You CAN divide by zero, FYI

I had worked out the math back in 2016. It requires less a mathematical approach, in exchange for a process approach, where I had to define the EXACT process and theory of what the division symbol accomplishes (and interestingly, one could trivially argue that division creates multiple answers... example -- 8 divided by 2 would be two 4's... but that's not useful in math, so we just point out that all answers match 4, and we can refer back to the divisor 2 to tell us how many 4's come out of 8).

The classic offhand answer of "infinity" sounds right and it's not far off. It's easy to think of -- 8 divided by 0... Theory behind it is "How many zeros can fit into 8?" An infinite number of them! This is the process approach.

Two problems: You can also fit one zero into 8. If we were listing out all the possible answers and simply answering whether the statement is true or not, we have to call that true. You can fit one zero into 8 (this is similar to the two 4's... You can fit one 4 into 8. You can also fit two 4's into 8... Both are true. Three 4's fitting into 8 is false, and all after. There are the two 4's). Fitting one zero gives the same result as fitting an infinite number of them. You can also fit two 0's. You can fit three. And four. We basically have the answer now, but hold on...

Second problem: But why does zero have a "size" of nothingness? We're used to seeing it in intersection of the X and Y axes, stuck there as a single point... But all graphed points mark the cutoffs for "defined values" (technically, to-be-defined values unless they are already labeled, like inches or something -- The numbers detached from reality are meaningless -- 1 apple is not equal to 1 Earth). That number 1 on the X axis marks the ending edge of the range starting above zero, and up to whatever it is we are deciding to call 1.

But zero is not a value, and it does not mark anything. It is where we start, and it's a convenient center point for a negative and positive direction on an axis (don't get me started on this because it just disproves the silly notion of living in a "3 dimensional reality," and I guarantee there are a lot of math and physics junkies who aren't going to like seeing that fantasy crash and burn).

If you take that x and y axis, and erase them to give a blank slate, you have just expanded your zero from that point of no size, and now it fills your slate. What's the value of the numbers on the slate? Zero, because there are none.

The empty space of the universe, absent all energy fields, is the biggest zero. It is a necessary infinite nothingness, it is the lack of value, and it is the single largest conceptual "thing" possible.

Only zero can be infinite. But there's also an empty 1 cubic foot of space with a value of zero. There's another one of those on every side of it. Or we can go with 1 cubic light year of empty space, still zero.

Since zero is not value, and only values have sizes/masses/ranges, zero can be any size you want. This brings us right back to where I said "We basically have the answer now."

If you divide any value by zero, you get every value. You get 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and on and on, simultaneously. Every possible positive nonzero number, and this is distinctly different from the non-answer of "infinity."

Of course, without defining those numbers as inches or something, every number is the same. The 1 on an x axis can be called 5, and the next 10. It's completely arbitrary.

Thus, any singular value divided by zero results in every value (aka every nonzero number). "Undefined," the classic answer, is actually really good but it's not meant to be an answer. If it was, it would be more specific, like "Undefined value" at the least, but I might go with "Value without definition."

As for zero divided by zero, the answer above applies, but separate from that we also can say that JUST 1 alone is a valid answer since the zeros match in their non value, and also as a bonus we can say that zero is one more valid answer since there is arguably NO fitting of anything into zero, not even zero... But if you do anyway, you can fit one or you can do as many as you'd like.

I'm calling the set of "every nonzero number/aka every value" as a single answer to "value divided by zero" instead of calling it infinite answers (just like the two 4's are one result, not two identical ones), and thus zero divided by zero has three results.

But once you define these numbers with a real world value, like inches, then the concept of dividing by zero becomes meaningless.

(Quick FYI: There are arguably two processes that can be called division. One is, as I stated, how many of the divisors (after the symbol) can be fit into the dividend (the first number)? The second process is "If I take the dividend and cut it up into pieces the size of the divisor, how many of those pieces will result?" The second process does not result in the two 4's I started with up there)