Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

page: 21
39
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You say it's a "paradigm shifter" yet all you gave me was a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture about god, death and what not, none of which has anything to do with math. What specific problems does your paradigm-shifting "right math" solve that the "wrong math" cannot? Show us some equations that solve real-world problems. You make a lot of bold claims but I never see any math, only sophism and pseudo-scientific rationales. Show us the paradigm-shifting math, I don't think that's too much to ask for. At least show us your theorem that demonstrates that 0 = infinity.




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You say it's a "paradigm shifter" yet all you gave me was a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture about god, death and what not, none of which has anything to do with math. What specific problems does your paradigm-shifting "right math" solve that the "wrong math" cannot? Show us some equations that solve real-world problems. You make a lot of bold claims but I never see any math, only sophism and pseudo-scientific rationales. Show us the paradigm-shifting math, I don't think that's too much to ask for. At least show us your theorem that demonstrates that 0 = infinity.


I will look into it more. I'm not a high level mathematician so I will have to look into some higher level established math before I can show you what equations will shift a paradigm.

But what math can there really be to generate understanding that one of the symbols is invalidly interpreted? This isn't a math problem. It is an understanding problem. It would be akin to inventing a new symbol in a base 11 number system. There's no mathematical equation to arrive at how the new number symbol applies to math. It applies the same way the number 11 used to apply, only now, the symbols are mixed around differently. Its just a matter of understanding that you count to 11 before you start again at 1 instead of counting to 10. With infinity as the root, its just a matter of understanding that you can't get something from nothing, and infinity is a valid replacement and solution to the problem of 0.


0 does not equal infinity, yet it can be replaced by infinity. Truly, there is no such thing as zero. It's made up.

Infinity has been falsely interpreted to be 0.

Infinity is all there is and all there is not and all there can be. If something 'isn't', it is because it hasn't been manifested through infinity yet.

But there is no nothing. 0 is the symbol used to specify that 1 is not there. It is not used to specify that 0 is there because if 0 was THERE it would not be 0. So zero is not a number as much as it is the representation of there not being a number.

The only thing that ever exists are the numbers. Imagine a number line going backwards and forwards without end. Infinity is not one of the numbers, it is the number line itself. Wherever there is no designated number, there is the number line. It comes in contact with every designated number, but the number is the number.

So the number one can come after infinity, and the number 12 can come after infinity, and all the numbers in between have to arise from infinity. Numbers arise from infinity. There is no zero. There is the number line with real numbers on it, and there is the number line itself. If you have a zero on the number line, where zero, by definition, is the absence of a number, then what you really have is a place where there is just the number line.

That place, where there is no number, is the gateway to infinity. It is the part of infinity that is being itself without relation to any finite quantity. It is without attachment to any specific quantity. That point is the number line itself that is in contact with all the numbers that can arise from it.

Infinity is the number line. Numbers arise from it in their proper place in relation to other numbers as the values associated to those numbers. The numbers, no matter the value, is just as much a part of infinity as any other number, regardless of size. 0 is the absence of a number. When numbers are absent, there is just the number line.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers

Originally posted by spy66

If a vacuum contain particles the vacuum would not change, it would still be a absolute vacuum with particles.


It may still be a vacuum but it would not be an absolute vacuum. An absolute vacuum, by definition, would contain zero particles, hence absolute.


You have a absolute vacuum with particles.That is not impossible. We can create a vacuum with less particles cant we?


No, you don't. Or at least you wouldn't were it possible, which it isn't. As long as a single particle remains it isn't absolute.


Its just that we can not create a absolute vacuum, because we dont have the energy/force to create it. No even with all the particles in existence could we use them to create a absolute vacuum.


And if we could create such a vacuum it would contain zero particles and be an absolute vacuum.



Well this is what math is. You can have a absolute vacuum and particles at the same time.

The absolute vacuum will still be absolute (infinite), but the particle on the other hand won't be.

I have also said it before; we can not create this vacuum, because it is infinite.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 

If zero doesn't exist and things are centered around infinity then can you show us how to calculate primes from a higher position on the number-line to a lower position? There's no way to know if n=293 is prime without first running from 1 to Floor(n/2). If you follow me this shows numbers have dependencies. You can't have three without first having two. Similarly you can't have two without first having one. And you can't have one without having zero (i.e. n = (n-1)+1) If zero didn't exist you couldn't say: a + 0 = a. You'd just have a + infinity = infinity. If anything this expression should show you everything has "lack." In physics the universe seems to be driven by "dark energy" (which is by all accounts unobservable or "lacking"). So "zero" seems to be pretty important to our real cosmos. Besides if infinity was the origin, then why is the universe so limited? Where's the infinite gold? Infinite food for the homeless? Infinite housing for the poor? Zero seems to be more evident than infinity.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
0 dosent even exist.... there is no true void
0 shows that something is without something
and every value is in infinity



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


You cannot break it in to sub primes and factors without zero...again I respectfully disagree...zero without denomination is voiding all of the factors then....

I would say we should agree to disagree here...there is no new formula...unless you care to provide one...1+0 is always going to be 1...it is not infinite....it is one!

Are you providing a new formula...or just theorizing?


1+0= 1 except for 0 is an invalid number and it would be more appropriate to say 1+ infinity =1.

What I said was, you can throw infinity in anywhere in the equation and it will still operate the way 0 did. So 1+infinity+2+3+infinity still only equals 6. This is due to the fact that anything that is defined in the context of infinity arises as an entity in and of itself apparently separated from infinity but still a finite part of infinity.


I think you're mistaking plus for the "element of" operator. Natural numbers are an element of infinity. Put another way "for any x: x is an element of the Reals". This isn't the same as 1+infinity = 1. The plus operator means exactly what we expect. It adds two factors together. So infinity plus some number has to be at least as big as the largest term (infinity + 0 = infinity). It can't be less.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Mishmashum because: better explanation



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Dividing by 0 is a total violation and contradiction of all known mathematical logic and since math is all about logic! d dividing by zero defies logic! basically all forms of math will collapse no matter how complex when simply divided by 0.
The fact, 0 is the reflection of nothing.
We cant divide by 0 because it would be infinity, which is just a concept, it's not an actual number.

Math is not wrong, math is always right, it can never be wrong.
If math was in court, justice will always be served, if math was in common sense and logic, the right decision will always be made.
Courts, and the justice system, and what the masses use for common sense and logic, is not math but english.
I'm all for thinking outside the box, but math is not wrong, it's those who don't know math, who are wrong, math is right, and always will be right.

Therefore, as the judge of this math court, i hold you in contempt, for breaching logical mathematical concepts and crimes against math, i declare you guilty.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


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.


Dividing by zero is undefined because it doesn't have a discrete answer. For example, imagine if we wrote:

(3*2)/3 = 2
(2*2)/2 = 2
(1*2)/1 = 2

We see we have a formula like so:

(a*2)/a = 2

The problem occurs when we get to 0:

(0*2)/0 = ?

Based on the formula it appears it should equal 2, but we know this can't be true because:

0/3 = 0
0/2 = 0
0/1 = 0
0/0 = ?

In this case it appears the answer should be 0.

So in our first example:

(0*2)/0 or 0/0 appears to equal 2

In our second example:

0/0 appears to equal 0

Dividing by zero is undefined precisely because it has numerous answers. This is why we use a limit:

Lim a→0 ((a*2)/a) = 2

Lim x→0 (0/x) = 0


Infinity serves as a starting point but also maintains its connection with any finite definition as a formless background for which the definition exists. At the point of definition in reference to zero, the definition separates itself from its reference.


What you seem to be trying to say is that infinity as a concept is a process. A process that will always take some n and make n+1 and from that (n+1)+1 and so on. This runaway process is what we would define as infinity. Infinity then being the largest conceivable number possible incorporating all factors and primes. Basically we can imagine it as an ever filling bit-space of 1's or in linear algebra we might think of it as an unbounded matrix of ones. The problem though is that there are countless functions that achieve this same result.

Should we say Sum[k, {k, 0, Infinity}] = 1/2*k(k+1) = infinity? Eventually it gets there, but there are innumerable other functions that do the same thing. So what then is the right "method" for infinity? Or are you trying to argue the set of all functions that don't converge are infinity? As it's currently conceived infinity doesn't specify a function it merely defines a quantity without bound or end independent of a particular method. Meaning in it's current usage infinity is something of a circular concept, because it's the end that's not the end.


0 really does imply that there is nothing and that there can never be anything. Infinity implies that there is nothing in particular and that there can be anything. Infinity, therefore, is all that I can think of to allow my logical mind to accept as a starting point for anything to have an existence.


Zero has numerous usages. There's the additive identity element (as 0), the empty set (as ∅), nothingness (as perhaps a contradiction ∅ ≠ ∅), and so on. These concepts are similar, but technically somewhat different.

If you're looking for a proximal isomorphism between infinity and zero I'd define it as so:

"Nothingness is completely empty. Whereas infinity is incompletely full."

So completeness relates to full whereas incompleteness relates to being partly empty.

A more precising definition of zero can be found in this write up, "Zero as a Seven-Fold Truth Table Mapped to a Spherical Formal System." Which is incorporated into a larger work dubbed "The Scarcity Hypothesis (/w Q+A)." Hopefully it helps as you try to synthesize infinity and zero.

Cheers,
-Xt
edit on 3-9-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
Dividing by 0 is a total violation and contradiction of all known mathematical logic and since math is all about logic! d dividing by zero defies logic! basically all forms of math will collapse no matter how complex when simply divided by 0.
The fact, 0 is the reflection of nothing.
We cant divide by 0 because it would be infinity, which is just a concept, it's not an actual number.

Math is not wrong, math is always right, it can never be wrong.
If math was in court, justice will always be served, if math was in common sense and logic, the right decision will always be made.
Courts, and the justice system, and what the masses use for common sense and logic, is not math but english.
I'm all for thinking outside the box, but math is not wrong, it's those who don't know math, who are wrong, math is right, and always will be right.

Therefore, as the judge of this math court, i hold you in contempt, for breaching logical mathematical concepts and crimes against math, i declare you guilty.


If you were the judge of the math court; I would not want to have anything to do with it. Because its a system that can be proven wrong.

If you have 100 dollars in you hand. How can you make the equation 100 X 0 ????
and make your 100 dollars disappear?

There is no way you can multiply your 100 dollars with Zero.

If you judged me by displaying the proof on a piece of paper that 100 X 0 = 0
Would you have judged me right or wrong if i have shown you the physical proof with a hundred dollar bill?

In realty 100 dollars X 0 = 100 dollars.

The difference between reality and math




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



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Let's not continue trying to use the divide by 0 or multiply by 0 excuse.

If you divide by zero you haven't divided anything. If you multiply by zero you haven't multiplied anything.

How can you do something zero times?

Why would you ever try to do something zero times?

any number divided or multiplied by zero equals what you started with because you haven't actually done anything.

How can you get a result from an action if you don't actually do the action?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I need to show my 10 year old this topic...I personally stink at math, but when he was in 2nd grade he told the teacher she was teaching a certain subject of math wrong!
The teacher was good about it & allowed him to go up to the board & actually teach the students 'his way' of doing this specific math


Sorry this was off topic, you just brought back a funny memory..Flag for you, so I can have my boy read your thoughts...



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





If you divide by zero you haven't divided anything. If you multiply by zero you haven't multiplied anything.


That is what i wanted to tell the guy with my reply.

We can not stop discussing this as long as people don't grasp the concept, because these people wont be able to understand the concept if we move on to discuss new issues.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by RadeonGFXRHumanGTXisAlien
Dividing by 0 is a total violation and contradiction of all known mathematical logic and since math is all about logic! d dividing by zero defies logic! basically all forms of math will collapse no matter how complex when simply divided by 0.
The fact, 0 is the reflection of nothing.
We cant divide by 0 because it would be infinity, which is just a concept, it's not an actual number.

Math is not wrong, math is always right, it can never be wrong.
If math was in court, justice will always be served, if math was in common sense and logic, the right decision will always be made.
Courts, and the justice system, and what the masses use for common sense and logic, is not math but english.
I'm all for thinking outside the box, but math is not wrong, it's those who don't know math, who are wrong, math is right, and always will be right.

Therefore, as the judge of this math court, i hold you in contempt, for breaching logical mathematical concepts and crimes against math, i declare you guilty.


If you were the judge of the math court; I would not want to have anything to do with it. Because its a system that can be proven wrong.

If you have 100 dollars in you hand. How can you make the equation 100 X 0 ????
and make your 100 dollars disappear?

There is no way you can multiply your 100 dollars with Zero.

If you judged me by displaying the proof on a piece of paper that 100 X 0 = 0
Would you have judged me right or wrong if i have shown you the physical proof with a hundred dollar bill?

In realty 100 dollars X 0 = 100 dollars.

The difference between reality and math




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


100 x 1 = 100.
100 x 0 = 0

You are multiply nothing by 100, therefore, it will be nothing, you can't multiply nomething and have the output of something, it will be nothing, because you multiply by nothing.
In multiplication, anything multiplied by zero, is zero, because you can't multiply something, by nothing

The reason it won't work because you can put an infinite number of zero's in any non zero number
10 / 0= infinite
0 is not smaller then 0 and its not bigger than 0

If we look at 10 / x where x is either a very positive tiny number or a tiny negative number then the answer will either be a very large positive number or a very large negative number.
Since 0 is neither 10 / 0 can be either infinite or minus infinite.

Division by 0 breaks all maths if u allow division by 0 u can make it so every number is equal which isnt too helpful for maths.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

That is what i wanted to tell the guy with my reply.

We can not stop discussing this as long as people don't grasp the concept, because these people wont be able to understand the concept if we move on to discuss new issues.



But you say:



In realty 100 dollars X 0 = 100 dollars.


Which is incorrect.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by spy66

That is what i wanted to tell the guy with my reply.

We can not stop discussing this as long as people don't grasp the concept, because these people wont be able to understand the concept if we move on to discuss new issues.



But you say:



In realty 100 dollars X 0 = 100 dollars.


Which is incorrect.


Yes it is, if you make the equation on a piece of paper and use the set of mathematical rules. But if you hold the 100 dollar bill in your hand, there is no way you can make that equation add up. There is no way you can apply the mathematical rules to make your 100 dollar bill become 0.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66


Yes it is, if you make the equation on a piece of paper and use the set of mathematical rules. But if you hold the 100 dollar bill in your hand, there is no way you can make that equation add up. There is no way you can apply the mathematical rules to make your 100 dollar bill become 0.


If you have 0 lots of $100 in your hand, you don't have $100, you have zero dollars.



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


John you made a mistake in your mathematics.

When you approach a problem like 100 x 0 =

You do not continue past the zero.

Do you understand reciprocals? Here is how you solve the equation 100 x 0 =

the 0 and the = sign are canceled

if you like you can move the zero to the other side of the equals sign like this 100 x0 = /0

But you forgot the last step in this mathematical equation, which is to now cancel out the 0 and the equals sign

Problem solved

You forgot that there is an invisible divide by zero on the other side of the equals sign the x 0 and / 0 cancel each other

edit on 3-9-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

There is no way you can apply the mathematical rules to make your 100 dollar bill become 0.


You've obviously never been robbed.

If you are multiplying $100 by, say, 3... you hold a $100 bill, and someone else gives you 2 $100 bills.
If you are multiplying $100 by 2... you hold a $100 bill, and someone else gives you a $100 bill.
If you are multiplying $100 by 1... you hold a $100 bill, and no one gives you anything.
If you are multiplying $100 by 0... you hold a $100 bill, and someone takes it from you (which is usually how the world works).

a*n = a + (n-1)a

100 x 0 = 100 + (0 - 1)(100)
100 x 0 = 100 + (-1)(100)
100 x 0 = 100 - 100
100 x 0 = 0



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by spy66


Yes it is, if you make the equation on a piece of paper and use the set of mathematical rules. But if you hold the 100 dollar bill in your hand, there is no way you can make that equation add up. There is no way you can apply the mathematical rules to make your 100 dollar bill become 0.


If you have 0 lots of $100 in your hand, you don't have $100, you have zero dollars.


But i said;
If you have a 100 dollar bill in your hand, and multiply it by 0. That is a different story than what you just displayed.

If you have a 100 dollar bill in your hand, where will you get your 0 from to multiply it with the 100 dollar bill?



posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Any number multiplied by zero is zero, therefore $100 x 0 = $0. Where is the mistake in that?





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join