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.
Inf + n = N ?! makes no sense...how do you figure?
0 is like the void. Non existence or maybe singularity. I under stand your angle but....
Originally posted 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.
Any number divided by zero is said, in the current model of mathematics, to be “undefined”. In this thread, my purpose is to challenge the existence of zero and put infinity in its place. This is due to the fact that when examined closely, you see that zero and infinity operate very similarly as being a reference point for everything to arise.
Infinity and 0 are both immeasurable. 0 cannot be measured because there is nothing there to measure. Infinity cannot be measured because once a measurement has been attempted, there will always be something greater or smaller.
Infinity and 0 are both formless. 0 is formless for obvious reasons. Infinity is formless because if it had form, it would be rendered finite and thus not infinity.
Knowing this, you know that 0 +(n) = (n). Most people assume that infinity + (n) = infinity, but this is not true. The number (n) is a definition. It exists as something that is definable and it is finite. So the number (n) will arise from infinity in its own existence apparently separate from infinity. So infinity + (n) = (n).
So when you try to subtract (n) from infinity, you get -(n). When you try to subtract infinity from (n) you will get “negative infinity”. Negative infinity is still just infinity. Infinity must be understood to be the foundation of what everything comes from, of which all numbers can find their beginnings. When this kind of math is viewed in context, you see that there is no such thing as negative numbers. This obviously challenges conventional mathematics in a way that might render this style of math dysfunctional, but when viewed in context of reality as being energy, there is never a “0” and there is always “something”. Therefore, it would be more appropriate that we examine this form of mathematics and its implications very closely.
While 0 and infinity operate very similar, there are some differences, but I think these differences will serve in favor of infinity to better define the mathematical nature of reality in a way that zero never could. For instance, 0 times (n) is another way of saying you have 0 (n) times, and (n) 0 times. Either way, you will have zero. When you multiply infinity by (n), you get two answers. One way you are saying you have infinity (n) times and the other way you are saying you have (n) infinity times. One answer will look like (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)……etc. The other will look like a sideways 8.
Infinity is a starting point. I argue that infinity is THE starting point of the universe due to the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed. So mathematically, energy looks like (energy) times infinity. So you have infinitely lasting energy, and you also have infinity. No matter the operation, infinity cannot be separated from anything. The existence of anything can be traced back to infinity and still has its connection with infinity.
Another operation to examine is the division operation. Like trying to divide (n) by 0 and getting an undefined answer, trying to divide (n) by infinity yields a peculiar outcome. Although peculiar, it is still a much more realistic occurrence. The nature of reality is AT LEAST 3 dimensional. You have three dimensions of length width and height. You have a 3d object, a plane, and a line. But you can go a step further and get down to a single point. A single point is very peculiar. It is peculiar because it is an indeterminable quantity. The minute you try to define it, there is always a point smaller. This single point’s mathematical operation looks like (n) divided by infinity. So you have a quantity that is infinitely small yet still on the positive end of real numbers no matter how small it gets. And of course you know when you divide infinity by (n), you still have infinity.
The point of this thread is not only to challenge the way we have been looking at mathematics, but also to help define the root of our existence as being some kind of infinity. 0 is always used as a reference, but when the reference of everything that exists is traced back to its beginnings, and it is determined to not have a beginning and there was never an absolute nothing, then it must be accepted that THE reference is not 0 and therefore all mathematics based upon counting from zero is inappropriate. Numbers arise from infinity in their own existence just like they do from 0. The difference is, when a number arises from infinity, it maintains its reference as being part of the operation and never separate from it so that any operation maintains its connection with infinity.
I hope all who read this don’t automatically dismiss this because it goes against everything you have known so far, but rather accept the possibility that what you have learned so far hasn’t necessarily been correct. I hope all who read this will seriously consider this form of mathematics as a realistic approach not only to mathematics, but also to reality.
Originally posted by shortyboy
ok let me see here so if I have five dollars and then spend five dollars I now have infinite Dollars?
Originally posted by CaptHowdy
Zero is the incomprehensible limit for a value that is infinitely small. Infinity is the incomprehensible limit for a value that is infinitely large. One could argue that zero is negative infinity, but neither lie within the realm of real numbers.
Originally posted by zapr1943
This kind of reminds me of the "Big Bang."
First you have "nothing," and then it explodes
Originally posted by spy66
The reason we discuss 0 and "n" compared to/with the infinite is because there is a distance or a size between the variables.
The infinite is as large as it ever can be. Everything that exists (n) must be within the infinite space.
The distance "n" has to the infinite, is the expansion time of "n". In other words its the time it will take before finite existence stops expanding (becomes infinite).
Originally posted by lkpuede
Originally posted by spy66
The reason we discuss 0 and "n" compared to/with the infinite is because there is a distance or a size between the variables.
The infinite is as large as it ever can be. Everything that exists (n) must be within the infinite space.
The distance "n" has to the infinite, is the expansion time of "n". In other words its the time it will take before finite existence stops expanding (becomes infinite).
that's too much like common sense. and we all know common sense is not allowed to exist here at ATS.
please move along.
Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by chr0naut
And let's not forget the exhaustive treatise: "Principia Mathematica". en.wikipedia.org...
I think the OP has a lot of studying left to do.
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.