have ten players.  But what about before the teams are picked?  How many are on each team?  To find out, we take the total number of players (20) and divide it by the number of teams which have players currently allotted to them (0), thus getting the number of players on each team (zero with a remainder of 20, or 0R20).

When dividing a given quantity by zero, the answer will always be zero with a remainder of the quantity to be allotted.  Dividing by zero is the ideal means of calculation when fractions and decimals are inappropriate (whole pieces must be distributed), even distribution is required, and either the source quantity has no destination or the quantity is less than what is needed for the destinations.  For example, four apples divided evenly into five baskets is still zero with a remainder of four.  If the destinations can't fit into the distribution "pool" then they can't exist in said pool (quantity of zero).

Since division is about allocation, then anything which is not allocated must be assumed as being divided by zero.  And since there will always be categories which any item will not fall into, it must be assumed that all things, in one form or another, is divided by zero, until it is actively allotted in one way or another.  Any thing in a normal state of being is divided by zero, and any non-zero division would suggest change.  Therefore, it is not only possible to divide by zero, but it would seem to be the natural order of things.

This moment of mathematical bliss was brought to you by workplace boredom.

You now know how to divide by zero.  Impress your friends.

The Problem With Democracy

I'm just going to come out and say it.  Democracy is a terrible thing to fight for.  WHAT?!?!?  You read it right.  Democracy is one of the worst things anyone can ever fight for.  But wasn't democracy what America's Founders fought for?  Not at all.  Allow me to explain.

The Founders of America weren't tired of monarchy.  They were tired of tyrants like George III.  After being picked on by the ruthless king, they decided that they could rule themselves.  They sought liberty.  There is no indication that the colonists had any idea what type of government they wanted, just that it would be kept in check and out of their lives as much as possible.  There were some who wanted to name George Washington as King of the United States.  Then when one person after the Constitutional Convention asked Benjamin Franklin, "What have you wrought?", the elder statesman replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."  A republic, one type of democracy, was chosen as the best means of protecting freedom.

So what is wrong with fighting for democracy?  Isn't rule of the people the greatest means toward liberty?  Yes.  But that's the problem.  It is a wonderful means, but not an end.  Little good ever comes from a fight for democracy.  Whenever there is a fight for democracy, the goal is normally to overthrow a ruthless dictator.  Then a new leadership is democratically elected.  Unfortunately, blindly overthrowing leadership results in a power vacuum.  Nature may abhor vacuums, but tyrants love them.  Democratic elections are typically nothing more than fashion competitions, with the people deciding which wolf looks the best in their sheep's clothing.  The result is often an even worse tyrant.  How can we forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected?

And now we see an uprising all across the Middle East.  Dictators are falling like dominoes.  And good riddance to them!  But what are they falling in the name of?  Democracy.  This rarely turns out good.  Now consider that the nations with fallen tyrants are of a similar belief system.  Could there be new dictators under one banner, or worse, eventually a unified dictator?  Of all the things that come with greater power, greater benevolence is rarely one of them.  Such is often the result of democracy.

So now we need to make a decision.  Do we continue to support democracy under the false pretense that there might actually be an occasional positive outcome?  Or do we do the right thing and ignore the type of government, so long as the people receive liberty?  That is, of course, we don't lose our own liberty first.