He wrote a book (Ganita Sara Samgraha) where he defined the result of operation of division by zero
A number remains unchanged when divided by zero.
I think this kind of makes sense.
I know that most of you will (and should) disagree with how I view this example, but lets say: You have a cake, and you are told to divide it no amount of times. Wouldn't the result be a cake that is still intact in it's original form?
To be clear, I am asking about the history behind why this definition was rejected.
Division can be viewed as either quotition or partition. The expression $\text{“}6\div 2\text{''}$ can mean either
Thus \begin{align} 6 & = \overbrace{2 + 2 + 2}^{\begin{smallmatrix} \text{3 parts,} \\ \text{each equal to 2} \end{smallmatrix}} & & \text{quotition} \\[10pt] 6 & = \underbrace{\quad3 + 3\quad}_{\begin{smallmatrix} \text{2 parts} \\ \text{each equal to 3} \end{smallmatrix}} & & \text{partition} \end{align}
So let's divide $6$ by $0$: \begin{align} 6 & = \overbrace{0 + 0 + 0 + \cdots + 0 + 0 + \cdots\cdots\cdots}^\text{How many?} & & \text{quotition} \\[10pt] 6 & = \underbrace{\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad}_{\begin{smallmatrix} \text{No terms at all.} \\ \text{What number is each term?} \end{smallmatrix}} & & \text{partition} \end{align}
One may also view it as follows $$ (0\times\text{what?}) = 6. $$