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: 11
39
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:32 PM

There is no correct math. Like euclidean and non-euclidean geometry. I did not read all of your post, but the limit of N divided by zero is well defined for N finite.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:35 PM

The limit is infinity (plus/minus depending on the sign in the numerator N).

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:39 PM

Greetings! I am new to the site and the forums. However in looking at your proposition you should consider this: Zero is not Infinite. It is in fact static. It is 'nothing' - a place holder to indicate the absence of anything being present - it is a representation of absolute vacancy. And is used to place-hold positions in the number line.
Infinity is on the other hand everything and anything it is 'all'. Your understanding of the two is mixed up on the premise of the two being equals and they are not equivalent. If you look at the number set of infinity, zero is part of the set 'infinity'. If you try to put infinity into Zero you have something into nothing ( divide by zero...) thus how do you put something into a non-extant state? You simply cannot. I disagree with your premise and theory in its entirety due to the fact it does not mathematically stand up.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:41 PM
So if I imagine that I have a set of values such as -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 etc.. in either direction other than to express 10, 100, 100 etc, really we do not need 0 as the place holder between -1 and +1. If you have one your are +1, if I take it away your are now -1. I have it, I am now +1.

"Have" implies ownership of something, you cannot have nothing.

Now if we go along with the OP idea of Infinity then we could have a string of numerical values that are expressed as -3 infinity,-2 infinity-1 infinity +1 infinity +2 infinity +3 infinity etc. The place holder, formally known as 0 is replaced by infinity.

I cannot make the symbol for infinity for some reason. Since we already know and agree that we must have at least 1 of anything to start any equation, infinity contains 1 and all the multiples of 1 continuing upwards infinitely. 0 is not needed in any equation, since it is not there and we know we need at least one of something to start and end any equation.

Anyone get what i mean?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:46 PM

All major areas of study are philosophies. www.merriam-webster.com... Its Greek interpretation is "Love of Wisdom". A PhD is a doctorate in philosophy. I only say this because you seemed a bit confused on this in your post.

Mathematics is - simply - a set of ordered, symbolic languages -- tools to aid in solving problems. There are many tools in the Math toolbox. Physics is not Math - physics uses tools from the math toolbox.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by AuirOverrun
Both Infinity and zero do not physically exist. There is nothing that goes on forever, and zero is the term we give to the absence of quantity. It can't be there because the reason it is is because there isn't anything there. If you think about it, it's like the darkness. Light rays allow us to see, however when the light rays are gone there is darkness. But there are no Dark rays, meaning the darkness isn't actually there. So you're trying to compare and relate two things that don't even exist.

However, mathematically speaking, Zero DOES exist, and infinity again does not. Say i had a bag of apples (let's call this bag A) and you had a bag of apples (B) now, in A there are five apples. In B, zero. If you give me all the apples in your bag you have given me zero apples. If x is the apples in your bag and y the apples in mine, x+y=y. If i asked you how many apples you had, your answer would be zero.
edit on 29-8-2011 by AuirOverrun because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-8-2011 by AuirOverrun because: (no reason given)

So, if you have two bags of apples but one of them is absent any apples,what do you have? An empty bag. So you do not have two bags of apples to start with, you have one bag of apples and one empty bag. You cannot, based on this whole idea have 0 apples. 0 apples implies the inherent absence of apples. if we follow your equation exactly, we would still have an empty bag. Apples actually don't even need to be in your equation, can't give you anything from an empty bag.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Smack

All major areas of study are philosophies. www.merriam-webster.com... Its Greek interpretation is "Love of Wisdom". A PhD is a doctorate in philosophy. I only say this because you seemed a bit confused on this in your post.

Mathematics is - simply - a set of ordered, symbolic languages -- tools to aid in solving problems. There are many tools in the Math toolbox. Physics is not Math - physics uses tools from the math toolbox.

So if the OP has a valid point and 0 should be replaced by infinity, would that affect standard physics principles?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:59 PM

If x and y are variables representing the number of apples in yours and my bag respectively, if my bag has no apples then we can assign y a value of 0, i.e. zero apples. It doesn't matter if I have 7 pears and 6 oranges instead, y would still be 0, i.e. zero apples.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:00 PM

Well in your reasoning it is exchangable and it is not. Infinity (the symbol) is only applicable if you are defining a line(x) say from 0 to 1... the famous Cantor problem. How many places are there between Zero and One?.. 'infinity'.
how many places from 0 to -1? infinity... but you still have the Zero being again - a place holder that defines where there is 1 and where there isn't. If you replace the Cartesian mapping with 'infinity' as the origin point you are trying to inject only a philosophical perturburance to the debate. Mathematically it is defined as the point of origin the first 'thing' the first entity - 1. But what is before One? Nothing. Not infinity. Nothing. there is either something or there is nothing. and no matter how many times you divide it the space between Zero and One is always One - something. When we speak of -1 we are referring to a loss of something. How many times it is removed or in reverse depending upon the meaning of the chart we wish to compose. But when the argument is about whether or not Zero exists - the symbol expresses the presence of 'no presence' it is the posit that no number =>1 can be accounted here in all of infinity... it simply does not exist.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:02 PM

To the OP, you will find a great deal of resistance to any attempt to "quantify" infinity. The concept of infinity has no place in the "practical" world of mathematics and in fact is counter productive towards the purpose of practical mathematics.

The concept of infinity has been known to drive men insane…

There are two types of math:

Practical Math – This is the math used in every day calculations to account and quantify the physical world we meddle in.

Theoretical Math – This is the math that accounts for and considers the concept of infinity. Because of this it is considered “useless” to the majority of people. However accounting for infinity is important for understanding the non-physical mechanics of “reality”.

Basically there is a time and place for theoretical mathematics and its not for finances (although some try, its called “creative accounting”) its not for construction of buildings etc…99% of the world utilizes practical math 99% of the time.

Although theoretical math is no more/less “real” than practical math it has a very bad rep because if it is used in the wrong context it creates some serious problems. You will have a really difficult time constructing a building with infinitely long walls...

The concept of infinity is misunderstood because for the most part people try desperately to describe “figure out” theoretical mathematics using practical mathematics. IE: to QUANTIFY INFINITY goes against the concept of infinity itself…

The OP is right in the sense that the laws of thermodynamics imply evidence that “infinity” is a good answer to the problem…”where the hell did we get “1” from?”

The practical application of “1” has a pre-determined purpose based on perception.

yes the concept of infinity can explain a lot of theoretical problems...but the concept of infinity only complicates things on the practical level...

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:02 PM

Does the OP have a valid point?

I don't think so. Not if he cannot reconcile the difference between the language of mathematics and the concepts we attempt to represent using it. They are two different things. His thesis lacks the necessary scientific rigor to be taken seriously. To boldly state that Mathematics is wrong is one thing; To actually prove it is quite another.
edit on 29-8-2011 by Smack because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:07 PM

Maybe what you've actually done is make a pretty good case for the notion that there is no such thing as infinity. Conceptually, sure there's such a concept as infinity, but - as you so adeptly argued in the first part of your post - applying that concept to tangible reality proves to be impossible to do. In fact, I agree that as soon as you identify infinity as more than a notion (that notion itself referring to the fact that what you've got, and the only thing that you've got is information concerning the concept of infinity) your concept is immediately corrupted by the finite nature of the identifiable thing that has emerged as existent.

And yes, this also pertains to the absolute void (zero), since as soon as you identify anything, it becomes something - even if you've identified it as nothing (relatively speaking, of course).

As far as math is concerned...well...maybe it's a split hair, but logic is what's infallible, and math is just how human beings play around with what they can understand about logic. Math is a very limited human interpretation of what logic actually brings to the existential table. And anyone knows that whatever it is that humans get their hands on gets completely effed up before too long. In the bizarre world of the human being, right is not accurate. Right is whatever is generally agreed upon. There's no telling where things can proceed to when that's the case. Hell, most of the people who post on this board don't even believe in reality. Math? What's math to those people?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:18 PM

exactly what i was thinking. Abit more informative then i would have put it.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:19 PM
Since infinity is neither an integer nor a value, [there is no such thing as .infinity (point infinity)] it cannot be operated upon.

Zero, however, is both a value (a null value, but a value) and an integer.

Therein lies the difference, and the error in the OP, I think.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:42 PM

havent read the rest of the thread but, heres my view on the "matter". maths origins is in astronomy from the ancient times and hasnt moved on since. now heres the juicy bits! the reason why the whole zero and infinity crap exists is only because of the big bang theory! but it contradicts itself and quantum mechanics, hence why the standard model is hogwash.

they say that even those who delve in QM or even study it as a profession dont really understand it, but thats only because they were pre-conditioned with the standard model, what if QM was the gospel?.

now your right in that zero is neither a number/interger nor has a value/mass, that infinity only defines a starting point thats constantly re-calcuable to another interger therefore isnt ever definitive. in order for zero to have value, one must know the mass of the other particle that caused the matter mass to detonate and then find out what pushed them together, we're talking a particle orgy here, not 1 on 1, creating the big bang, the other problem of calculating infinity, is that once a starting point/mass is determined, zero becomes redundent and replaced with a defined and weighted interger.likely "H".

just imagine the mayhem that would cause! in maths and physics, the term "infinity" = dunno, this causes you to divide zero, to try to determine a starting point to infinity otherwise the entire equation is void.

so finding the starting point or first interger (isnt 1) and cannot be (zero) the challenge is 1.determine the mass of higgs boson 2. what fused the HB with matter 3. determine the mass of 1+2 4.you now have what will replace zero but with the addition QM has an opposite, the only thing that is infinite is the catalyst, the rest has a starting point.

zero = gravity/graviton (no mass) (cos it doesn't exist, polared magnetism does however)
infinity = lazy = narrow-minded standard modelists = stuck in sumerian times = zero (because both have no defined value/mass)

einstein and hawkings, your times are up on dividing zero! i would say get a life, but maybe a better answer would be "get a mass" before you try maths.

edit on 29-8-2011 by technologicalsingularity because: forgot nuclear interger "H"

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by kbriggss
If you believe in infinity you must believe anything that can be measured exists in infinity.

Time = Never started or will never end

Size = you can not achieve the smallest or biggest particle

Temperature = there is no coldest or hottest temperature

Can you think of any other measurements that fall into this way of thinking

Maybe speed? That one is always related to perception of where you measure from but in infinity everything is moving and will never attain non movement. You may feel still but the planet is moving, as is our solar system and the viewable universe we are within.

Can you think of any more?

With the infinite you can have a "0" and a 1. Zero is the exact moment (time) when the infinite formed 1 by a compression/contraction, by this step you have a constant connection between 1 and the infinite.

Our universe is formed by a specific amount of infinite energy mass. Our existence consists of a specific value of finite energy mass. This energy mass is per to day expanding. probably because it was compressed initially

Is it really that hard to see the connections between the infinite and finite?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:46 PM

Mister_Bit, Smithjustinb and any one else who is interested in how this world has come from infinity can read HERE.

This is my take on this universe coming from infinity. I think you guys will find some of my concepts interesting.

I wish to only introduce concepts that have to do with the OP of this thread. Please make any other arguments or comments in the appropriate thread.

-Alien

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:53 PM

Mathematics IS used to work out probability all the time. Very often , because real life has elements in it that are difficult or impossible to quantify in numerical value, math is used to estimate the probability of a certain event, for instance , sports betting. Those who make a living off it do not do so by going with thier gut. The work out the value of all the known advantages of a given competitor or team, and array them against the opposing competitor or team, within the framework of an individual encounter between the two sides, and sometimes, in the long games, over the course of a sport season.

These quantifiable elements are codified, given value , and then using that data, an analysis is performed (I understand what happens, but I cant add up for toffee myself) .

The only time math fails, is when people fail to get it right. Thats why I hated math... I could never make it work for me.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:54 PM

no you can't, mr standard modelist! 0 is off 1 is on H is both on and off and has a defined value thats neither 0 or 1. bin standard model and study QM.

also theres no such thing as a "specific amount of infinite mass" .

edit on 29-8-2011 by technologicalsingularity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 05:58 PM
infinity and nothing are 2 differenrt things, please stop muddling things up.

edit on 29-8-2011 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)

top topics

39