Why are you referring to 0 as negative infinite? This seems to be the false premise that is making the rest of your assertions false. Rethink it, bruthah.

Really? Which ones? Last I checked, 0/1 = 0.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is indeed infinite. This simply means that on the cartesian plot of f(x) = 1/x, f(x) = ?. In other words, the closer x gets to 0, the larger f(x) gets. This makes sense, as division by an increasingly large number will yield an increasingly smaller number. If you look at the plot of f(x) = 1/x, however, you will see that x asymptotically approaches 0 (but never reaches it), meaning that 1/0 is undefined because the plot does not exist at that point.

You did the resorting of your little equation there correctly, but 0/1 != ?, so you've basically just proven something by assuming a false premise. Funny how that works, huh?

To be clearer: 0*? != 1. There is some dispute among mathematicians as to what the product of 0*? is, but 1 is hardly in that dispute. To me (and many mathematicians), it makes the most sense for 0*? to be 0, as 0/? = 0, so rearranging the equation gives 0*? = 0. Also, it makes sense conceptually to me because if you take something, and multiply it by nothing, this by definition means that you have nothing of that something.

However, 0*? is seen as a different phrase by others.

Not to burst your bubble (or infinitely expanding universe balloon), but you didn't really explain anything here. You just rambled on with a bunch of pseudo-math, defining fallacies to be true, and then using your false premises to categorize a whole false system. Nice try, but learn some math and then rethink your plan of action when tackling the great question of how our universe came to be.