The answer would still not be 0 as 0 is clearly still well defined within that system. NaN, undefined, etc. would be acceptable answers though. Otherwise you define:
for x > y, y - x = 0
Which defines that x = y
Resulting in the conditional x > y no longer being true
Also x/0 isn’t NaN. It’s just poorly defined and so in computing will often return “NaN” because what the answer is depends on the numbering system used and accidentally switching/conflating numbering systems is a very easy way to create a mathmatical fallacy like the one above.
Have you?!?! IEEE 754 defines NaN, but also both a positive and negative zero (+0, -0) in addition to infinities such that x/+0 = ∞, x/-0 = -∞ and the single edge case ±0/±0 = NaN
The answer would still not be 0 as 0 is clearly still well defined within that system. NaN, undefined, etc. would be acceptable answers though. Otherwise you define:
for x > y, y - x = 0
Which defines that x = y
Resulting in the conditional x > y no longer being true
Also x/0 isn’t NaN. It’s just poorly defined and so in computing will often return “NaN” because what the answer is depends on the numbering system used and accidentally switching/conflating numbering systems is a very easy way to create a mathmatical fallacy like the one above.
you clearly haven’t read IEEE 754
Have you?!?! IEEE 754 defines NaN, but also both a positive and negative zero (+0, -0) in addition to infinities such that x/+0 = ∞, x/-0 = -∞ and the single edge case ±0/±0 = NaN