The mathematical limit of that goes to +inf, so it’s not way off, just off.

Actually, maybe it’s smarter to return +inf than open a black, hole, what do you say?

You can use a L2 zkSync There is **claim payout for this month**, called “Withdraw”

But it will allow to withdraw only what your node actually earned, not the estimated.

I didn’t know opening a black hole from code was an option?

Anyway, the limit goes -inf if approached from the other end. And since there can’t be concepts more opposite than +inf and -inf, I’d say mathematicians are right when the say there is no answer.

Furthermore x/x doesn’t approach anything. It’s just 1. So does that mean 0/0=1? it does not, look it up

If it does, I can make a division by 0 equal any number. How about 12? 12x/x=12, done!

And what would that mean for the theory that a division by 0 equals any kind of infinity?

Unless of course we’re talking about a Riemann sphere, in which case infinity is unsigned, like 0, because the numbers wrap around from positive to negative there, like at 0.

I apologize for the deviation though, as I don’t think this is generated by code written by Storj Labs to begin with, but rather a quirk of the underlying language/packages used. So it’s not like it’s something they can “fix” and we could argue about whether it should be fixed to begin with. Math and standards say it should return either an error or a NaN value though.

Wouldn’t be good for the Storj value if someone suddenly had infinite STORJ though

Right, right, you’re right, the two limits diverge, I wasn’t thinking clearly. The only thing to happen is a black hole.

It’s always an option, that’s why compiler has sanity checks.

Don’t worry. I would be that person. You know you can trust me

i\m in full agreement with Brahma Gupta\s argument that dividing by zero has to give infinity.

ofc that could just be nothing infinitely accurate… but still infinite.

tho one could also argue that zero is infinite due to it being a placeholder and not a number, so one is in a sense dividing with nothing which is the infinite… so… well >D where was i

It is correct that dividing by zero gives inifinity, but there’s two infinities, one is negative, the other is positive, it is impossible to determine which one it would be in this case, it is an “indeterminate form”. You would need to do something to the number to change it to a known form, i.e. one that you can use to calculate the result, but all we have is a simple fraction, which is too simple, or at least that’s a far as I remember, BrightSilence can correct me.

more than two actually, as proven by galileo\s paradox.

As far as I know he never decided on this. All he decided on was that 0/0=0. Which also makes very little sense. Pretty sure this is derives from the fact that 0/x=0. Do if x is 0 that has to be the case too. But my previous post already shows how you can use other examples to make a division by 0 be any value you want using such logic.

So no, /0 can’t just be negative or positive infinity. It can be anything in-between as well. That’s why it’s undefined.

This isn’t something that is inherently true. It was chosen to be undefined. But for good reasons. If you look at another example you can see a possibility of defining something that was previously considered impossible.

√-1=i

In this case it was decided to define this as an imaginary number on the complex plane. This works because all the rules of mathematics can still be applied to this. The new number I has a defined value on the complex plane and can be manipulated. Let’s say we do this with 1/0 and define it as j. Any calculation with that number j would have a different outcome depending on how you approach it. Hence the decision to make it undefined, because there is no way to have a consensus and still keep math working the way it does.

When can we expect to see an update that shows the balance held because of transaction fees?

We deployed a point release on the satellite side that is now able to track these information. I don’t think this is visible on the storage node side with the next release. So earliest would be in 2-3 weeks from now.

what are the changes in version 1.21.2

It’s a fix for an issue where people couldn’t select satellites in the drop down.

thanks BrightSilence for me the following PS has stopped working ((curl http://127.0.0.1:14002/api/sno).Content | ConvertFrom-Json).satellites.id | %{"_"; ((curl http://127.0.0.1:14002/api/sno/satellite/_).Content | ConvertFrom-Json).audit}

Try

```
((curl http://127.0.0.1:14002/api/sno).Content | ConvertFrom-Json).satellites.id | %{"$_"; ((curl http://127.0.0.1:14002/api/sno/satellite/$_).Content | ConvertFrom-Json).audits}
```

thanks nerdatwork it is an improvement but i was looking for the previous results,Windows PowerShell

Copyright © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Try the new cross-platform PowerShell https://aka.ms/pscore6 PS C:\Users\sorry> ((curl http://127.0.0.1:14002/api/sno).Content | ConvertFrom-Json).satellites.id | %{"_"; ((curl http://127.0.0.1:14002/api/sno/satellite/_).Content | ConvertFrom-Json).audit} 12tRQrMTWUWwzwGh18i7Fqs67kmdhH9t6aToeiwbo5mfS2rUmo totalCount : 42

successCount : 42

alpha : 17.796338

beta : 0

unknownAlpha : 17.796338

unknownBeta : 0

score : 1

unknownScore : 1

1wFTAgs9DP5RSnCqKV1eLf6N9wtk4EAtmN5DpSxcs8EjT69tGE

totalCount : 518

successCount : 514

alpha : 19.99999

beta : 0

unknownAlpha : 19.99999

unknownBeta : 0

score : 1

unknownScore : 1

121RTSDpyNZVcEU84Ticf2L1ntiuUimbWgfATz21tuvgk3vzoA6

totalCount : 901

successCount : 896

alpha : 19.99999

beta : 0

unknownAlpha : 19.99999

unknownBeta : 0

score : 1

unknownScore : 1

12EayRS2V1kEsWESU9QMRseFhdxYxKicsiFmxrsLZHeLUtdps3S

totalCount : 970

successCount : 962

alpha : 19.99999

beta : 0

unknownAlpha : 19.99999

unknownBeta : 0

score : 1

unknownScore : 1

12L9ZFwhzVpuEKMUNUqkaTLGzwY9G24tbiigLiXpmZWKwmcNDDs

totalCount : 854

successCount : 849

alpha : 19.99999

beta : 0

unknownAlpha : 19.99999

unknownBeta : 0

score : 1

unknownScore : 1

12rfG3sh9NCWiX3ivPjq2HtdLmbqCrvHVEzJubnzFzosMuawymB

totalCount : 61

successCount : 60

alpha : 19.124675

beta : 0

unknownAlpha : 19.124675

unknownBeta : 0

score : 1

unknownScore : 1

PS C:\Users\sorry>

Those metrics are gone but devs were asked if they can add it back.

thanks for the info nerdatwork

If you’re interested in vetting progress specifically, the earnings calculator pulls that data directly from the db’s and still works. But it only shows vetting progress and not audit counts for already vetted nodes.

1.21.2 the held amount history is empty. Is there some process yet to run?

Ok pressing the in-page refresh in the payout page made the held history appear