conway

pengkuan Lol....Quantitize zero. Does it not belong to the real's. It is not really a question of if these things can or can not be counted. It is a matter of how they are defined. If...again...infinite numbers exists on the reals number line....then they belong to that set....despite if we can "count" the cardinality. Defined value and space does not necessarily mean countalbe...as suggested by your "ranks of infinite" as opposed to infinite. If then there is a kind of number that is not defined as (defined space, and defined value)...that is containing undefined space and or value...then here is our "philosophical" separations in the "cardinality" of the reals/integers and "other numbers" Not belonging to that set.

RuthlessOptimism I have appreaciated you points of view on this. Thank you.

Ajb Is it ever necessary to describe an "isolated point", that needs no numbers, that is a point not on the real's?(QM for example?)? If then we only ever describe a point or vector on the real number line, then has not value also been applied to that point, dimension, or space, or vector. That is the value of the "number" assigned in order to describe the point in the first place? Does this not show an interchange between space and value, and show them working separately in ideas if not in equations? Sorcerer I would think that by definition nothing does not exist. So as you point out, it does not posses a dimension. So then 0 can never and does not represent "nothing" of anything. Dimensions or otherwise. Integers are not non existence they are opposite of a given existence. So then integers can not represent nothing. If the set is empty, then there is not a set. But there is never "nothing".

If we declare a seperation between space and value. And if we then declare that space is a quantity of a dimension (dimension being that which we measure), and that value is quantities of existince that "fill" a given space. And also then declare that some quantities of space and or value are defined or undefined, infinte of finite, fractional or whole, negative or positve, then all things can be quantified with only the exception of that which is undefined space and undefined value.

I merely posted an update on a separate but related thread. This even MONTHS latter. One person asked me a question and I returned with and answer and a question. Lock it if you got a problem with it. I am happy with the information I posted in the update. Nothing further is necessary.

Ruthless If I may suggest ways in which it is different from current mathematics. 1.variable amounts of zero 2.solves for division by zero I could add others. As to your first part. I would agree. More or less. The point of this idea is that space must also be addressed when multiplying and dividing (not just value). It may or may not be the case that value or space ( only ) is what changes with a given operation. As you point out. That again is the purpose of relative mathematics. It is my thoughts that all things posses value and space, that would then include all things not imaginary. Including imaginary. Thanks for your time. If I could ask you a question, requiring only your agreeing or disagreeing..... As space and time is relative to the motion of the body of reference.....Multiplication and Division by zero are relative to the declaration of space or value.

An update for any who may care. As an addition to all current field axioms. "For every zero in S there exists a Z1 and a Z2, such that any zero in operation of muliplication or division, (excluding exponets and logarithms), is only representing Z1 or Z2. Allowing that Z1 for zero equals 0, and that Z2 for zero equals 1. "

I have found good information and help here, thanks to all. As I am having a bit of trouble "fitting in" (alas my fault), I shall be moving on. Again thanks to all for your time, information, and patience.

Swan My question was in regards to 1 being a prime. The information Acme posted was actually on the nature of Primes in general. The post itself was in regards to patterns in primes. Have a look for yourself. A wall of text does not help me when I want a needle out of a hay stack. The implication here is that you read neither the post Acme was refereeing to , or the link found with in it. Please don't respond to this response of your response of a mod note in this thread.

John I came to a forum for a reason. Endy's, Ajb's, answers were far quicker and more efficient than a text book. Do you tell everyone who asks you a question in chemistry to go read a text book? Did it occur to you John that if you don't have anything nice to post, then don't post anything at all. In fact I know of a great kids movie about a deer that teaches that very lesson. You might benefit from it.

Endy 0186 Awesome!......thanks for the reply quick, simple, no insults! +1 Strange Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me? Id prefer it that way. Get your kicks on route 66. Acme Please take note of Endy0816 reply. This is how to be helpful. In the future either answer a question here (provide links only for support), or don't reply at all. You might as well tell me to go read a text book every time I ask a question.

Acme It appears you objection is that of personal offense. If you feel I have broken the rules, perhaps you should report this thread. In any case as you stated there is plenty of room for debate in this area.........you don't seem to like others not "accepting" the same truths as you. Tad bit touchy too. In any case... do you have something to add on topic? Or are you just goanna complain that someone else already has a post semi "associated" with primes.

Why is it that a negative * by a negative equals a positive. Especially given that if I add to negatives I get a negative. Multiplication being addition and all.....

Acme Yes you did, and I quote you sir on the matter! "It is not a matter of proof, but a matter of definition." All definitions require some sort of philosophical argument. That is unless I have offended your sense of adequate posting. Which seems to be the case.

Why is it that 1 is not considered a prime?

Phi Yes you are correct. It is fair. I did technically redefine the world slavery. But perhaps my definition is more accurate. I wonder what Dr, King would have said on this point. I know several African Americans who will tell you quite forcefully (and rightly so) that they freed themselves. It was not done by white men. Who coincidently went on to oppress, and kill them, and native American Indians,,,,, well after "slavery" was "abolished". Ten Oz I reply (again) likewise. I have addressed all your points, the fact that you disagree with the responses does not make my comment any less true. What makes you think that "help" from others is the only way to end slavery? I disagree. Slavery is a losing mans "religion". It ends its self.....every time and all the time. Maybe not as quick as is liked. But it is destined to fail inherently, such as is communism.

Ten Oz No you haven't considered anything I have said. You only restated your old points, that I addressed, and then proceeded to insult my level of history education. You have consistently "suggested" that I would allow Jews and Blacks to suffer under their tyranny, because I believe in self government. You your self point out that "usually" plp who spear head such charges are the one's actually against it. It appears that you Ten Oz.... have no issues telling another man how to govern themselves. As long as YOU think its "right". Why don't you study what form of binding documents this country had before the constitution Ten Oz. Then tell me what you think then. Swansont No swan you did not consider what I said at all.......I consider not being able to marry who I want as being a slave. I consider not being able to drink out of a water fountain as being a slave. I consider not being equal to another man in rights because of the color of my skin as being a slave. Clearly these issues were "gross injustices" , but Dr, King, and Rosa parks were still slaves. Cultural slavery Physical slavery emotional slavery fiscal slavery many more than one swan......they were slaves......that WAS the cause of the civil right movement.

Bignose Thanks. So indeterminate because it can be done there are just multiple sums. Undefined because it can't be "done". mmmmh....I agree semantics. As opposed to scientific. Thanks again.

mathematic Right......0 raised to 0 is indeterminate.....my only other question was why this is, instead of undefined, why have two different terms?

To All Why is it considered indeterminate as opposed to undefined? Why the difference? I will accept the answer with out further debate. Imatfaal You should know that bringing up dead/locked post is against the rules. As a result I am forced to issue you a citizen's mod note.... "It is against the rules to bring up dead/locked post. Your answer would have sufficed on it's own, you just happened to want to insult me, on what you THINK is my lack of education." .

I am looking for reason why anything raised to the power of zero is 1. On a side note any reason why log's of zero are undefined.

swansont, gee, ten oz Perhaps you folks should consider myself and my comments vile. This way you will "logically" NOT have to consider anything I say. Strange and John have found this method most effective when dealing with me.

Strange At this point I only wish to understand what happened between you and I. I freely admitted that you pointed out an issue I had not addressed, that is log's and exponents. I then thanked you and proceed to offer definitions. That is... zero as an exponent is zero as space zero as a log is zero as value So then why did you feel that I was not making an effort to "pin this down"? John As far as I am concerned..... "Do you understand that all you have done is put a lot of characters on the screen?" This is how I feel towards your replies. Cleary you have pointed out this is how you feel about my replies. A thread does not reach 250 plus replies and 14 pages if it does not have SOME merit. You and others make sure of that. I think that this is why you truly keep coming back to this thread. You seem to have a harder time letting go than I do.....

Ten Oz Are you under the impression that the poor are weak? To me.....weak means not capable of resisting tyranny. The majority of people are capable of resisting tyranny, they just prefer bread and circus to self government.

I did not at any time advocate doing nothing. My points of regression are not needed... surely you wouldn't agree any ways. And it is the duty of children and women, and MEN to stand against there oppressors. This says nothing of their success. Those that are weak are not the majority, therefore democracy is another form of tyranny.