But it approaches negative infinity if you start at -1 and get closer and closer and closer to 0. N/-.00000000001 is pretty low.
because of this discontinuity...the largest discontinuity possible in fact, the actual value of N/0 cannot be any of these compromises. It has to not exist.
Division by zero isn't equal to zero. It isn't equal to positive infinity. It isn't equal to negative infinity. the value of any number divided by zero (including 0) is that it does not exist. After all, doesn't any number divided by itself equal to one? So shouldn't 0/0 = 1? No, because you can't divide by zero. The proper way for a computer to respond to an attempt to divide by zero is, "I have absolutely no idea what's going on here. I speak math, and you just asked me to do something that is outside of the language of math. I am going to either crash so I don't do anything stupid, return a reserved value that explicitly indicates that the answer does not exist, or jump out a level, throwing a runtime exception (as appropriate for the given language), and let YOU tell me what to do now. It has to be this way because there is never a single answer that always holds true about what a computer should do when encountering this.
This should be hammered into you first in precalc, and again in any first-semester intro to computer science course, and again in discrete structures, and again in a computer hardware course. This is the reason for a lot of the hostility for asking this question.
Or wait, how about "Not a Number" because that is the only way to resolve jump-discontinuity.
The Limit as x aproaches 0+ of a/x = infinity.
But the Limit as x approaches 0- of a/x = negative infinity.
because this represents a jump-discontinuity, the value of a/0 is just plain undefined.
This is like week-1 of high school precalc shit. Come on.
Does anyone want their div by zero errors to result in anything other than zero?