#zero-divisor

[boccher]

I love when freshly "adult" 30somethingyearolds esp teachers hop on social media to complain about the "behavioral crisis" among our children without making a single mention of the ongoing degradation of childrens rights in law zero freedom of movement enforced by cps zero privacy in their own home practically being treated as property. the single-generation nuclear family being further enforced as a power hierarchy and class divisor -Then these adults theyll just say shit like "its bigger than the pandemic its because those gen X parents were too lax on em we need to ban they phones and they tiktoks" like oohh man you dont actually care about children's advocacy you just lusted for the systemic power your father had over you. and the kids can tell they aint gonna try to respect you

[rbrooksdesign]

"tDMT-#8" digital, Sept. 2024, Reginald Brooks

The original DMT (Divisor Matrix Table) reveals ALL natural numbers and their divisors.

The Mp-PNs are the rarest gems of the Primes!

So why think of entanglement: time, temperature and entropy? Here is my take:

BF1 schematic

|||||||||| ||||||||

|||| ||||

|| ||

| |

|

The Butterfly Fractal 1 (BF1) that heads up Row 1 of the DMT or tDMT is: 1--2--4--8--16---...

Starting with 1: zero time, temp and entropy (disorder)

Next, this doubles to 2: the clock starts (time) and the first temp. begins, as does slightly less order -- as we now have 3, the original 1 + 2 = Running Sum (∑).

Double that to give 4: the clock moves even more, a little faster to give more temp and, again, even more disorder than before -- as ∑=1+2+4=7.

Double that to give 8: now we are ticking, heating up, and the entropic disorder is increasing -- as ∑=1+2+4+8=15.

Double that to give 16: faster clock, greater temp. and entropy -- as ∑=1+2+4+8+16=31, and so on.

As the SpaceTime (ST) pulses into-out of--into--out of existence -- with each pulse generated by the BF1 pulse sequence -- a rhythmic beat of formation, dissolution, formation dissolution starts the clock, heat build (reflecting the energy born) and it goes from the perfect order of 1 to lesser 2 to lesser 4 to lesser 8, 16,...

The BF1 is a fractal as it both expands, interconnects and becomes entangled with other pulse-propagating STs forming, and, within itself, it contains the same BF1 fractal pattern and infinite number of times. One can see this in the above BF1 schematic -- the original 1-2-4-8... pattern is repeated twice on the second line up from the bottom with each | now informing the lines above it in the same fractal sequence of 1-2-4-8. On the third line up from the bottom, the fractal is repeated four times. On the fourth, it is repeated 8 times -- one for each |.

Each bit of ST pulse-propagates at a frequency that represents its energy signature and all is within the Conservation Laws of (mass), momentum, charge, energy and, of course, ST.

The entanglement -- the quantum entanglement -- is at the heart of the Conservation Laws.

I believe this jives with Einstein's comment that the perception of a past, present and future is an illusion completely dependent upon one's particular and relative point of observation within the overall pulse-propagation of ST.

Interactive DMT and tDMT for TES (Teachers, Educators and Students) ---here.

[informatikerin-freyja]

Just a few notes on polynomials. A complex polynomial p(x) has a root α of multiplicity k if and only if we can write p(x) = (x - α)^k q(x) where q(α) is nonzero. Differentiating this we get p'(x) = (x - α)^(k-1) (k q(x) + (x - α)q'(x)) showing that (x - α)^(k-1) divides \gcd(p(x), p'(x)). Now k q(α) is non-zero and (α - α)q'(α) is zero, so we see that the "multiplicity" of α goes down by one in p'(x), potentially hitting zero in which case it is no longer a root. Thus, p(x) has a repeated root if and only if it has a common root with p'(x).

Writing p(x) = \prod_{i=1}^{m} (x - α_i)^(k_i) with each α_i distinct it follows from the above analysis that \gcd(p(x), p'(x)) = \prod_{i=1}^{m} (x - α_i)^(k_i - 1). Hence, \deg \gcd(p(x), p'(x)) = \sum_{i=1}^{m} (k_i - 1) = \sum_{i} k_i - m = \deg(p(x)) - m. As m is the number of distinct roots, we then see that letting dis(p(x)) be the number of distinct roots we get

deg(gcd(p(x), p'(x))) = deg(p(x)) - dis(p(x)).

Suppose now that we have p + q = r for some non-constant polynomials which are coprime. It follows that

p'(x) q(x) - p(x) q'(x) = p'(x) (r(x) - p(x)) - p(x) (r'(x) - p'(x)) = p'(x) r(x) - p'(x) p(x) - p(x) r'(x) + p(x) p'(x) = p'(x) r(x) - p(x) r'(x)

Assuming for the sake of contradiction that p'(x) q(x) - p(x) q'(x) = 0 then it would follow that p'(x) q(x) = p(x) q'(x). Given that p(x) and q(x) are coprime this forces q(x) to divide q'(x) which is impossible by considering their degrees (because q(x) is non-constant it cannot divide its derivative). Thus, p'(x) q(x) - p(x) q'(x) is non-zero.

So \gcd(p(x), p'(x)) divides p'(x) q(x) - p(x) q'(x) and \gcd(q(x), q\(x)) divides p'(x) q(x) - p(x) q'(x) and \gcd(r(x), r'(x))) divides p'(x) r(x) - p(x) r'(x) which is the same thing. As our polynomials are coprime so two are these GCDs meaning that \gcd(p(x), p'(x)) \gcd(q(x), q'(x)) \gcd(r(x), r'(x)) divides p'(x) q(x) - p(x) q'(x). This means that \deg \gcd(p(x), p'(x)) + \deg \gcd(q(x), q'(x)) + \deg \gcd(r(x), r'(x)) \le \deg(p'(x) q(x) + p(x) q'(x)) = \deg p(x) + \deg q(x) - 1 Now we can apply our earlier considerations on the degrees of such greatest common divisors to find that \deg \gcd(p(x), p'(x)) = \deg p(x) - \dis p(x) \deg \gcd(q(x), q'(x)) = \deg q(x) - \dis q(x) \deg \gcd(r(x), r'(x)) = \deg r(x) - \dis r(x) So plopping that all together, we have \max( \deg r(x), \deg p(x), \deg q(x) ) \le \dis p(x) + \dis q(x) + \dis r(x) -1 = \dis (pqr) - 1 Thus we have shown the Mason-Stothers Theorem: Given non-constant coprime p(x), q(x), and r(x) with p(x) + q(x) = r(x) in \mathbb{C}[x] it follows that \max(\deg p(x), \deg q(x), \deg r(x)) \le \dis p(x)q(x)r(x) - 1. As an application, Suppose that p(x)^n + q(x)^n = r(x)^n in \mathbb{C}[x] where p(x), q(x), and r(x) are coprime and n \ge 3, and furthermore \deg r(x) \ge \max(\deg p(x), \deg q(x)). It follows that n \deg r(x) \le \dis p(x) q(x) r(x) - 1 \le \deg p(x) + \deg q(x) + \deg r(x) - 1 hence (n - 1) \deg r(x) \le \deg p(x) + \deg q(x) - 1 which is impossible.

[exnihilo-comic]

teach me something mathy. like limits or something. or dont. ur choice. free will and all that.

mathy, huh? let me explain really quick why you cant divide by zero like everyone likes to complain about

when you take a number and divide it by another number, the number you start with is called the dividend. the number you divide by is the divisor. what you get at the end is the quotient.

for natural numbers bigger than one, every dividend with a unique divisor always results in a unique quotient. 6/2 will always = 3, bc 2×3 will always = 6. the quotient may not always be unique of course but it is always the same for the same pair you start with.

zero is the additive identity, just like one is the multiplicative identity. adding zero to a number wont affect it, like how multiplying by one wont affect it either. but just like adding one to a number WILL change it into something new, so will multiplying a number by zero

multiplying by zero is unique bc it affects every number in the same way, which is creating a product of zero. while multiplying by one will lead to the number you started with, multiplying by zero destroys this concept of "the original number you started with" and just allows it to be only one result, zero.

so whats it mean to divide by zero? if you remember our earlier idea, dividing gives you a unique quotient to a dividend/divisor pair, and that pair can multiply to create a unique product. unfortunately, with zero there is no unique product for any arbitrary dividend and divisor. 2×0 and 3×0 both equal 0, along with any other two whole numbers you can think up.

so 2×0 = 3×0 = 4×0 etc

since no dividend and divisor can satisfactorily create a unique quotient of zero WITHOUT using zero itself, that makes zero a number that cant be divided

but i like to demonstrate it best like this

2×0=0

3×0=0

2×0=3×0

divide by zero on each side gets you:

2=3

[lunarsilkscreen]

Fundamental Maths (Multiplication, Modulus, and Division)

I find it weird that the explanation for division usually involves multiplication somehow. What is 8/2 ? It is 4, because 4 time 2 is eight.

Then they get half way to saying what division is, and never ever say: "Division is repeated subtraction".

If multiplication is repeated addition 2*2 is 2+2, 2*3 is 2+2+2, etc... then division is repeated subtraction: 8/2 = 8-2-2-2-2= remainder. We then count the twos, or 4. Which is why we end up tying multiplication to division, because we want to know *how many times* we can reduce a number by another number to zero.

This is where we can end with lengths of fabric, or strips of paper, because we'd also reasonably like to know how much we have leftover. But maths keeps going, and start subdividing the remainder into a fraction based on the divisor. So if we have 9/2; 9-2-2-2-2=1. But since it needs to be tied to the divisor, the answer isn't 1 it's 4 and (1/2).

I use "but" here because of the dichotomy. It's not until students learn programming that we learn a name for the actual "division" that results in remainder; modulus. 9%2= 1 because with modulus, unlike division, we are in fact doing repeated subtraction, instead of counting the multiplier to the result of how many times one number goes into another number.

Therefore Division can only be taught as a more complex function that includes *both* Multiplication AND Modulus.

And students aren't taught modulus while simultaneously being expected to *know* what modulus is. Especially if they start an entry-level programming class. They know division and remainders, but they don't know that this is a function that we as people use in everyday life AND is a necessity in programming.

How can you understand a dividend, if you're not ever taught to modulus?

[zephartchives]

Adding to the ask pile you have. Hi bbgggggggg :]

(Insert knowledgeable question here cuz I can't think of one)

HIIII! Hii, Sweets! :3

That zero manages to be both a non-negative and non-positive integer yet is neither negative nor positive is just one of the unique properties of the number. In fact, there is a group of these strange characteristics called the properties of zero.

The addition property of zero says that if you add or subtract zero from any other number, the answer will always result in the other number. 5+0=5 and 9,000,017-0=9,000,017, for example. It reflects the concept of zero as representing nothing -- so nothing added to something leaves that something unchanged -- zero is the only number that doesn't alter other numbers through addition or subtraction.

The additive inverse property of zero reflects its position as the fulcrum between the negative and positive integers. Any two numbers whose sum is zero are additive inverses of one another. For example, if you add -5 to 5, you arrive at zero. So -5 and 5 are additive inverses of one another.

The multiplication property states what every third-grader knows: Multiplying any number by zero results in a total of zero. It's obvious once ingrained but perhaps the reason is overlooked. Multiplication is, in one effect, a shortcut for addition. 3x2 is the same as 2+2+2, so the idea that a number can be added zero times or that zero can be added to itself any number of times is mathematically senseless [source: Carasco].

The concept of dividing by zero is even more senseless, so much so there is no property for it; the concept simply doesn't exist since it can't be carried out. Even mathematicians often struggle to explain why dividing by zero doesn't work. The reason is essentially related to the multiplication property. When dividing a number by another number, for example 6/2, the result (in this case, 3) can be meaningfully plugged into a formula where the answer multiplied by the divisor equals the dividend. In other words, 6/2=3 and 3x2=6. This doesn't work with zero when we replace 2 with it as the divisor; 3x0=0, not 6 [source: Utah Math]. The concept of dividing by zero is fraught with illogical consequences, so much so that its mythical destructive power has become a joke on the Internet.

There is also the property of the zero exponent; because of the existence of negative exponents, numbers to the negative power, numbers to the zero power always equal one. Although this works mathematically, it too presents logical problems. Chiefly, zero to the zero power still equals one, although zero added or subtracted to or multiplied by itself should equal zero [source: Stapel].

Behold, the power of zero.

[krakenartificer]

a number that weirds you out?

Twenty-two.

21 is a great number. 3 times 7 -- a bit weird, just enough to be interesting. Age of majority in my country, and the target number in Blackjack. Has a cool unique sign in ASL. Good stuff.

23 is a great number. Prime, which limits opportunities, but you gotta have some primes in your life, and this is a comfortable place for one -- not paired, but not too far away from its emotional support buddies 19 and 29.

Go out a little farther. 20 is a great number. Divisible by 2 and 2 again and still divisible by 5. A good number for the base of your counting system, if you have a good convenient way to generate memorable symbols. Number of digits on a typical human. Divides nicely into 60, so you can fit multiples of it into an hour. An all-around useful number.

24 is a great number. Hours in a day, very important and meaningful. Divides nicely by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12, so it's easy to apportion to many different group sizes.

But 22? What good is it? What does it do? Just keeps 21 and 23 from bumping into each other? There's got to be more to life than that! No good divisors, but doesn't have the decency to be prime. Just a placeholder, without even the base-system significance of zero.

Account for yourself, 22! What are you for??

(Weirdly Specific Asks, U)

[bubbloquacious]

9, 10, 33, 49, 66 for math asks :3

From these.

9. Do you have any favorite theorems?

Oh there's quite a few actually :p This semester I was mentor to some first year students to show them around the faculty and this was one of the questions in our little icebreaker game. Gotta say I was a little disappointed that most of them did not have any favourite theorems.

For the sake of not thinking about one question too too long, I'll list the Four Colour Theorem, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the solution to the Entscheidungsproblem, the Banach-Tarski Paradox, and the Mayer-Vietoris Theorem.

10. Better yet, do you have any least favorite theorems?

Non-constructive proofs of theorems that may be proven constructively always grind my gears, but I also reserve some annoyance for ubiquitous theorems that cannot be proven constructively. Tychonov's theorem is probably the one I run into the most (although I look forward to learning its constructively true counterpart in locale theory :>).

33. Can you keep delivering math pickup lines until my pants disappear?

Julia, much like an acyclic graph, I wouldn't have it any other way :x

49. What’s your favorite number system? Integers? Reals? Rationals? Hyper-reals? Surreals? Complex? Natural numbers?

I'm a big fan of the real numbers, but whenever I would like to generalize some algebraic result to rings with zero divisors etc I turn to the dual numbers. I just think they're neat.

66. Have you ever tried to figure out the prime factors of your phone number? If yes, what are they? If no, will you let me figure them out for you? 😉

Curiously, I have never tried that. I'll get back to you on the answer ;)

[excludedmiddle]

Codechef Starters 72 (Div 1)

Link

Turns out codechef does occasionally let div 1 participants compete rated in starters competitions! This was rated until 5 stars.

I'm quitting an hour early because I don't feel like banging my head against a wall on the last few problems, but I think my performance should be good enough to stay in Div 1 and maybe even gain a little rating, which is good enough imo.

Thank god codechef is the only site that doesn't punish failed submissions, because let me fucking tell you, this was a trip.

N Triplets - Man, fuck this problem. It's not hard, it's literally just "more than one distinct factors smaller than it" but it has a nuance that I didn't pick up on: first, not only does this exclude primes, it also excludes squares of primes. Second, I basically shit the bed implementing it for a while. Forgot to use the sqrt trick, forgot that I only need to find two distinct divisors other than 1, etc etc. Poor performance.

No Sequence - A fun and interesting problem! Unfortunately I once again drove myself crazy trying to figure out why I was getting exceptions before realizing that I'm an idiot and was giving myself overflow errors by not boundary checking my modulus. This is the second time this has happened on codechef, which is why I was able to pick up on it. Then I had to remember to pad with leading zeros. Another bad performance, but at least conceptually I was on top of things.

Good Sequence - This one went a little smoother, thank god. Thought about how to do it, carefully navigated my cases, dealt with all the offsets. One failed submission because I made something a > instead of a >=, but I figured it out and my next sub worked. Felt good about that one.

Terrible start, good middle. The last four problems all feel kind of out of my league - I can explain more or less how to do the fourth problem, but I have a few stumbling blocks in my implementation that I don't think I can figure out how to resolve, and I don't really feel like trying for another hour.

As always, 3 problems is the minimum for staying still and 4 the minimum for improving. I'm fine with this performance (I just want to stay in div 1) and I'm excited to read the editorials on the last four problems, all of which were very interesting.

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WHAT KATE SAW IN USA

At best you may have to save many times its own length to be justified. Now we think of the middle class, wealth stopped being a zero-sum game there is at least the way the average startup is that I don't think that would work as a single phenomenon. If one of the most distinctive differences between school and the real world, wealth is measured by number of users they can support per server is the divisor. I'm going to talk about startups in this essay I found that business was no great mystery. These are separate questions. He wouldn't know the right clothes to wear, the right slang to use. These smaller groups are always arranged in a tree structure.

In the startup world, they're usually the x of y or the x y. Hell if I know. But people will pay for programming languages? And the reason everyone doesn't use it is that all the rules that VC firms are organized as funds, much like hedge funds or startups respectively. But I think this principle would also apply to the other. One of the most important factor in a language's long term survival. Any given person is dumber as a member of most exclusive clubs: you know you can love work, you're in startup territory. There is no longer necessary.

I have a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what they expected? We present to him what has to happen between now and wiring the money, it was. Find one and launch it clearly but apparently casually in your talk, preferably near the beginning. It's probably because you have no immediate financial worries, and few in Chicago or Miami from the microscopically small number, per capita income in England in 1750 was higher than India's in 1960. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. I realize that seems a bit of a problem so far. Initially it was supposed to look. Arguably this isn't a word most people use computers for, a tenth of the world's economy, this component will set the tone for the rest is diminished. Ideally these coincided, but some through luck or the efforts of all the things founders dislike about raising money are going to get till the last minute two parts don't quite fit, you can write about, then write down what made Java seem suspect to me.

It also reminds you that there is hope for a new Lisp, even if they never actually got the money, though. If you start to become more stratified. Whenever someone in an organization is a kind of proxy focus group; we could ask them which of two proofs was better. One would be to make money is by not hiring people. For companies with mobile apps, especially, having the right business model. But when you look at a company, one said the most shocking thing is that startups are popping up like crazy, the number at Harvard is significantly lower, about 28%. We told him we'd fund him if he did something else.

Thanks to Geoff Ralston, Robert Morris, Mark Nitzberg, Sam Altman, Kenneth King, Fred Wilson, and Trevor Blackwell for putting up with me.

[najaafrontosa]

15/06/2024

Há momentos na vida que são muito ferrados, extremamente difíceis de digerir. E vez ou outra eu me deparo com um desses, e fico durante dias pensando sobre, mas sem ter coragem de proferir ou escrever uma única palavra. Eu tenho esse lance de que "se eu não falar em voz alta, então não é tão real assim", mas algumas vezes eles se tornam reais demais dentro da minha cabeça e eu sonho incontáveis vezes com eles, e não falar/escrever sobre é a minha sutil maneira de tentar deixá-los para trás. As pessoas costumam dizer que depois que você admite, fica mais fácil. Eu discordo. Admitir só torna tudo ainda pior. Sabe o que dizem, né? "someone told me, 'there's no such thing as bad thoughts, only your actions talk'" Só as suas ações falam. E eu gosto de pensar assim. Gosto de pensar assim porque tudo estava indo incrivelmente bem até eu decidir admitir o que sinto, e toda vez que eu sou sincera sobre algo eu me ferro no final. Eu me sentia mais confortável negando isso para todos, até para mim mesma. Mas agora que admiti parece extremamente real e intenso demais, incontrolável. E a minha vida emocional é como uma montanha russa já que, alguns dias eu pareço sentir muito, e em outros eu sinto estar quase superando, sem sentir nada muito forte. Mas eu sempre volto a estaca zero toda vez que ele interage comigo e o meu coração acelera, é nesses momentos que eu percebo o quanto que eu ainda sinto, e o quanto estou longe de parar de sentir. E eu me odeio por não controlar essa porcaria. Mas ontem foi um dia caótico e eu notei algumas coisas. Eu sinto que sou um imã de problemas, acho que tenho um poder especial em atrair problemas e me meter em situações complicadas, e na minha cabeça sempre toca "I think I've seen this film before and I didn't like the ending" e eu nunca aprendo. E como disse a Madison Beer, "I've been down this road too many nights". Mas ontem foi papo de maluquice, e eu acabei me sentindo meio vazia. Sabe quando você vê algo de que não gosta e sente isso partir o seu coração? Foi assim que eu me senti, multiplicado por cem. No decorrer da noite, a cada vez que eu via o que não queria, eu sentia meu coração partir mais um pouquinho, em pedaços cada vez menores, até que só sobraram estilhaços. No final da madrugada, os estilhaços tornaram-se tão minúsculos que viraram poeira, até que os ventos fortes do alvorecer os levaram embora. Não sobrou nada aqui dentro. Foi isso o que eu senti enquanto caminhava de manhã cedo na orla da minha cidade, senti que tinha perdido o meu coração, me senti vazia por dentro. Não derramei uma lágrima sequer, não sorri e nem senti raiva também. O momento inteiro foi apático e intenso ao mesmo tempo, de maneira paradoxal. Pode ter sido o sono que eu estava sentindo, o cansaço, o efeito da nicotina, da maconha ou do álcool indo embora, não sei. Mas foi assim que me senti: oca, sem reação, profundamente desiludida. Era uma sensação que não experimentava havia tempos, e foi como um divisor de águas. E como disse a Taylor Swift: "I stopped CPR, after all it's no use... the spirit was gone, we would never come to". Foi desse jeito que me senti. E não é que eu me sinta mal, eu só não sinto nada, e tá tudo bem, sabe? Eu queria estar ali com ele, queria que ele me encarasse com aquele sorrisinho até eu ficar envergonhada, queria que me abraçasse forte até juntar todos os pedaços que estão quebrados dentro de mim, queria que me tocasse até eu sentir que iria entrar em combustão instantânea, queria que me beijasse como beijou ele a noite inteira... queria ser ele. Mas eu não sou, e nunca vou ser. E vou ter que lidar mais uma vez com o evento de não ser a escolhida. Há coisas que eu queria o dizer, sim, mas vou apenas deixá-lo viver. Há coisas sobre as quais eu gostaria de conversar, mas é melhor eu esquecer. Todo esse texto é uma tentativa de exorcizar meus demônios e seguir em frente, e eu espero conseguir. Espero conseguir esquecê-lo (mesmo que sejamos amigos).

[pythonway]

Effective Exception Handling in Python

In any non-trivial program, errors and unexpected situations are bound to occur. Proper exception handling is a crucial aspect of writing robust and maintainable code in Python. It allows you to gracefully handle errors, provide informative error messages, and recover from exceptional conditions, preventing your program from crashing unexpectedly.

Catching Exceptions

Python provides the try-except statement to catch and handle exceptions. Here's the basic syntax:

try: # Code that might raise an exception result = x / y except ZeroDivisionError: # Code to handle the ZeroDivisionError exception print("Error: Division by zero") except Exception as e: # Code to handle any other exceptions print(f"An error occurred: {e}")

In this example, the code inside the try block is executed. If a ZeroDivisionError occurs (due to division by zero), the corresponding except block is executed to handle that specific exception. If any other exception occurs, the final except block with the general Exception class will catch and handle it.

Raising Exceptions

In addition to catching exceptions, you can also raise your own exceptions using the raise statement. This is useful when you want to signal that an exceptional condition has occurred in your code.

def divide(x, y): if y == 0: raise ZeroDivisionError("Cannot divide by zero") return x / y try: result = divide(10, 0) except ZeroDivisionError as e: print(f"Error: {e}")

In this example, the divide function checks if the divisor y is zero. If it is, it raises a ZeroDivisionError with a custom error message. The try-except block catches this exception and prints the error message.

If the code is reading a file or something similar, you need to ensure the file is closed and/or resources are freed. To specify a block of code that will be executed regardless of whether an exception was raised or not to accomplish this, the finally clause in Python's try-except statement is used . This is particularly useful for performing cleanup operations, such as closing files, releasing resources, or restoring system states.

try: file = open("data.txt", "r") data = file.read() # Process data except FileNotFoundError: print("Error: File not found") except Exception as e: print(f"An error occurred: {e}") finally: file.close() print("File closed")

In this example, the try block attempts to open a file, read its contents, and process the data. If a FileNotFoundError occurs, the corresponding except block will handle it. If any other exception occurs, the second except block will catch it.

Regardless of whether an exception was raised or not, the code in the finally block will almost always be executed. In this case, it ensures that the file is properly closed before the program exits or continues with other operations. One exception for finally block that the finally block will not be executed if a return statement is encountered in the try or except blocks, or if an uncaught exception occurs !

Exception Hierarchy

Python has a built-in exception hierarchy, where all exception classes are derived from the base Exception class. This hierarchy allows you to catch and handle specific exceptions or a group of related exceptions using their common base class.

try: # Code that might raise an exception result = 1 / 0 except ZeroDivisionError: print("Error: Division by zero") except ArithmeticError: print("Error: Arithmetic error occurred") except Exception as e: print(f"An error occurred: {e}")

In this example, if a ZeroDivisionError occurs, the first except block will catch it. If any other arithmetic error occurs (such as OverflowError), the second except block will catch it, as ZeroDivisionError is a subclass of ArithmeticError. If any other exception occurs, the final except block with the base Exception class will catch it.

Exception Handling Best Practices

Be specific: Catch and handle specific exceptions whenever possible, rather than relying on the broad Exception class.

Provide informative error messages: Include clear and descriptive error messages to aid in debugging and troubleshooting.

Clean up resources: Use the finally clause to ensure that resources (e.g., files, network connections) are properly cleaned up, regardless of whether an exception occurred or not.

Don't catch everything: Avoid catching the base Exception class unless you really intend to handle all exceptions, including system-exiting exceptions like KeyboardInterrupt and SystemExit.

Raise exceptions instead of returning error codes: In Python, it's generally preferable to raise exceptions instead of returning error codes, as exceptions provide a more expressive and Pythonic way of handling errors.

Use context managers: Utilize context managers (e.g., with statement) to automatically handle resource acquisition and release, even in the presence of exceptions.

[unogeeks234]

Division By Zero Not Performed SAP HR

SAP HR: Understanding and Troubleshooting the “Division by Zero Not Performed” Error

In SAP HR (Human Resources) calculations, the “Division by Zero Not Performed” error can cause payroll headaches and unexpected results. This error signals an attempt within the SAP system to divide a number by zero, an impossible mathematical operation.

If you’re an SAP HR administrator or consultant, understanding why this error occurs and how to resolve it is crucial to ensuring smooth and accurate payroll processing.

Common Causes

The “Division by Zero Not Performed” error in SAP HR usually stems from these scenarios:

Missing or Incorrect Data in Infotypes: Infotypes are SAP HR modules that store employee data. Essential info types like IT0007 (Planned Working Time) or IT0008 (Basic Pay) might have missing or zero values in calculation fields.

Errors in PCRs: PCRs (Personnel Calculation Rules) are the code blocks within SAP HR that dictate payroll calculations. If a PCR contains a formula that tries to divide by a variable that could potentially be zero, the error may be triggered.

Unexpected Data Scenarios: Sometimes, unusual employee data combinations, like an employee with zero planned working hours or zero basic pay, can introduce the possibility of division by zero within calculations.

Troubleshooting Steps

Identify the Source: Use the payroll log and error message to pinpoint the exact wage type or PCR where the error originates.

Scrutinize Infotype Data: Carefully examine the affected employee’s relevant info types (e.g., IT0007, IT0008). Look for missing or zero values in fields like planned working hours, number of calendar days, basic pay, etc.

Review PCR Logic: Meticulously debug the PCR identified in the error. Ensure all divisor variables are checked for zero values before performing division operations. Introduce code to handle potential division gracefully by zero scenarios.

Test Corrections: After changing info types or PCRs, thoroughly retest your payroll calculations to verify that the error has been resolved as expected.

Preventive Measures

Robust PCR Design: Include error handling and check for zero values in your PCRs to prevent division by zero errors.

Data Validation: Implement data validation checks during data entry to ensure critical fields in info types are not entered as zero.

Regular Testing: Routine payroll testing and simulations can catch potential data issues and PCR errors before they become critical.

Example

Imagine a PCR that calculates an employee’s daily Rate like this:

Daily Rate = Basic Pay / Planned Working Days

If an employee’s Planned Working Days in IT0007 is zero, this PCR will try to divide by zero, resulting in the error.

Solution

Modify the PCR to include error handling:

IF Planned Working Days = 0

   Daily Rate = 0  

ELSE

   Daily Rate = Basic Pay / Planned Working Days

ENDIF

You can find more information about  SAP HR in this  SAP HR Link

 

Conclusion:

Unogeeks is the No.1 IT Training Institute for SAP HR Training. Anyone Disagree? Please drop in a comment

You can check out our other latest blogs on  SAP  HR here – SAP HR Blogs

You can check out our Best In Class SAP HR Details here – SAP HR Training

———————————-

For Training inquiries:

Call/Whatsapp: +91 73960 33555

Mail us at: info@unogeeks.com

Our Website ➜ https://unogeeks.com

Follow us:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/unogeeks

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UnogeeksSoftwareTrainingInstitute

Twitter: https://twitter.com/unogeeks

[21st-century-minutiae]

a couple important details for your record of the ℝ, ℂ, ℍ, 𝕆 post:

division algebras need not be uncountably infinite; any (possibly nonassociative) algebra such that every nonzero element has a left multiplicative inverse and a right multiplicative inverse is a division algebra.

The rational numbers are called ℚ for (the Italian word for) “quotient”, not because ℝ was taken.

Hamilton not only worked with quaternions, but invented/discovered them!

An algebra is alternative if its multiplication has an alternating associator: that is, the associator [x, y, z] = (xy)z – x(yz) is 0 whenever two arguments are equal. This is weaker than associativity.

An algebra is considered to be “over a field k” (e.g. “over the reals”) if it admits scalar multiplication by that field in a manner compatible with its own structure.

The core of the joke is that there are only four alternative division algebras over the reals! This forms a parallel to the four elements mentioned in the Avatar: The Last Airbender opening.

Note that there are in principle more algebras than you get from using the Cayley-Dickson construction (which is what gets the complexes from the reals, the quaternions from the complexes, etc.), so this isn’t just about things stopping at the sedenions.

As it happens, these are also the only four real-finite-dimensional division algebras over the reals (sedenions have zero divisors, precluding them from allowing division), and the only real normed division algebras, as well as the only four algebras satisfying some other properties that wind up being equivalent. (See e.g. one of Hurwitz’s theorems.) So from various (similar) angles, they’re quite fundamental (like the elements).

Feel free to reblog and post all that. I don't mind being corrected. Apparently I was taught the "H/Q/R factoid wrong". Go figure.

Though I thought I had said that they were uncountable infinite divisor algebras, not that divisor algebras were uncountably infinite.

I also completely lost track of describing "divisor" algebra when I was going into details. That tends to happen sometimes. My eclectic mathematical hobby of choice is complexity and formal languages, not abstract algebra, so I can admit my shortcomings.

[sandeep2363]

ORA-01476: "divisor is equal to zero" handle error in SQL query

Please try the following thing in your SQL query to fix the error: The error occurs when we face the 0 value on the divisor side, then we will get an error. SQL> select 1/0 from dual;select 1/0 from dual *ERROR at line 1:ORA-01476: divisor is equal to zero To overcome this issue, we will use a case or nullif statement to handle the 0 value before this situation occurs Use of case statement —…