It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# help needed with a math theory

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:02 AM
hello everybody, i have had a theory for some time, but have always been a bit to lazy to do anything about it, that and my defiency with mathmatics, any way excuses over, here it is,

0 x 5= 0
5 x 0=0

this does not compute for me, how would it affect science and mathmatics if,..

0 x 5=0
5 x 0=5

i understand that this seems to go against the grain, but it just seems to make more sense to me this way, how does multiplying something by nothing equal nothing if you havent multiplyed it by anything to begin with, it is my belief that if this adjustment was applied to the field of zero point we may see a little progress, i would be grateful if somebody with a pioneering attitude towards maths could try it out in some way and let us know the results

sorry if i am a moron

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:07 AM

0 x 5 = 0 [ _ _ _ _ _ ] where _ represents a null or nothing
Zero (or no) 'fives' is equal to zero or nothing.

5 x 0 = 0 [ 0 0 0 0 0 ] literally five 'zeros' or 'nothings'
Five 'nothings' (or zeros) is equal to nothing.

I think what you're doing is assuming the non-zero numeric is actually a 'value' when it's just a multiplier, so to speak.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by noonebutme]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:14 AM
You are reading 5x0=0 as: five multiplied no times. That would indeed equal 5. The problem, and it is an interesting one, resides in the concept of multiplication. Think of multiplication as the number of instances of a quantity, rather than the number of times that it is multiplied.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:22 AM
i am understanding what everybody is saying, but what difference would it make when applied to an equation

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:50 AM

-E-

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by THELONIO
i am understanding what everybody is saying, but what difference would it make when applied to an equation

Quite obvious isn't it?
Any equation that has some kind of multiplication in it would produce different answers with your ''theory''. Which would most likely cause differences between systems of measurement and the actual formulas.

It becomes a lot easier when you say ''times'' instead of multiplication though. (As shown above, you're really just putting the same number an X amount of times next to itself, then adding that up)

[edit on 4-9-2009 by borrowedname]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:45 AM

The illogicalness of mathematics sent me careening into spelling to save my sanity. There is illogicalness in spelling too, but for some reason it makes more sense to me than mathematics which (I suspect) is deliberately made harder to grasp than language, spoken or written.

Math is dumb. 5 multiplied by zero should equal 5, which is the number/value that is in question to begin with.

Or I'm dumb. LOL

At least I can spell.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:06 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

So given that theory, what would 5 x 1 = ?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:34 AM
The whole idea of a formula is that it balances out.

A = 5
B = 0
A x B = 0

so lets call the answer C.
Which gives us
A = 5
B = 0
C = 0

So now we have a balanced formula.
A x B = C

so because
A x B = C

and
B x A = C

and
C = C

Then
A x B must = B x A

The only time the order in which values are multiplied together matters is with quantum mathematics.

I hope this helps

[edit on 4-9-2009 by VitalOverdose]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:38 AM
You're forgetting that 5(0) is the same thing as 0(5).

You can't read it left to right or right to left. It's the same forwards as it is backwards.

So it's 5 0s and 0 5s.

2(3) is 2 3s or 3 2s, which both = 6.

Hope that helps.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by THELONIO
how does multiplying something by nothing equal nothing if you havent multiplyed it by anything to begin with

You're not multiplying "something" by "nothing." There is no exclusive "dominant" number in the equation. They are both in a dance with each other, so maybe it would help you to think about it as multiplying nothing 5 times.

0x5= 0+0+0+0+0=0
5x0= zero fives added together = 0

Note: There is no number to represent zero fives other than 0 -- which is probably why it confuses you.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:11 AM
Its all in how you look at it.
Think of multiply as meaning "of".

1 X something means you have 1 "of" them.

6 X something means you have 6 of them.

0 X something means you "none" of them.

Even 0 X 5 means you have "no" fives. So if you have no fives; then you have nothing. No sixes also equals nothing.

"0" x's anything means you have none of them -- even if the things are numbers.

edit to add: and if you have "none" of them; then you have "0".

[edit on 9/4/2009 by wayno]

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:27 PM

I'm not sure where your confusion lies. Let's look at the basics of multiplication with an example.

* * * *
* * * *
* * * *

Here are twelve dots. We represent the multiplication of those dots as being:

3 X 4 = 12

where we have a column of three rows of dots and four columns of dots.

* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *

Again, we have twelve dots. We represent the multiplication of those dots as:

4 X 3 = 12

where we have four rows of dots and three columns of dots.

In both instances commuting the multipliers (flipping them around) does nothing to the product of the multiplication.

In your case we can't represent 5 X 0 = 0 graphically since there's nothing to represent.

* * * * *

The above would be 1 X 5 = 5

*
*
*
*
*

likewise 5 X 1 = 5.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 03:52 PM
5 x 0 = five instances of zero . . . . there is no other way to do it. . . .

you have either 5 instances of 0 or 0 instances of 5

either way you look at it its 0

5 x 1 = 1 instance of 5 or 5 instances of 1

as you can see zero instances of anything is inherently 0

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:08 AM

with mathematics, it does matter how it reads from left to right. 1-2 does not equal 2-1. It just so happens that with addition and multiplication it doesnt matter (division it does, of course). And with using the parentheses, it would probably just confuse the OP more.

OP:

if you are thinking 5 x 0 = 5, and 0 x 5 = 0, its obvious that you are taking the first number in the equation and viewing it as the dominant number. With Multiplication and Addition there are no dominant numbers. An earlier post made a very good point of "5 x 1 = ?"

there are tons of things you'll see in math that dont make sense at first glance, but they actually do. If what you say were true, everything wouldnt "mesh up" as perfectly as it now does (well, as perfectly as we know, so far). It would even extend to other functions besides multiplication. If the first number always turns out to be dominant, what about, 1 / 1 = ?, or any number squared.

the thing with math though, is that its varifiable against itself using other numbers plugged into the equation. Try it with your current theory, and see if you can make sense out of what you get.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:50 PM
You people must be really bored discussing 5x0=0...... or 5(0) or 0(5).

Why don't we discuss 5(x(2)+y(3))=a(5)...

Really? Cmon!

P.S. a=x(2)+y(3)

[edit on 21-9-2009 by DaMod]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:54 PM
a lot of math doesn't work correctly in the real world. For instance math would tell us that 10/2 =5, when in reality, if you divide 10 into 2 you get 20.

10/2 = 20

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:31 PM
no cat has two tails.

Since one cat is one more cat than no cat, a (one) cat has three tails !

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:32 PM

Wow...

This is like primary school mathematics
you realy shouldn't be on this site if you don't understand simple maths!

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:09 AM
This might interest you.
en.wikipedia.org...

People have studied this. Non commutative maths, where the order of operations makes a difference. where a*b doesn't equal b*a.

top topics

0