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: 6
39
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:35 PM
ok, i'd really like to debate in this, but after reading through the five pages, i seem to have lost the current debate topic

if it is on the existence of 0, then i would throw in the debate of 0 being a neutral zone, a starting point, if you will.
take the equation 2-2=0 in the beginning, there is an understood + there, meaning +2-2=0 but what plus two? 0+2. meaning every equation you write begins with 0+ whatever. 0+2-2=0. a neutral zone.

if it is on 0=infinity, well thats just ridiculous. one is nothing and one is everything.

on the existence of negative numbers, think of negative numbers as debt. debt exists, right? i have say 20 dollars. i owe 30 dollars. 20-30=-10. so be having 20 and owing 30, i actually have -10. here, actually think of it like this, the mere thought of subtracting gives negative numbers existence. 20-10 is the same as 20+(-10) having 20 plus owing 10. i really wish i could explain more but its late and im really tired...

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:36 PM

Originally posted by jerryznv

Ummm...respectfully...may I disagree....what would we say of 1 + 0 + 2....

Shall we say it is infinite...+2?

Does not work my friend...sorry...mathematically it is inaccurate!

No, it does. Nothing can be separated from its relationship and context within infinity.

So any definition you add on to infinity will only give you the value of the definitions as being APPARENTLY separated from infinity by existing as an entity in and of itself. You can have 2+3, but there is still 1,4,6, and 7 unmanifest surrounding 2+3. While those numbers are there, all you will see is 2+3. So you can say 2+infinity+3+infinity+4, and still get an answer of 9. Its not that the working numbers have been separated from infinity either, it is just that they have been made apparently separate so as to work in an environment of finity ascribing solely to those values.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:37 PM
For these different concepts of mathematics to work, is if you go into quantum mathematics, that is where 0 would equal something other than 0. I believe in some other higher math functions 0 equals something other that 0.

As for saying you can not get something from nothing, again look into the quantum, this is occurring all the time, and as stated by Hawking the Universe just popped in from no where.

As far as Infinity is concerned, there are most likely many of what you would call Infinities, but it would be hard to see past the one you are in with a limited mind set, as there are a infinitesimal number of Universes.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:39 PM

Originally posted by superstatue

if it is on 0=infinity, well thats just ridiculous. one is nothing and one is everything.

No it is not saying 0 = infinity, however, it is saying that infinity can be properly replaced with 0 and work in the same way as zero but yet differently as they are not the same.

Infinity is the all-inclusive formlessness. 0 is the all-disclusive formlessness. One has potential for a designated value, the other does not.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted by googolplex
For these different concepts of mathematics to work, is if you go into quantum mathematics, that is where 0 would equal something other than 0. I believe in some other higher math functions 0 equals something other that 0.

As for saying you can not get something from nothing, again look into the quantum, this is occurring all the time, and as stated by Hawking the Universe just popped in from no where.

Infinity appears as formless. Science has been approaching quantum mechanics in the context of 0 based math. If 0 equals something other than 0, then they have proven but not yet accepted that 0 is not a valid entry. Infinity appears as formlessness so any perceived "something coming from nothing" is in actuality something coming from infinity and I support that.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:44 PM

hmm, ok, so thinking more into this, 0 is the infinite potential to be anything and everything, and infinity is the actual existence of anything and everything, am i right?

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:46 PM

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?

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:47 PM

Originally posted by steaming
Break one pencil in half, throw one part away and continue to keep breaking such in half etc. At what stage do i reach Zero ??? I know such may become too small to divide, yet i know i can never reach 0.. To reach infinity means a continued addition and thats what space keeps doing does it not ?? So yes Math's are handy, yet still become wrong. Great thread, keep up the good work...

when you split 2 atoms you break the physical link between them and the pencil is gone imo
edit on 28-8-2011 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by superstatue

hmm, ok, so thinking more into this, 0 is the infinite potential to be anything and everything, and infinity is the actual existence of anything and everything, am i right?

No, infinity is the potential. 0 is invalid.

Anything that comes into existence will have an apparent separation from infinity and be a finite entity in and of itself, but in actuality will not be separate from the context of infinity at all.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:51 PM

Infinity is the all-inclusive formlessness. 0 is the all-disclusive formlessness. One has potential for a designated value, the other does not.

Are you attempting to rename zero as a nothing and infinity as a something...is that what this is all about?

In that case...zero is the absence...and infinite is the undefined and unknown...solves the 5,000 year old mystery of mathematics as we know it today!

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:52 PM
Ever since the Greeks let zero into the game
teachers through the ages have had to deal with
the pushy self centered student who packed along the
“infinity is zero” and then proceeds to conduct themselves as a theorist.

The statements in the opening post forgets that one is greater than infinity.
There is only one one.
And long after all of this is gone
will still have been
and will be one one.

Unless that is intentionally the code
this theory is really against,
and not just mathematics.
As the theory in the opening post goes for a double play.

I say that because, the converse states

If infinity exists between numbers,
then infinity is also smaller than one.
Just like zero.

David Grouchy

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:53 PM

It was not the greeks dave...come on...zero is represented long before that!

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

No, infinity is the potential. 0 is invalid.

One is the potential.
Both of the above are invalid.

David Grouchy

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by jerryznv

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?

I'm not saying this at all.

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.

So yes, we are part of that infinity, but we are apparently not.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
Ever since the Greeks let zero into the game
teachers through the ages have had to deal with
the pushy self centered student who packed along the
“infinity is zero” and then proceeds to conduct themselves as a theorist.

The statements in the opening post forgets that one is greater than infinity.

No it doesn't. I recognize infinity as a formlessness. One is greater than infinity in as much as infinity seems to disappear at one's conception. Although it does not. So infinity is less than and greater than one. Infinity is not zero. Zero is not real. It doesn't exist. Infinity does and should be represented that way in mathematics.

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:57 PM

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.

So you really have nothing to offer other than renaming zero...now it is indefinite...imagine that!

So we change the name of zero...to infinity...and now you equation works...how is that significant?

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by jerryznv

It was not the greeks dave...come on...zero is represented long before that!

No, the legacy in india was mired in infinity vs zero mysticism.
It was the Greeks that screwed up and let infinity contaminate the logos.

Personally I'd like to talk Alexander down and around a little bit.
But the hellenization of the east came with an
equal and opposite reaction.

We got another buddha in here telling us
to count our deficits as blessings.

I'll take one dollar over infinite dollars any day.

David Grouchy

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:04 AM

I'll take one dollar over infinite dollars any day.

You and I both then...

Kind of reminds me of "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush"....seems to be the concept here....if zero is respresented as infinite...I will take one any day of the week!

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:06 AM
three friends go to get something to eat. the total for their meal is \$25. the three men each have a \$10 bill. so, the waitress comes with a check, each man pays with a \$10 bill. the change is \$5. they tell the waitress to each give them back one dollar and she could keep the other two. so...each man pays \$10, and receive one dollar back.....meaning each man paid nine dollars. 9x3=27. the waitress got a two dollar tip. 27+2=29. where did the other dollar go?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 12:11 AM
The Universe is limited, a true Infinity would have no limits, being such as a beginning nor a end. I am Alpha and Omega.

The nothing is neither big, nor small.

With the laws of physics if there is a positive something there is a negative something, so by those laws if there is a negative nothing it should also have a positive nothing.

Yous figure it out I going to the opposite of awake.
edit on 29-8-2011 by googolplex because: -t

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

new topics

top topics

39