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: 12
39
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by Alien Abduct

There is one major thing you have forgotten to think about in you other post concerning dimensions.

And that is:
-You can not have 1 dimension without having the third dimension to house it. Without the third dimension to house the 1 dimension. 1 dimension would have to be infinite. Ant it would have to be a infinite third dimensional space.

-You can not have two dimensions without having the third dimension to house them.
-But you can have a three dimensional space that can house all dimensions you can think of.

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

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:10 PM

quick note, to determine 3 dimensions you need 6 co-ordinates, each of which must have a value.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:11 PM
Actually mathematics is much simpler than that. The only number that exists is 1. Everything else is a multiple or fraction of 1.

Here's another concept I find interesting; you measure the perimeter of Australia using a 1-foot ruler, making the measurement resolution 1 foot. You can't over-lap measurements and you can't cut corners, IE. cut across a piece of land. You write down your findings. You repeat the process with a 6" ruler. You will find that the perimeter has increased due to the more precise resolution and not having to bridge across a gap. Now repeat the process with a 3" ruler, and the perimeter once again increases slightly. Keep repeating the process. You will find that with each increase in resolution, the perimeter increases.

What does this mean? In theory, your resolution can be cut in half to infinity, thereby making the length of the perimeter of Australia, or anything for that matter, infinitely long. Infinity is a tough concept to grasp. Especially the concept of space going on to infinity. Never ending. It truly boggles the mind that no matter how far you fly into space, you can keep going...twice as far! Forever. I think at some point you will wrap around and end up where you started but that's just my own theory, based on pretty much nothing.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by shaq76

There is no correct math.

I'am sorry to contradict you, there is a correct math, infinity +infinity = infinity infinity - infinity = infinity infinity - 1 = infinity - 1 (no longer infinity) which is no longer an infinity if you can take 1 off the infinity ends at the time you take 1 off, so no longer infinity.

My conclusion, we should concentrate on the use of the gold number.

Infinte does not exist, infinity only exists in our minds, at the moment the universe has an end, that apparently extends even though we do not know it, zero can not be replaced by infinty, we need a zero marker, it is not possible. Please do not say I am closed minded, as I am very open minded.
edit on 29-8-2011 by WeSbO because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:16 PM

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

Yes there is. Our finite universe consists of a specific amount of infinite energy mass.

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.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:18 PM

again standard model. phew ok here we go again. on the basis of your idea, though understandable under standard model, heres your flaw:-

imagine that a line is drawn as is exactly 1mm wide, theres a gap of 1mm inbetween another line thats also 1mm wide, imagine that this is the smallest most possible resolution imaginable, this example cannot be divided any further, reason is because when the 2 line overlap you have "H" which is a defined value and which cannot be zero which also equals the starting point of infinity too.

oh dear everyone is getting lost on what they were taught in school, mr kaku their picking on me again!

edit on 29-8-2011 by technologicalsingularity because: lol love this!

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:19 PM

Use your logic till the end. If you like to see it that way.

18 Oranges and I dont have to split them. So the divider is zero but in the end, you do not have to perform the action of splitting them off because you dont need to split it. they can remain like they are: 18 in count.
edit on 29-8-2011 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:23 PM
I'am sorry to contradict you, there is a correct math, infinity +infinity = infinity infinity - infinity = infinity infinity - 1 = infinity - 1 (no longer infinity) which is no longer an infinity if you can take 1 off the infinity ends at the time you take 1 off, so no longer infinity.

My conclusion, we should concentrate on the use of the gold number.

Infinte does not exist, infinity only exists in our minds, at the moment the universe has an end, that apparently extends even though we do not know it, zero can not be replaced by infinty, we need a zero marker, it is not possible. Please do not say I am closed minded, as I am very open minded.

oups orry double post...

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:25 PM

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity

quick note, to determine 3 dimensions you need 6 co-ordinates, each of which must have a value.

No you don't. All you need to do is pick up a piece of paper and ask: Can this piece of paper exists by it self without the three dimensions present.

You don't need 6 co-ordinates to determine what dimension a piece of paper must exist in. You just need the space for it to be a piece of paper.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM

hi spy66, glad your getting pasionate about this as i am, but yes you do need 6 co-ordinates plus time actually, grab some printer paper, hold it up and count each side, no matter how small the side is it's a side, now add time which isnt a dimension but is imperitive to equating in QM to what you see before you,space and time are not uniform. what was before the paper in space? and after? imagine you holding that paper and also not holding that paper at the same time in you hand, thats called state "H".

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:33 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
You stole my thunder, and good for you! Seriously!

I am a scientist. I use numbers all the time. Zero is not a number! It is a "Place Holder". It occupies a place as if waiting for something to come and fill it. Without the place holder, 302 becomes 32. Our system of reading 302 is to say we have three one hundreds, no tens, an two ones. A basic instruction taught to elementary students, (At least I hope it's still being taught!). The same reading system is used with Binary.

As for infinity, it is not a number. It is a "Word" which is supposed to paint a mental image of "never ending".

Now, it is still a free country, so far, so everyone is free to redefine the meanings of zero and infinity until infinity...

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:34 PM

Very interesting post. And I came to the conclusion that infiniti is irrelevant. Why? Well, you said it yourself, and I quote.
"No matter the operation, infinity cannot be separated from anything." Then if it cannot be separated then it can not be added either. Thus rendering it's meaning mute. Right? Well anyway, nice post. Made my brain burn off the cobwebs...thanks.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:38 PM

this is called quantum entanglement, your absolutely right in your thinking. just that the theory of "there and not there simultaniously" is escaping a lot of peeps here.

another reason why zero cannot exist unless in an entangled state which is H.

oh dear 302 would become 32? no multiple use zero to give the outcome value greater than 32, but zero on its own is worthless unless entangled.

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

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by axslinger
Actually mathematics is much simpler than that. The only number that exists is 1. Everything else is a multiple or fraction of 1.

Here's another concept I find interesting; you measure the perimeter of Australia using a 1-foot ruler, making the measurement resolution 1 foot. You can't over-lap measurements and you can't cut corners, IE. cut across a piece of land. You write down your findings. You repeat the process with a 6" ruler. You will find that the perimeter has increased due to the more precise resolution and not having to bridge across a gap. Now repeat the process with a 3" ruler, and the perimeter once again increases slightly. Keep repeating the process. You will find that with each increase in resolution, the perimeter increases.

What does this mean? In theory, your resolution can be cut in half to infinity, thereby making the length of the perimeter of Australia, or anything for that matter, infinitely long. Infinity is a tough concept to grasp. Especially the concept of space going on to infinity. Never ending. It truly boggles the mind that no matter how far you fly into space, you can keep going...twice as far! Forever. I think at some point you will wrap around and end up where you started but that's just my own theory, based on pretty much nothing.

I have a question for you since yo mentioned fractions which is a good point.

Why can we not measure the exact distance from 1 to zero/infinite?
But we can measure the exact distance from the infinite/zero to 1.

Does our location from which we observe have a something to say about our accuracy?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:41 PM
a circle can be infinite in 2D and a sphere can be infinite in 3D. Because if you walk on the edge, from the view of the walker it´s infinite, because he can walk infinite in -from his view- in one direction.

Infinite will always be something bound to the spectator

edit on 29-8-2011 by verschickter because: threw in some marks

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:46 PM

good question,

but the user your asking already states the understanding, spy66, it very much depends on what resolution your working from, time is the only enemy of resolution.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:46 PM
It is bleeding simple, infinty does not exist without 0, today we are in 3 dimensions, hey maybe that will change someday, (but I don't see why...at the moment) tommorow will be another #ty world,your ideas a compleatly flawed work on something more usefull if you can ! that is what we need at the moment.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:48 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
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”.
okay, how would you numerically/matematically represent the absence of an object then? or a starting point?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity

hi spy66, glad your getting pasionate about this as i am, but yes you do need 6 co-ordinates plus time actually, grab some printer paper, hold it up and count each side, no matter how small the side is it's a side, now add time which isnt a dimension but is imperitive to equating in QM to what you see before you,space and time are not uniform. what was before the paper in space? and after? imagine you holding that paper and also not holding that paper at the same time in you hand, thats called state "H".

Well we can imagine trying to observe the specifics about the piece of paper without a the presence of a light source
and of course by not being present our selves.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:50 PM

Originally posted by axslinger

Here's another concept I find interesting; you measure the perimeter of Australia using a 1-foot ruler, making the measurement resolution 1 foot. You can't over-lap measurements and you can't cut corners, IE. cut across a piece of land. You write down your findings. You repeat the process with a 6" ruler. You will find that the perimeter has increased due to the more precise resolution and not having to bridge across a gap. Now repeat the process with a 3" ruler, and the perimeter once again increases slightly. Keep repeating the process. You will find that with each increase in resolution, the perimeter increases

That is logical, on any Island .... '-'

new topics

top topics

39