On my un-scientific calculator it leads to „Fehler“ = „Error“. You‘re not implying infinity is an error, are you? 
But if it is then the thread would be infinitively uninteresting.
Thank you all for taking „Off-Topic“ so seriously scientific, the thread is of infinitive multiple interest for all viewers. I‘m certain. At least I believe to be 
It was a mistake on my part (I made it very quickly) 
it should have always be number of responses + 1 :
x responses + 1 original post gives x + 1 messages.
No :
200/0 = ∞.
Or dividing by 0 is impossible depending on how you explain maths.
but it can’t equal 0.
who are both ? I’m not one of them.
But, hey, responding again here should mean this thread interests me, but it’s not.
I’m just waiting for my computers compute my renders and I don’t know what to do to keep myself busy while I watch the progressing results.
So you probably won’t see me on this thread again.
Ah yes, how do you explain maths? Or, as the Americans call it math 
If you’re talking about division in the space of the real numbers (R), ∞ is not a number so division by 0 is impossible : you can’t get a result.
If you study the limit of a function, dividing by 0 tends towards ∞ (infinity) - (which is not a resulting number but an idea). Which, by convention is written : x/0 = ∞.
Or more precisely :
function is : f(x) = x/b. x is variable. b is parameter.
When b tends to 0, limit of f(x) = ∞.
Have to use derivative functions to demonstrate this.
Sorry if those words are not the right ones in english but this have sense in my langage.
No problem. At least I understood what you said. But my knowledge comes from programming, not maths.
Off course not, you were just coincidentally passing by and there was an unemployed keyboard on an unattended desk which needed some action, thank you so much… btw. it was a test. Of myself. I just exchanged the numbers like you exchanged the conclusion, testing if anybody would notice. 0/200= 0 and opposite of nothing is everything. 0 - ∞
We’re only exploring the boundaries of OFF-topic here. And should take some food with us on our way to frontiers no human ever crossed. 
Algorythms use math, lot of math, and logic.
Yes !
Indeed now it becomes interesting.
When being off topic of the off topic subject.
There’s another positive side effect: One cannot run into the risk of getting flagged as “off-topic” 
, except of course, one would try to ask to figure out some Photolab functions, but who would want that? That’s something for the less popular topics.
Indeed who would want to risk that DxO put those asked features in filmpack ?
And it seems as someone told me (don’t remember who) that feature request category is an old category DxO does not read anymore.
Aaah, therefore their internal code-name is “trash-bin” or “poubelle”? Now I understand 
So, that is how it feels to hijack an Off-Topic thread 
Being off and loving it.
Maybe the new way for DxO to try to survive ?
Baiting kikoulol ?
Better read feature request category …
This video is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered academic
In other words, time wasting click-bait
@Joanna, I had some free time last night, and was watching YouTube on my big-screen TV. I accidentally found a DxO information source I was not aware of before, 'Take Better Photos".
They have a large collection of “how-to” videos, and they describe things differently from what I remember reading and learning. Here’s just one example (Smart Lighting), but there are many more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if00vvBP0Lg
Things are described in a way that’s similar to how PhotoJoseph taught PhotoLab. Watching the video many things start to feel intuitive.
If you agree, maybe we can add this to the list of sources to learn how to use PhotoLab features.
(The video linked to above is just one of a dozen or so videos I watched last night.)
What a load of rubbish!!! He really doesn’t know how the tool works. It is far more sophisticated and effective than he makes it out to be.
So please relax, sit back and watch one or two dozens more. Keeps you entertained and gives us serenity. 
Oops, thanks. At one-am it sounded reasonable. Glad I asked you.
It started playing after Season Two, Episode One, of Columbo finished - shown in HD, no commercial interruptions. I loved that show decades ago, and enjoy it just as much today.
Having seen that training video, maybe I’ll be able to find an official version with correct information.