It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

page: 14
39
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I have not read the entire thread, but I for one am proud to understand the profound need of the place holder known as 'zero'. It give us a starting point at the beginning of an equation to understand that we know nothing and that if we know nothing then we absolutely can not use it to divide or multiply by (both are senseless)... among many other calculations. Yes I said zero is a place holder and many other definitions may come and go but in my line of work it is invaluable.
edit on 29-8-2011 by burning_need because: (no reason given)
By place holder I mean as in the number 2011 the zero is there to define the century. As nothing I mean that zero = 'null' an undefined value.
edit on 29-8-2011 by burning_need because: definitions




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Yochuna
 


nice reply, but time is not a constant, hence the anomalies, as i described earlier with spaggetti and the exhaust pipe, the actual cross hatching or jumping to another causes the anomaly.

and if peeps are wondering if all this space/time talk is off topic, noop, all this physics has a lot to do with basic maths understanding and defining it's value.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
People keep coming up with ways to try to disprove this as something logical. I can't answer each of these right now without negelcting my life. Most people here keep saying the same stuff that other people have said, so if you want your answer, just backtrack through the thread and it should be somewhere within.

The only thing about 0 that is inconsistent with reality is that when you get down to it, there's no way that there ever could have been one. This universe has never been at a point of nothingness to become something. So 0 should not be THE starting point in our quantitative defining of existence. 0 means non-existence, and there has always been something that has existed. Everything is that energy in some form or another that is neither created nor destroyed. Our roots absolutely do not begin at 0.

However, if you do wish to find a starting point for quantitative progression, you will find, by your own logic, if you are open to the matter, that infinity provides an appropriate platform for such a progression. This is evident in the all-inclusive nature of infinity. If you wish to disprove that infinity cannot be a starting point and that 0 can, then this is what you should be focusing on. You need to disprove that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and you need to prove that something can come from nothing. Then you will have successfully invalidated my claims. There is no other way.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I see a lot of posts regarding infinities, so I did a little research and I found a website that neatly explains Cantor's Theorem for infinite sets. It's really interesting and informative, and I believe it will answer most/all of your questions and infinities and infinite sets.

Here it is:Cantor's Theorem



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
This discussion reminds of something I read in "Plato's Republic" back when I was in college. It's probably the only thing I remember about the book.

He said that even though it is obvious that we can walk a mile between point "A" and point "B", we should not be able to do so.

Between point "A" and point "B" is another point, say point "C", that is halfway between "A" and "B" at the half-mile mark that we must pass first. There is another halfway point between "A" and "C", say point "D" at the quarter-mile mark, and so on.

This goes on infinitely because there is always going to be a half-way point between any two points, no matter how small.

If there is an infinite amount of half-way points we must reach first then we can never reach the last point.

Therefore, every step you take, you are walking an infinite amount of points.

Boggles the mind.
edit on 29-8-2011 by Common Scarecrow because: addition

edit on 29-8-2011 by Common Scarecrow because: spelling



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity
reply to post by Yochuna
 


nice reply, but time is not a constant, hence the anomalies, as i described earlier with spaggetti and the exhaust pipe, the actual cross hatching or jumping to another causes the anomaly.

and if peeps are wondering if all this space/time talk is off topic, noop, all this physics has a lot to do with basic maths understanding and defining it's value.

Time is a constant in equations, (t), but at times it appears as fluid. I am very familiar with the concepts you are speaking about. They are fun to play with. Oops! My geekness is beginning to show.
edit on 8/29/2011 by Yochuna because: Changed an is to an as.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


ok im off to bed after this, what is mis understood is your adding an "infinite" number of new divisions as a hypothesis for resolution. try to view it that there is only "C" between "A" and "B" , but the exact position of "C" gets increasingly more accurate instead.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Yochuna
 


time is only seen as a constant because it has no mass, though the path of time is affected by mass.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Blinded
 


Thank you for that, truly.

I have dabbled in each of those subjects for many years, and only with your explanation did the gears fit together.

You have taught a man to fish.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
this is a joke thread right? So math is wrong... I guess humanity and human history since t=0 has been wrong huh? What a joke thread...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


ok im off to bed after this, what is mis understood is your adding an "infinite" number of new divisions as a hypothesis for resolution. try to view it that there is only "C" between "A" and "B" , but the exact position of "C" gets increasingly more accurate instead.



Okay, I am intrigued and I will read the entire thread. Just wondering how a thread about the meaning of a 'null' or unknown object such as zero became entwined with precision? They can't be related, zero is clearly defined... I have been wrong before though!



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 
Even the vacuum of space contains 1 hydrogen atom per square meter



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


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


Multiple universes, or more precisely, infinite universes with our current existence being merely the most probable outcome.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by spy66
 
Even the vacuum of space contains 1 hydrogen atom per square meter



Then it is not a true vacuum.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity
on this one 0 on its own means jack, but a 0 with an interger preceeding it means to multiply the preceeding interger by 10, 100, 1000 etc....if you had the interger 3 and is preceeded by the non-interger 0 it's value is still 3.


Mustn't restrict ourselves to only the base 10 system but 0 means nothing in all bases and early math systems didn't even use a symbol for nothing or infinity (romans for example). Infinity being the reciprocal of zero and vice versa are concepts I never had a problem with. Of course there are the 'virtual' zeros like my chance of winning the lotto where the actual probability can be precisely measured but it's so tiny that it might as well be zero and infinity is also contentious Eg the number of electrons in the universe at any instant I'd call a virtual infinity while an assymptotic function like a tangent is an example of a true infinity.

Zero & infinity are simply markers for the limits of our mathematics we've adopted over time for convenience and very useful they are (saves a hell of a lot of ink at times).



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Dear smithjustinb,

Good post, something I have discussed in the past. X cannot equal 0 in algebraic terms. You exist; therefore an absolute zero is impossible even if you only exist for a millisecond, absolute zero is impossible. The beginning of math should therefore be one. I come at this question from a philosophical approach. Zero does have relevance when looking at sets, it has meaning if there is more than one, if there is diversity. I would however argue that infinity actually does exist, it is not however a number, it just is. It is not about the number reached, it exists without being counted even before it is, it is the future. My thoughts.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by technologicalsingularity
reply to post by Yochuna
 


time is only seen as a constant because it has no mass, though the path of time is affected by mass.

I think that is what I said when I used the term, "fluid", which is a property which can be affected.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Yes it does.

Infinity is a formless realm in which no definition is given for at the point of definition, a finite concept is rendered and therefore manifested to be apparently separated from infinity.


?????

Actual mathemeticians have figured out rigorously how to deal with infinities (more correctly various kinds of approaches to infinity) in the mid 19th century (rigorous reformulation of calculus which is now known as 'analysis') Everything, when properly formulated, is defined and concrete. It is much more clear than the mumbo-jumbo above.

Conventional real number fields under the usual operators of addition and multiplication do not include a special number called "infinity". However, there are limiting operations (not numbers!) which are written with a symbol called 'infinity' because that distinguish them from others. These are also well defined.

Roughly, the infinity in elementary mathematics is not a "thing" but a notation of "how to do".

Of course the algebraic properties of reals have been extended and amplified and there are structures where infinities (there are multiple kinds of them) can be treated and operated upon symbolically as objects themselves. These are not standard undergraduate mathematical objects.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 30-8-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I love this thread! Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had a completely different set of math? But could this different set off math build all the structures and equations we have currently? Would the different set of math produce the same outcome or a new way to view the Universe?

I believe someone near the first page where one explains this thread is all about semantics. What is zero?

Many people have said zero is a place holder, for something that isn't there. So you could add anything to zero. I have no money and tomorrow I have $20.

Maybe it's not possible to have infinite possibilities you could add to zero? Who knows how much money I'll have tomorrow?

Maybe zero is like infinity, isn't it the opposite? Is zero what existed before the Big Bang? Absolute nothingness? If there is an afterlife, what does that mean for zero?

Is zero the unknown energy that is in between particles? The place holder between positive and negative?
edit on 30-8-2011 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by smithjustinb
 

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.

I gave you a star for that. I may not be into mathematics but that hit the spot for me and i'm glad this .ache got sorted fast.


Nothing more to add.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join