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: 18
39
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:58 AM

Nature shows that 0 never existed. 0 is man's interpretation of infinity.

Not so, zero is man's interpretation of balance. While infinity is man's interpretation of growth and expansion

By definition zero is at rest and infinity is in constant motion
edit on 31-8-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:14 AM

Positive and negative can exist infinitely. But there is only 1 zero.

I am not sure if they can. If you have a absolute vacuum; You have 1 space of absolutely 0 particles, 0 energy, 0 motion.

A absolute vacuum is not a negative property (minus), It is not a positive property (positive). It is neutral.
A vacuum can not form anything that is more neutral then it self. (it can not create another vacuum or energy source with more force than it self).
A vacuum can only form positive properties. All properties within a vacuum must be positive in comparison to the vacuum. because the vacuum can not form something that is greater than it self.

But the properties can have a positive or negative property relative to each other. So this is what your line up of numbers should look like:

1 vacuum = +- properties.

(-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3.) Some might think 0 is neutral, but its not really because its not the vacuum.
0 is only neutral compared to the positive and negative properties in the line up of numbers. Even zero in this case has a positive property compared to the vacuum.

You wont have more +- properties than the vacuum will produce. So you cant have a infinite amount of physical properties, because they can never exceed the force of the vacuum.

Within math you can divide properties indefinitely, But physically it is impossible to divide physical properties indefinitely, because of the physical power of the vacuum.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:25 AM

In your absolute vacuum zero can and does exist but in an absolute vacuum infinity can not exist.

The vacuum itself is a perfect balance, you can not add to it or remove from it or it will cease exist.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

In your absolute vacuum zero can and does exist but in an absolute vacuum infinity can not exist.

The vacuum itself is a perfect balance, you can not add to it or remove from it or it will cease exist.

Correct, within a vacuum you can have 0.

Correct, "Within" a vacuum "infinity" can not exist. Because the vacuum is infinite.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

In your absolute vacuum zero can and does exist but in an absolute vacuum infinity can not exist.

The vacuum itself is a perfect balance, you can not add to it or remove from it or it will cease exist.

A vaccuum is the nature of infinity, not zero.

Infinity is formless.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Nature shows that 0 never existed. 0 is man's interpretation of infinity.

Not so, zero is man's interpretation of balance. While infinity is man's interpretation of growth and expansion

Infinity is balance. When anything arises as finite in the context of infinity, that manifestation is in the center of infinity. So no matter what value you have, it is always in the center of infinity. Thus everything has an equal weight in front of and behind it no matter how small or large that quantity is.

By definition zero is at rest and infinity is in constant motion
edit on 31-8-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)

True. So how does something that is vacant and at rest produce something that is not? Impossible.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Infinity is not an amount of anything. An amount designates a finite value. There is no finite in infinity.

If you have one apple and give away one apple, from your subjective perspective, you are without apples, but objectively, that apple still exists.

Zero is hardly subjective. Granted the apple might still exist, but I would have an amount equivilent to zero. That isn't a matter of opinion, but a simple fact. Zero is an infinite amount of nothing. As you say, infinity is not an amount, if anything it is simply descriptive of an amount be it zero or infinity+1.

edit on 31-8-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by quackers

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Infinity is not an amount of anything. An amount designates a finite value. There is no finite in infinity.

If you have one apple and give away one apple, from your subjective perspective, you are without apples, but objectively, that apple still exists.

Zero is hardly subjective. Granted the apple might still exist, but I would have an amount equivilent to zero. That isn't a matter of opinion, but a simple fact. Zero is an infinite amount of nothing. As you say, infinity is not an amount, if anything it is simply descriptive of an amount be it zero or infinity+1.

edit on 31-8-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)

Yes, you would have an absence of apples. However, 0 based math, as you can see, is based largely on the values belonging to a particular system, when in fact, the values independently arise in their own place and should be treated as such so that when they transfer to a new system, they could be defined properly as being a part of that system.

I guess you could say its optimistic math. Its not that you don't have an object, its just that now the object is somewhere else.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:05 PM
we're talking about semantic or mathematics here ?

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by AnonymousVan
we're talking about semantic or mathematics here ?

Either one you want to focus on.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:14 PM
Then is not zero as valid as infinity? As someone mentioned previously this is in all actuality, semantics. Zero, rather than being a number, is simply the descriptive term representing nothing. Therefore zero is absolutely quantifiable. Infinity on the otherhand represents an imeasurable amount and is perhaps the exact opposite of zero. Or maybe I'm just missing the point here.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:27 PM

Originally posted by quackers
Then is not zero as valid as infinity? As someone mentioned previously this is in all actuality, semantics. Zero, rather than being a number, is simply the descriptive term representing nothing. Therefore zero is absolutely quantifiable. Infinity on the otherhand represents an imeasurable amount and is perhaps the exact opposite of zero. Or maybe I'm just missing the point here.

Zero is not a valid infinity. A absolute vacuum is not a zero.

A vacuum is not a zero even if you have plus and minus properties with in the vacuum.

If you have zero degrees Celsius on your thermostat, that does not mean there is no temperature.

PS; I want to display one more thing.

If you have this line up of numbers; -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 Would zero actually be this property (-2 + "-1" + 1 + 2) ?

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

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by quackers
Then is not zero as valid as infinity? As someone mentioned previously this is in all actuality, semantics. Zero, rather than being a number, is simply the descriptive term representing nothing. Therefore zero is absolutely quantifiable. Infinity on the otherhand represents an imeasurable amount and is perhaps the exact opposite of zero. Or maybe I'm just missing the point here.

Its not entirely semantics. There are some mathematical resolutions that 0 was unable to handle that infinty can.

Zero is somewhat equally as valid as infinity. The problem with 0 that infinity takes care of is the congruency to the reality that there is and never was a such thing as absolute 0. Even when there is an absence of something, the object that is absent still has its existence.

As you said, "infinity represents an immeasurable amount". So does zero. Infinity is immeasurable because it does not limit itself to any particular finite manifestation. 0 is immeasurable because it does not exist. There is a huge difference here, but mathematically, both immeasurabilities operate very similarly. However, infinity is dominant over zero, because some single operations can yield various results. Nothing else can do that.

For example infinity times 2.

Like 0 times 2, you will always get 0 which corresponds to always getting infinity. But when you do infinity times 2, you also yield a 222222222222222222222222222222222222222.......ad infinitum.

So as you can see, they operate very similarly, but infinity does what 0 cannot. It also does what it 0 can.

Another example is infinity + 1.

When you add one to infinity, you are taking infinity which is formless and includes one, and you are combining it with one (which already exists within infinity). So now you have two ones. One of them remains in the immeasurable background of infinity while the other arises in its own existence. So infinity plus one equal infinity and one.

Whereas 0+1 can only equal one.

Why is this a problem?

I guess since 0 is supposedly a potential for numbers to arise equal to their own value, then once a number is created, there is no longer a potential for any other numbers to be created since the creation of something denies the existence of nothing which is supposedly the original potential. If there was to be another potential, it would have to be the value that came from zero and not from zero because zero no longer 'exists'.

But there inlies the problem. Nothing can be greater than its potential, so if the number 1 came from 0 originally, then you would never be able to have anything bigger than 1.

This should make it obvious why 0 cannot be the source of anything. Because that would mean nothing can ever be greater than nothing and therefore nothing would have ever come from nothing, which we already know is the case because there was never nothing.

So why are we even arguing about the existence of nothing when clearly there never was one. And to even be one, you would have to exist in the first place, so how can something that doesn't exist exist? It can't.

We assign values to things we know exist and when they do not exist within that particular system, we assign a 0. This is subjective to the system.

Objectively, if it was something that didn't exist, we wouldn't be assigning a value to it in the first place. Also, infinity takes into account the fact that it does exist although not necessarily within a particular system.

So there is no 0 and no negative numbers because there never were except by subjective man's subjective interpretation of there being those and thereby creating a mathematical system that conformed to man's subjective perspective.

Well, its time to move on from that. I think it would be in our best interest to begin a new objective-style mathematics that is based on numbers arising from infinity in their proper objective placement.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Zero is not a valid infinity. A absolute vacuum is not a zero.

A vacuum is not a zero even if you have plus and minus properties with in the vacuum.

An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Zero is somewhat equally as valid as infinity...snip

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I'm taking your position to be that infinity should be used in place of zero? Failing that, that zero has no purpose within mathematics. I'm not convinced anything would be served by this simply because zero serves a representative purpose. Zero is not immeasurable, it is self explanatory. For example, an empty glass contains no liquid [zero], this is measurable and verifiable. It does not contain an infinitesimally small amount of liquid (or is your argument that it might?). Saying zero does not exist, I think, misrepresents the purpose of zero for it is not zero that exists or does not exist but that which is being quantified. Zero is merely a representation of nothing, but by your logic there is no such thing as nothing.
edit on 31-8-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:17 PM
How do you propose to represent the numbers 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100......< and so on using infinity?

You can not say ten-infinity, twenty-infinity, thirty-infinity.....therefore zero is a valid number while infinity is invalid when applied to mathematics.

Express the number 100 using infinity instead of zero..... can you do that?

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:24 PM

An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.

A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:40 PM

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
How do you propose to represent the numbers 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100......< and so on using infinity?

You can not say ten-infinity, twenty-infinity, thirty-infinity.....therefore zero is a valid number while infinity is invalid when applied to mathematics.

Express the number 100 using infinity instead of zero..... can you do that?

Zero is not a valid number. It relates to finite properties. You either have the property or you don't.

You can not have a 100 items unless the infinite have created the properties for you before hand.

You can not have 100 items from the number 0. You can have as many zeros as you want, but never reach the value of 100 items.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:28 PM

I believe it will be possible to make more correct calculations when more dimensions are taken into the aspect.

The minds of many mathematicians are most certainly locked into the 3D way of thinking.
What is infinity in the 3D world may not be infinity in the higher dimensions.
If mathematics is the universal language, I strongly doubt that humans have the slightest grasp of how it really works.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by spy66

An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.

A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.

I agree.
an absolute vacuum would most definitely still contain "something".
What happens if you have a glass container with this "absolute vacuum" inside, and you shine a light at it?
Then this "absolute vacuum" would contain photons.
Or just the fact that you were able to observe this "absolute vacuum" with your eyes... The same thing..

What about the fact that our entire "nothingness" probably is made up of "something" (M-Theory). How does that work with an "absolute vacuum" that contains absolutely nothing?
In what dimensions should this "absolute vacuum" be measured in? Only 3? Aha, so only the dimensions that humans can perceive counts? But should not an "absolute vacuum" be absolute in all dimensions? How else can it be "absolute"?

So the only way to even get close to an "absolute vacuum" would be not monitor it in any way, in any dimension? But how do you then know?
Some kind of Erwin Schrödinger version comes to mind.
edit on 31-8-2011 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:53 PM
You claimed mathematics is wrong. So speak in terms of mathematics. Not hypothetical other dimensions or absolute vacuums.

Numbers are symbolic representations of amounts. Just as some words are symbolic representations of items.

In mathematics zero represents the lack of an amount of an item. While infinity represents the continuation of a number sequence. When zero is combined with other numbers it then takes on new characteristics.

Zero is not trying to represent the existence of nothingness in the Universe. It is specifically representing the non-existence of a specific item in a given scenario.

How can infinity replace that representation?

As someone else already stated, zero and infinity are much more opposites than similar.

new topics

top topics

39