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.

# Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

page: 1
39
share:
+25 more
posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:33 PM
Mathematic understanding is flawed due to its one and only uncertainty that is to divide any number(n) by zero. In that operation, the answer is determined as undefined.

Any number divided by zero is said, in the current model of mathematics, to be “undefined”. In this thread, my purpose is to challenge the existence of zero and put infinity in its place. This is due to the fact that when examined closely, you see that zero and infinity operate very similarly as being a reference point for everything to arise.

Infinity and 0 are both immeasurable. 0 cannot be measured because there is nothing there to measure. Infinity cannot be measured because once a measurement has been attempted, there will always be something greater or smaller.

Infinity and 0 are both formless. 0 is formless for obvious reasons. Infinity is formless because if it had form, it would be rendered finite and thus not infinity.

Knowing this, you know that 0 +(n) = (n). Most people assume that infinity + (n) = infinity, but this is not true. The number (n) is a definition. It exists as something that is definable and it is finite. So the number (n) will arise from infinity in its own existence apparently separate from infinity. So infinity + (n) = (n).

So when you try to subtract (n) from infinity, you get -(n). When you try to subtract infinity from (n) you will get “negative infinity”. Negative infinity is still just infinity. Infinity must be understood to be the foundation of what everything comes from, of which all numbers can find their beginnings. When this kind of math is viewed in context, you see that there is no such thing as negative numbers. This obviously challenges conventional mathematics in a way that might render this style of math dysfunctional, but when viewed in context of reality as being energy, there is never a “0” and there is always “something”. Therefore, it would be more appropriate that we examine this form of mathematics and its implications very closely.

While 0 and infinity operate very similar, there are some differences, but I think these differences will serve in favor of infinity to better define the mathematical nature of reality in a way that zero never could. For instance, 0 times (n) is another way of saying you have 0 (n) times, and (n) 0 times. Either way, you will have zero. When you multiply infinity by (n), you get two answers. One way you are saying you have infinity (n) times and the other way you are saying you have (n) infinity times. One answer will look like (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)……etc. The other will look like a sideways 8.

Infinity is a starting point. I argue that infinity is THE starting point of the universe due to the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed. So mathematically, energy looks like (energy) times infinity. So you have infinitely lasting energy, and you also have infinity. No matter the operation, infinity cannot be separated from anything. The existence of anything can be traced back to infinity and still has its connection with infinity.

Another operation to examine is the division operation. Like trying to divide (n) by 0 and getting an undefined answer, trying to divide (n) by infinity yields a peculiar outcome. Although peculiar, it is still a much more realistic occurrence. The nature of reality is AT LEAST 3 dimensional. You have three dimensions of length width and height. You have a 3d object, a plane, and a line. But you can go a step further and get down to a single point. A single point is very peculiar. It is peculiar because it is an indeterminable quantity. The minute you try to define it, there is always a point smaller. This single point’s mathematical operation looks like (n) divided by infinity. So you have a quantity that is infinitely small yet still on the positive end of real numbers no matter how small it gets. And of course you know when you divide infinity by (n), you still have infinity.

The point of this thread is not only to challenge the way we have been looking at mathematics, but also to help define the root of our existence as being some kind of infinity. 0 is always used as a reference, but when the reference of everything that exists is traced back to its beginnings, and it is determined to not have a beginning and there was never an absolute nothing, then it must be accepted that THE reference is not 0 and therefore all mathematics based upon counting from zero is inappropriate. Numbers arise from infinity in their own existence just like they do from 0. The difference is, when a number arises from infinity, it maintains its reference as being part of the operation and never separate from it so that any operation maintains its connection with infinity.

I hope all who read this don’t automatically dismiss this because it goes against everything you have known so far, but rather accept the possibility that what you have learned so far hasn’t necessarily been correct. I hope all who read this will seriously consider this form of mathematics as a realistic approach not only to mathematics, but also to reality.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:44 PM
Can mathematics be used to represent possible outcomes instead of used in terms of absolution? I think that would make more sense.

Zero and infinity are the same thing?

In order to use numbers you need a starting point and an ending point? So there is application in numbers within the infinity. Otherwise, how would you be typing right now?

+13 more
posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:46 PM

Can you explain how you're justified in treating infinity like a number?

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:47 PM

True math is logarithmic. Everything else is a human lexicographic abstraction. Counting is a learned faculty, like saying the alphabet. But you do not need to know the sequence of numbers to be able to use math (i.e., navigate the geometry and physics that surround you all day long) just as you do not need to know the alphabet (i.e., to be literate in an abstract system of symbols to represent speech) in order to speak.

Math as we know it seems to overlay the "real math". There is an interesting discussion about this on Radio Lab (one of those shows that is contracted out to NPR). You can listen to it here...the whole show is interesting, but I particularly found the part about Amazonian tribes and young children to be the most interesting concept here. I've done cognitive linguistic research into the concept of numbering and plurals and the findings are pretty interesting. Many pre-literate tribes tend to not have 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., but rather none, 1, 1-ish, a bunch....no more precise than that.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:49 PM

Math is assigned value. Its subjective to the experience of observation.

Easy stuff.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Can you explain how you're justified in treating infinity like a number?

I'm not necessarily treating it like a number. Infinity is more like an all-inclusive undefined stage in which any number can find its location and maintain its proper value and separate itself as something finitely defined from something that is infinitely undefineable. So you are able to get 5 from infinity + 5 just like you can from 0 + 5, but the method at which you arrive to that answer is coming from a place that has the potential for any value to be defined.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:56 PM
I'm no scientist, but surely it is impossible to add something to zero...

Don't think "numbers" but rather pyshical "matter" (I will use the word matter for no other reason than to represent my point)
If I have 0 blocks and I aquire a block, that block comes from somewhere else... do you see what I mean? I've not "created" a block to add to zero but aquired it from another source, that block "existed" and I just aquired it to give me a total of 1... I've not added to zero.

Does that make sense? lol

+6 more
posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:01 PM

You are playing with semantics, not mathematics.

Kurt Gödel had a far superior and mathematically rigorous refutation.

edit on 28/8/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

I hope all who read this will seriously consider this form of mathematics as a realistic approach not only to mathematics, but also to reality.

Prove it.
Where is the applied.
Theory and word games are fun and all ... but
Build something with this new [color=gold] realistic approach to mathematics and reality.

David Grouchy

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:03 PM
zero is a place holder zero doesn't equal nothing. nothing is just nothing

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:05 PM

You're treating it exactly like a number. You're trying to perform mathematical operations with it. You're trying to justify the "0" nature of infinity by saying that 5 plus infinity is 5 plus something without any true form, and, so, equals 5. But that's treating infinity as a number.
In fact, infinity is a concept, and regular mathematical operation don't apply. 5 plus infinity is infinity... not because infinity is a number, but because infinity is a concept greater than any real number, and, so 5 essentially gets "swallowed up" by it. It's not the other way around.

You're connection of infinity with zero is legitimate as far as it applies to the initial vacuum out of which the universe was formed.
But, mathematically, you can't treat infinity as zero. It just doesn't work that way.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by onequestion
Can mathematics be used to represent possible outcomes instead of used in terms of absolution? I think that would make more sense.

Not exactly sure what you mean here

Zero and infinity are the same thing?

Not exactly, but they both are able to hold the same place as a starting point.

In order to use numbers you need a starting point and an ending point? So there is application in numbers within the infinity. Otherwise, how would you be typing right now?

I'm not sure what you are saying here either. I am proposing infinity as a starting point and as something that is innately connected to anything that comes from it.

The difference between infinity and zero is that all numbers can come directly from it and not have to have any intermediate numbers. So in other words you don't have to count from infinity to get to the number you are trying to get to, you can just go straight from infinity to the number because infinity is the all-inclusive background of which all numbers find their roots.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
I'm no scientist, but surely it is impossible to add something to zero...

Don't think "numbers" but rather pyshical "matter" (I will use the word matter for no other reason than to represent my point)
If I have 0 blocks and I aquire a block, that block comes from somewhere else... do you see what I mean? I've not "created" a block to add to zero but aquired it from another source, that block "existed" and I just aquired it to give me a total of 1... I've not added to zero.

Does that make sense? lol

Yes, that's exactly why I argue that 0 is not real. You can't get something from nothing. In infinity is all the blocks and so any finite quantity is possible. 0 can't manifest anything.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:09 PM
i got 18 oranges and i want to give to 3 person "equally", so, how many oranges each would have?

18 "oranges" divided by 3 "person", then each "person" get 6 "oranges".

if 18 oranges divided by 0 person,

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:11 PM
divide by 0 mean you don't want to divide.

if you want me to choose best answer.

18/0 is equal to 18.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:15 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

You're treating it exactly like a number. You're trying to perform mathematical operations with it. You're trying to justify the "0" nature of infinity by saying that 5 plus infinity is 5 plus something without any true form, and, so, equals 5. But that's treating infinity as a number.
In fact, infinity is a concept, and regular mathematical operation don't apply. 5 plus infinity is infinity... not because infinity is a number, but because infinity is a concept greater than any real number, and, so 5 essentially gets "swallowed up" by it. It's not the other way around.

You're connection of infinity with zero is legitimate as far as it applies to the initial vacuum out of which the universe was formed.
But, mathematically, you can't treat infinity as zero. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm simply treating infinity as an all-inclusive undefinable occurence non necessarily limited to numbers. At the point of some definition, infinity disappears and finity is all that exists. And the finite manifestation appears to be separate from infinity.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Most people assume that infinity + (n) = infinity, but this is not true. The number (n) is a definition. It exists as something that is definable and it is finite. So the number (n) will arise from infinity in its own existence apparently separate from infinity. So infinity + (n) = (n).

No. Infiniity is a "quantity without bound or end". It is not a "real number" (n) and a "real number" cannot be added to it.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:19 PM

Originally posted by requireduser
i got 18 oranges and i want to give to 3 person "equally", so, how many oranges each would have?

18 "oranges" divided by 3 "person", then each "person" get 6 "oranges".

if 18 oranges divided by 0 person,

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:26 PM

no you got alot of small pieces of oragnes.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:26 PM

Originally posted by SavedOne

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Most people assume that infinity + (n) = infinity, but this is not true. The number (n) is a definition. It exists as something that is definable and it is finite. So the number (n) will arise from infinity in its own existence apparently separate from infinity. So infinity + (n) = (n).

No. Infiniity is a "quantity without bound or end". It is not a "real number" (n) and a "real number" cannot be added to it.

You're right, it is not a real number. Since it is not a real number, it can't be a quantity either, it is simply "without bound or end". This includes any numbers. If something is added to it, it is more appropriate to say it is added from it. It is putting a bound on the boundless. That bound will continue to hold its place as being bound and as being defined as that quantity. It will hold its place against the backdrop of what is boundless, but it will nevertheless hold its place.

new topics

top topics

39