Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 





Numbers, letters, words, language are all man made entities defined by man whereas zero(nothing) and infinity(infinite) just are.


And I will disagree...zero is a man made denomination...introduced by man and equated into mathematics by man...infinity...well another way of describing what man does not understand...but a man made expression all the same...would we agree on that?

I'd agree only in the way that "infinity" or "zero" could just have easily been named "roger" or "geoffrey" the "physical" article ZERO is nothing.
Infinity in my opinion is equal to "more than nothing" and all the possible "physicals" that could be rather than something unknown and not understood.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)


The only thing is that 'nothing' doesn't have its place in reality. There never was 'nothing'. It is impossible for something to come from 'nothing'. However, it is possible for something to come from something that has the potential for that something to come which is infinity. Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by requireduser
 





assume everything is not created nor destroyed, but they keep on changing, thats why you got zero.


I suppose in that case....infinity is valid too...as things are constantly changing...so you are in agreement with our OP that mathematics as we know it is not correct?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb


Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?

 


Tell that to someone who has ZERO hair on his head. Just because his hair was something before it was hair doesn't mean he has infinite hair. The man is bald.

And frankly, I think they would be offended if you told them they had all the hair in the world...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 





Numbers, letters, words, language are all man made entities defined by man whereas zero(nothing) and infinity(infinite) just are.


And I will disagree...zero is a man made denomination...introduced by man and equated into mathematics by man...infinity...well another way of describing what man does not understand...but a man made expression all the same...would we agree on that?

I'd agree only in the way that "infinity" or "zero" could just have easily been named "roger" or "geoffrey" the "physical" article ZERO is nothing.
Infinity in my opinion is equal to "more than nothing" and all the possible "physicals" that could be rather than something unknown and not understood.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)


The only thing is that 'nothing' doesn't have its place in reality. There never was 'nothing'. It is impossible for something to come from 'nothing'. However, it is possible for something to come from something that has the potential for that something to come which is infinity. Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%...

I just used the word ""physical zero"" words as a definition to describe zero as subjective entity.. such as "the" being the definitive article.

Or rather "zero" as being nothing rather than being simply the word "zero" in language... if you take my meaning lol....



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by smithjustinb


Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?

 


Tell that to someone who has ZERO hair on his head. Just because his hair was something before it was hair doesn't mean he has infinite hair. The man is bald.

And frankly, I think they would be offended if you told them they had all the hair in the world...


Boncho....you don't get to interject logic into this....you should know better!


This is a really rough subject for some of the members and your introduction of logic is not welcome when confusion is so rampant!


Just kidding of course friend...chime in all day!
edit on 28-8-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by requireduser
 





assume everything is not created nor destroyed, but they keep on changing, thats why you got zero.


I suppose in that case....infinity is valid too...as things are constantly changing...so you are in agreement with our OP that mathematics as we know it is not correct?

i agree with the idea that the mathematics as we know it is not correct.

i disagree 0 == infinity.
i disagree op said zero is inconsistent with what we know about reality
i disagree op said in reality, the starting point 'zero' has no valid existence.
i guess i disagree whole lot more what op said.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 





Numbers, letters, words, language are all man made entities defined by man whereas zero(nothing) and infinity(infinite) just are.


And I will disagree...zero is a man made denomination...introduced by man and equated into mathematics by man...infinity...well another way of describing what man does not understand...but a man made expression all the same...would we agree on that?


I would disagree. Of course I would, I'm the OP.

Infinity is the formless all-inclusiveness that allows for the defining of a finite quantity within this formless all-inclusiveness as having an existence as a definite value. 0 is the formless all-disclusiveness that has no potential for anything to arise from it other than what you pretend arises from it as in the current model of mathematics.

However, If you want to find a focus on a value from a formless all-inclusiveness that already has within it the potential for the focusing on this value, then at least that is within the realm of possibility. Unlike something coming from nothing which is impossible especially considering the fact that we already have the proven information that something has always existed. Something cannot come from nothing, but something can come from something that has within it this something unmanifest.

FACT.
edit on 28-8-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
btw, i disagree with someone who said there is no negative number
and he asked me to give him -40....



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


The farther along in math courses you get, the more you play with concepts of math and unreal/imaginary numbers.

I couldn't help but notice, in a number of my classes, the concept of 'i' being very similar to quantum superposition. I must admit that my discipline in math is quite poor - math tends to be rather magical to me until there are shapes or physical concepts for me to link it to (probably why I found Geometry to make child's play out of Algebra).

In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").

To go any deeper than that is to challenge math of the known and experienced universe with the philosophy of origins and status of the universe. I would wager the forum population with the education and disciplines in math to even hold such a conversation, competently, is a very select few. I would have to google the hell out of every post made, that is for sure.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by smithjustinb


Therefore, it is irrefutable that it should either be infinity or it should be nothing and there is no apparent evidence of there ever being 'nothing', so why should our mathematics be inconsistent with reality?

 


Tell that to someone who has ZERO hair on his head. Just because his hair was something before it was hair doesn't mean he has infinite hair. The man is bald.

And frankly, I think they would be offended if you told them they had all the hair in the world...


I get what you're saying. But infinity is formless and so is that man's hair. So you haven't shown me any inconsistency in what I have written with what is true.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Okay fair enough...then perhaps we should look at the origin of zero....I'll post some links I suppose...and perhaps at the same time we could evaluate infinity and it's origin...I'll post links for that too...then we can see if your dispute is valid...I mean why not aye?

If your concluding that zero is undefined...and infinity is with explanation...well then your on to something...but I don't see it that way!

So give me a few seconds...I need some links!



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


The farther along in math courses you get, the more you play with concepts of math and unreal/imaginary numbers.

I couldn't help but notice, in a number of my classes, the concept of 'i' being very similar to quantum superposition. I must admit that my discipline in math is quite poor - math tends to be rather magical to me until there are shapes or physical concepts for me to link it to (probably why I found Geometry to make child's play out of Algebra).

In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").

To go any deeper than that is to challenge math of the known and experienced universe with the philosophy of origins and status of the universe. I would wager the forum population with the education and disciplines in math to even hold such a conversation, competently, is a very select few. I would have to google the hell out of every post made, that is for sure.


i like your sentence.
In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").
edit on 28-8-2011 by requireduser because: recolor



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


In either case, the only real correlation I can find between the concept of zero and the concept of infinity is that of non-attainability. To truly get nothing, you have to not have anything - including an observer to experience said nothing. To truly have infinity, you must be capable of bearing witness to everything within a continually expanding set of parameters ("Because it's the song that never ends... yes it goes on and on my friends...").


And that is exactly what I am saying. And based on what you said, given the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, then we do have the opportunity of riding the wave into infinity. But there is nothing within the realm of possibility that will allow us to get to a point of nothing.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



The first evidence we have of zero is from the Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, some 5,000 years ago. There, a slanted double wedge was inserted between cuneiform symbols for numbers, written positionally, to indicate the absence of a number in a place (as we would write 102, the '0' indicating no digit in the tens column).

origin of zero....


John Wallis (1616-1703) was one of the most original English mathematicians of his day. He was educated for the Church at Cambridge and entered Holy Orders, but his genius was employed chiefly in the study of mathematics. The Arithmetica infinitorum, published in 1655, is his greatest work. (Cajori p183)

The symbol for infinity, first chosen by John Wallis in 1655, stands for a concept which has given mathematicians problems since the time of the ancient Greeks. A case in point is that of Zeno of Elea (in southern Italy) who, in the 5th century BC, proposed four paradoxes which addressed whether magnitudes (lengths or numbers) are infinitely divisible or made up of a large number of small indivisible parts. (Brinkworth and Scott p80)

origin of infintiy...

So...now we have something to talk about....right?
edit on 28-8-2011 by jerryznv because: wrong copy and paste...opps...got it fixed...
edit on 28-8-2011 by jerryznv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



The first evidence we have of zero is from the Sumerian culture in Mesopotamia, some 5,000 years ago. There, a slanted double wedge was inserted between cuneiform symbols for numbers, written positionally, to indicate the absence of a number in a place (as we would write 102, the '0' indicating no digit in the tens column).

origin of zero....


The symbol n!, called factorial n, was introduced in 1808 by Christian Kramp of Strassbourg, who chose it so as to circumvent printing difficulties incurred by the previously used symbol thus illustrated on the right. (Eves p132)

origin of infintiy...

So...now we have something to talk about....right?

"zero" is nothing more than a symbol in this case, meaning the absence of a bead, digit, whatever within a mathematical set of symbols set by man, such as language and letters.

Absolute "zero" or nothing is nothing, the absence of everything.

I believe you are playing semantics and devil's advocate here just for fun.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



And that is exactly what I am saying. And based on what you said, given the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, then we do have the opportunity of riding the wave into infinity. But there is nothing within the realm of possibility that will allow us to get to a point of nothing.


This is trying to compare trees to ecosystems.

Taking practical mathematical concepts and attempting to derive universal proofs out of it is somewhat misguided. As many have already said - I don't have an orange. Therefor, zero has a valid place in practical mathematics. Now, I do have some apples, and some orange-flavored kool-ade. That's all well and good, but exist as factors outside of the set we are looking at.

This is something you get into as you get further into math, as well. The concept of isolation and relativism. For any given function, you have relative maximums and relative minimums indicating a relative peak or trough in values. The function may continue indefinitely - but you are only concerned with the portion you can graph or are working with.

When asking me how many oranges I have, it does you no good for me to say: "There are 84023853 oranges known to exist, the digested remains of 894563 being converted into corn as fertilizer." Doesn't really answer the question. I don't have any.

In this instance, we begin to treat the universe not as a single equation but as a whole system of information storage and processing - much like a database system. (Wouldn't that be some sick joke - find out we are all part of an out-of-control MS Access 8950 macro?) The total value of the system cannot be known by any one component, yet cannot be zero or practically demonstrated to be infinity. However, zero does serve its place in practical mathematics as the lack of a queried item.

This may only apply on a macroscopic level, however. For example - two neutrons interacting with each other will never experience a practical instance of zero - they will always be interacting with other particles in some way, shape, or form. Though I could be demonstrating some ignorance in that respect.

I wouldn't go so far as to say math is wrong - but that concepts of math don't always translate too well between systems.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb
So...now we have something to talk about....right?


Based on the links provided, not really.


Our own era's physical theories about the big bang cannot quite reach back to an ultimate beginning from nothing--although in mathematics we can generate all numbers from the empty set. Nothingness as the state out of which alone we can freely make our own natures lies at the heart of existentialism, which flourished in the mid-20th century.


From this thought about nothingness, it is evident that man has misinterpeted all-inclusive formlessness awaiting definition (aka infinity) to be nothingness. 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. It should be apparent that infinity and nothing can be used interchangeably except to the extent that infinity is not nothing at all but it is everything that is and everything that is not yet but that can be.

Even from our perspective as a something, 'nothing' cannot exist because we, as something, do exist. However, it is possible to fathom how infinity can exist because time moves forward and infinity is an all-inclusive existenceness.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 





I believe you are playing semantics and devil's advocate here just for fun.


Yes...you could be right...but I am a math major...so what better place to have fun!


It is indisputable that zero and infinity are undefined...learned that in my second year of college...surprised no one caught that yet....

Forgive me...but logic has to play into this if it is going to be a conspiracy thread!



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
my hero zero.




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 





Based on the links provided, not really.



Not really...you're going to question a 5,000 year old system with a "not really"...hmmm...interesting!

Please carry on then...forgive my interuption!

Maybe you would like to provide a more up dated link then....something to talk about!
edit on 28-8-2011 by jerryznv because: inviting my friend to jump up...





top topics
 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join