conway

Strange and John Again......thanks for your time.

Why are you subtracting 1 from both sides of the equation? Well I will have to agree with Strange the rules according to exponents and logarithms by zero with also have to be altered. So I was wrong here, something else is affected. But in my defense logs and exponents are multiplication and division so..... I see now my confusion in regards to your post Studiot. In light of the information Strange has pointed out, I extend the idea. That is... Zero used as and exponent is zero as space. Zero used as a log is zero as value. x0 = x x0 = 0 Strange Cleary I glanced through your post #259, I apologize. I have been quit busy lately. Thanks for helping address this oversight. With any luck there will be more! Studiot Could you extend on what you mean?

Studiot Awesome question. I have not considered this. Of the top I would say yes. It is that a number is composed of both. One is within the other. The value is in the space. When a single value occupies a single space they are one thing. So .....as how to convert one to the other I can't think of anything other to say then..... change the variable assigned 1s changed into a value is 1v. 1v changed into a space is 1s. Consequently "placing values into spaces" are the axioms of multiplication and division. Number creation aside. Upon further thought This can not be done with zero. That is zero has a value that is "undefined", therefore I can not switch it with a "defined space". This is the reasoning for the symbol 0. 0 = (undefined value, defined space ) 1 = (defined value, defined space ) All numbers other than zero being (dv + ds), so then possible to switch value into spaces so long as all things being "switched" are defined.

Ten Oz Ok, thanks. I have stated clearly that there is nothing wrong with helping the "repressed". I would have clearly helped the Jews in the holocaust. (at least I hope I would have). But I would not have conquered the Nazis and forced them to my government. Help all the Jews escape, you bet! If hitler gets mad at it and goes to war....so be it. But I will NOT tell hitler how to live his life or define his government. Only tyrants do that. And by the way......they love to do that very thing under the guise of "good". Sure the good is always actually good, but what it covers up is tyranny. If the Jews had of stood up to the Nazi's it would not have taken a world war. Such that..... If Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, there would not have been a "civil rights" movement latter.... On hindsight I can't make that claim....maybe it still would have taken a world war. Even if they had stood up to the them. Still.... It is the duty of the enslaved to free themselves.

Strange No for pure mathematics you can NOT treat it arbitrarily. I stated that you MUST label space and value in pure mathematics. I have also said that to the best of "my" ability it affects nothing but multiplication, and division by zero. I am of course looking for other affects. You will note that both equations you gave contained zero. Therefore it is affected by this idea. If however you label your variables "space" and "value" you can solve for both sums given. So long as 0 in one equation is value, while in the other equation it is space. John If the question is "what is the lawyer doing"....then "doing nothing" is an applicable answer. I don't understand why you think it is not. Have you not answered friends and family the same when they have asked you what you were doing? Why do you still post? I understand you consider me to have mental issues. So why debate a crazy man? Sit back..... laugh at me.....wait for the thread to die. Lol thought it almost was the other day.....no worry's John I am sure Ajb and Strange are on the verge of moving on..........CHEERS!

Ten Oz For every positive you listed about centralized governments making "progress", I may show you a regression. As I have stated I do agree that they have the right to live the way they wish. So it is NOT akin to making an argument for slavery. It is exactly the same. I say a man has the right to believe in, and function as a slave owner. But I will not participate in his government or a union there-in. This is the same for polygamy or incest. Further history has shown us that slaves have always freed themselves. Abraham Lincoln did not free the slaves. If he did what the heck was Dr. King and Rosa Parks doing. No they freed themselves. It is the responsibility of the repressed, and the abused to stand against their abuser. It always has been. It will always will be. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in helping these people. But it is wrong to conquer their conquerors, and force them to your standard (right or wrong). Democracy is not moral. Do you feel Ten Oz that you have the right to legislative over the minority, just because you have more children then they do (that is your the majority) ?

Strange The intention of the equation given. Truly it is inherent in the question that is being asked. Take John and I's debate for an example. We constantly talked of pies. Well if I have a pie, and divided it by zero, then clearly in this statement, the pie is the value, while zero is the space. Of if you take the lawyer joke, 120K and he had no one to divide it amongst, then 120k is the value and 0 is the space. This is the same in multiplication. Intention, or reasoning for asking the question in the first place, dictates which is which. Surely this does nothing for pure abstraction, that is NON word math problems. But then the "dealer" decides. Simply placing a V or and S, in front of each number to show us how they arrived at their answer.

Ten Oz I agree completely in regards to your thoughts on Jefferson's perception of this idea. That is, he surely meant it only for his peers and himself. However. I have truly assumed nothing. I have A) stated an opinion, B) asked for others opinion C) expressed a hope others felt the same. While I am "leading this charge" as in I am the OP, I have no such cognitive dissonance as Jefferson. I have no problem with the inherent rights of polygamist, and incest people to govern themselves. I however will not personally take part in that government nor any union that might arise with said government. But nor will I conquer them for their "own good" or the "good of the children". I believe Ten Oz, that more so than self government. People have the right to be wrong. This is to say nothing of consequences so....we should still have those, don't get me wrong. If you wish a "line" drawn in this matter.....that's the point.....we should all draw it ourselves.

Strange I agree that the interpretation that you gave is 100 percent correct. ([1][1]) = 2 The only difference in the original options (a) and (b), was how we chose to represent the value. Really it was that both your statements were correct. It is only that (a) was (in my opinion) more accurate. While the value is 2v, and it is equal to 2 defined values, if I take a single defined value or 1v....and put it "additionally" into two boxes, then I get the number 2. The original number we were talking about "or using for value" was 2. So that 2v is "more accurate" as opposed to "two" 1v's, put together. I am not capable of adding complexity. To be honest there are two particular consequences to Relative Mathematics, that I for the most part have no idea how to make use of. LOL. I could say what you suggested in regards to division by zero, but not with multiplication at all. I can not say that "whenever" zero is used it functions as 1. As this is not correct. Sometimes it does however. 0 * 1 = 0 0 * 1 = 1 Both statements are correct. The only difference was how "zero" was perceived, used, and or represented in the equation. 0v * 1s = 0 0s * 1v = 1 Av/0s = A......(zero in this operation of division is always space, therefore it always acts as 1). However in division value is always first, space is always second in the equation. How we perceive zero , that is as "space" or as "value" dictates the sum of multiplication and division by zero. Your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Gee I have considered your idea of rights matching responsibility. However one does not always have the right to be responsible for a given thing. There may be no land for me to be responsible for, (at least none of any worth), therefore I would not have the right of property. I may not have the ability to fight for my government, or take physical action to take part in that government. Therefore because I don't not have the responsibility of government, I do not have the right. No Gee, it is my belief that right's are beliefs. The thing is, any thing you personally consider to be a "responsibility" is only a belief by you that it is so. Such as a man and his land. He may take care of it, therefore he owns it through right of responsibility, but in the end it is only his belief that he takes care of the land. It would exist with or with out his care, the state of it's existence being relative. This again is akin to government.

Swansont I think your point is good. I would also add, that while we currently understand that all races of humans are humans. It was Jefferson and his time, that actually believed that certain races weren't actually human. Clearly "a bit" of cognitive dissonance. But it helps us to understand why they could have such a good point as "self government" and still be so ignorant of human equality.

Thanks Studiot I did ask for opinions in my first post. My hope was that the majority of people agreed, or as stated in my following post, that someone could actually present a scenario were an individual would claim that they did NOT posses the right to define the word government. If it could be done, then I would have to reconsider my opinions on this matter as well. If it could not, then the intention was to ask (in a new thread), if we personally posses the right to self government in America To All I apologize for the miss spelling in the thread title. I will try to correct the "paraphrasing" and "quoting" differences in the future.

To All Ok, clearly I was wrong in suggesting anyone was a coward or lazy for any reason whatsoever. I apologize. In any case I agree with Ten Oz. That is why I paraphrased the quote. What does it matter if it's quoted exactly if the man who said it owned slaves. What WAS important was the idea. The idea does not need a quote. I truly only wanted to convey the idea. By word games I clearly meant "the definition of government". That is the point! All men INDVIDUALLY has the right to decided how government is defined. And that "choosing" a government is equivalent to creating it. Assuming it was not a forced choice. So then what I have should have stated was, show me an example where a human being would actually claim that they DO NOT posses the inherent right to self government. Note, allowing someone else to govern for you is self government. So long as it's not forced.

Thanks swansont Anarchy is not a government, therefore, choosing anarchy as a "self government" is not choosing a government. Studiot Jefferson is considered the father of the constitution. John If you go off into the boonies where there is no "current" government then yes. Why play words games with this. It is a simple idea. If a human being does NOT want to create, or chose their own government, then not only are they lazy, but they are cowards as well.

John http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0600.htm Jefferson spoke of self government a lot.

Thomas Jefferson "All men and all bodies of men, have the inherent right to self government." I am of the opinion that this is one of the highest orders of truth. Opinions?

This is assuming that the people who speculate "don't think they ARE in the box". Because if they think that they are clearly in the box, then it is only a matter of examining where exactly the box begins and ends. Sometimes we find they were actually in the box the entire time. This thread was hilarious!

Strange Thanks! I hope to do better this time around. Your first question is correct. Your second question..... A) is correct.....and exactly so. It is possible to represent fractions, but I will wait. It is possible to put "different" quantities of values and spaces together. Such as in multiplication and division. 2dv * 3ds = 2 * 3 = (2dv or (1v,1v) placed into 3ds or (x,x,x)....then all "numbers" are added.) The values are now numbers because they have been placed into spaces. The above has different "quantities" of value and space. Where as when we are talking of making a "number" instead of multiplication and division, the values and spaces are the same. 1 = (1dv,1ds) = (1v,X,) = 1 2 = (2dv,2ds) = (1v,1v,X,X) = 2 so on..... Notice in 2 * 3 the "values" are placed "together" into all spaces (2dv,2dv,2dv) in the space of 3....then add...after removing the "dv" because they are now actually numbers.... lol......

Ajb Time and space is dictated by our perspective of the "body of reference". The sum of multiplication is dictated by our perspective of "value and space" In any case I will certainly not argue with you here. As it is slightly off topic. And as my only education in this filed comes from reading "relativity" written by Einstein. And as I am sure you know that book is meant for the "philosopher" not the "mathematician". As he even suggest himself, paraphrased of course. Also to say that if nothing else I should "think" I have chosen the right name in any case. As multiplication is indeed relative. Relative to what number is space, and what number is value. Albeit, "pointing" this out makes no difference except where as 0 is involved. Strange 1. (2dv)= (2 defined values) = (1v,1v )........no space present (2ds) = (2 defined spaces) = (x,x).......no value present (2dv,X,X) = 2 defined values and spaces "sort of" put together (1,1) is the 2 defined values placed into the 2 defined spaces. When a value is placed into a space it becomes a number so that. (1+1) = 2 So that (2dv,X,X) = 2 2. 2 defined values do not "necessarily" refer to 2 defined spaces, or (x,x). If however I put the values into the spaces then I have a number. The number 2. Again placing value into space while creating a number is slightly different then placing value into space when multiplying or dividing, that is the "quantities" of space and value are different when multiplying and dividing as opposed to "generating" a number. 3. Yes this is exactly what I am saying 4. An undefined value has no "further" defining. That is I can not say if the value is finite, or infinite. Fractional or Whole. Value is still present, but it is undefined. Where as a defined value may be "further" defined as finite, infinite, fractional, whole. 5. Like answer as above 6. and 7. Yes (0v,X) = (1undefindvalue,X) = 0 The significance being only that the first representation is the simplest. But the explanation for the symbol 0 existing here instead of 1 is that the value is undefined as opposed to 1's defined value. 8. and 9. "The value is represented by the "position" on the number line. A position is a measure of space. One is within the other. So that the actual "length" or space of all numbers on a number line is exactly the same. It is only the labeling of the values that change. \----------\----------\----------\ It is either that the first "vertical" line is -1, the second line 0, the third line 1 and so on, or it is that from the first "vertical" line to the second line is -1 from the second line to the third line is 0 and from the third line to fourth line is 1 but in all cases the "physically measurable space" of the line, and or "between" the lines is equal for all numbers including 0. 10. (F) stands for finite. (I) stands for Infinite (S) stands for small, or "fractional" (L) stands for large, or "whole" This extra "further defining" is only necessary when showing that some values and spaces are infinite as opposed to finite. And that some values and spaces are fractional as opposed to whole. I used this only because it was required to represent pi in AJB's equations. 11. I have to label all numbers accordingly to "get" across what I am trying to communicate. It is the "nature" of multiplication that the "commutative" property exists. Only with 0 do we need to point out the difference between value and space. Because if we don't , then we can't multiply and therefore divided by zero. I hope I have replied effectively and efficiently. You previously post was highly engaging and most appreciative.

Ajb, Strange I agree whole heartedly, that a more accurate formalization is still required. Thanks for helping me take these steps. I assure you that it only "appears" that my reasoning is hindsight. As you suggest ajb that I am "changing" the idea to yield the right answers. I have represented space and value in three different ways on this thread. Initially it was z1 and z2. This was done so as not to invoke the ire of the moderators. I switched to q and r, at your request Strange. I then went back to the original representation I have always used. I think that you can both find evidence of this in the original post "Relative Mathematics". I have struggled to find an appropriate way to represent this I agree. Yet assuming we can "momentarily" agree on space and value then I will restate all relative definitions, that can be found in "relative mathematics''. I am assuming this formalization is only a "launching" point for a better more accurate version. space = labeling of quantities of dimensions. value = labeling of quantities of existence, other that dimensions. Any given number is composed of space and value together (value inside space). x= single quantity of space. 1 = (1defindvalue, x ) 2 = (2defindedvalues, x,x ) etc... 0 = (1undefinedvalue, x ) This is different from 1 in that 1's value is defined. Zero's value is not defined. Naturally the "symbol" that represents undefined value is 0. 0 = ( 0v, x ) It is not that the space of 0 is undefined. It is defined. The number line and "traversing" integers is proof of this. So then 0 has the same "space" as 1 but not the same value. (3.141dvIL, 3.141dsIL) = Pi.......use as many "actual" digits as you like. (5.6763dvFL, 5.6763dsFL) = 5.6763 5.6763dvFl * 3.141dsIL = pi * 5.6763 This then gets quite lengthy I will continue definition if anyone wishes. Otherwise I will hold here. For example I must first represent 5 as value, the represent the fraction with 5 as value, the represent 3 as space, then the infinite fraction as space. Then place all values into all spaces. Ajb Only with 0 do we need to declare space and value. I have taken many test in which at the beginning of the question it sates that the given variables are or are not 0. This may be a fallacy in my small level of education...that is in the higher grades they don't tell you a given variable is or is not zero. The point being is that I am under the assumption that if we want to solve any equation with pure variables we must then know if any given variables are or are not zero. Only that same information is required when dealing with variables in space and value form. In division it is always v/s. As division is not commutative. But that is because it is the "inverse" of multiplication which is commutative. Also....jokingly.... I would think a person attending the polish relativity conference would be excited at the prospect of "relative mathematics". If you would care to here.....It is my opinion that everything in this idea of "mine" is actually Einstein's idea. That is he came up with it (relativity). He proved it (relativity). I am only applying relativity to mathematics. Time and Space are two things in one. Time is a value. Numbers then also are composed of two things in one....etc ....etc........ Strange The only issue I took with your form of formalization is that it appeared to me "possibly falsely" that each equation then yielded two sums. While the sums are always the same in regards to non zero's, it will always yield two different sums in regards to zero. So how then do we distinguish?

Ajb, Strange Thank you guys, I understand nothing is "correct" yet. This is all relative, and tentative. And you guys are about to drop me like a hot potato....lol. Ajb, I do not have to use v and s "attached" to a number like variables. Except in the case where a variable is equal to 0. And for reasons all ready set forth. I can represent the idea of space and value in division quite easily. As you have said it is a matter of "undoing" multiplication. 6/3. 6v/3s (x,x,x) space of 3 (2,,2,2) the value 6 evenly subtracted into all given spaces. (2) then all values subtracted (but one) 8/2 8v/2s (2,2), the space of 2 (4,4), the value * subtracted equally into all given spaces (4) then all values subtracted (but one) This can be done with any number combination, whole, natural, integers, rational, irrational. It is then that when using decimals, one converts to a fraction, then draws "space" accordingly. 1/2 (x/x,x) the space of 1/2 1/2 * 1/2 (x/x,x) (1/2,2) (1/2+2) all values added in all spaces (1/4 = .25) It is in this case Strange that (x) does not have value. It is a labeling of quantities of dimensions such as 1 has in it (x) = 1 single quantity of a spatial dimension 2 has in it (x,x) = 2 single quantity's of a spatial dimension 3 has in it (x,x,x) = 3 single quantity's of a spatial dimension 0 has in it (x) = 1 single quantity of a spatial dimension

Ajb I will take it that I can move forward? I am assuming then that you agree with the following. 1. Any number is composed of value and space, and can represent only it's space or only it's value. If then this is correct, I reiterate the following in regards to zero. Zero, must also then contain a value and a space. As you put it (0*, or *0). But it is in this case that there is a fundamental difference. Were as with any non zero there is no real difference. So then zero as value is represented as ( 0v ). So then zero as space is represented as (X). So that 0 as a number is ( 0v, X ). 0 = ( 0v, X ) 1 = ( 1v, X ) 2 = ( 2v, X,X) 3 = ( 3v,X,X,X) so on...... So that in multiplication and division with 0, I am also referring to 0 as either a space or as a value. 2 * 0 (x) is the space of 0. I place the given value of 2 into the space given (2)......then add. This is opposed to 0 being used as value 0 * 2 (x,x) is the space of 2. I place the given value of 0 into the space given. (0,0)....then add (0+0). It is zero used as space or value, that is important. 0v * As = 0 As * 0v = 0 Av * 0s = A 0s * Av = A Where as in division it is that value is always labeled first, space is always labeled second. Just as in regular definition of division. That is NOT commutative. It is also that placing the value into the space is "inverse" of addition. That is subtraction....I am sure you get the trend. I am also prepared to represent any rational, irrational, numbers.

Greg In this case it did NOT make the problem simpler did it. In fact it yielded an incorrect sum didn't it. But I will bite. Why then is "cancelation" allowed" outside of pemdas? If cancelation exists in an effort to help prepare to solve, than it is PART of solving it. Therefore the standard PEMDAS, which as you pointed out, exists to be used when solving. So why then can I cancel? In fact I just so happen to know an equation than when you do "cancel" it gives a wrong answer. Further if I solve with out "canceling" and I arrive at one sum, but if I cancel then arrive at another....isn't something wrong? Ajb If 0/x is always 0, then how is it still problematic? Is it really true that "cancelation" can occur before PEMDAS. If so why? Is the previously stated equation not an example of how doing this can lead to incorrect answers. Such as if I did solve the equation without "cancelation" I arrive at a completely different answer, one that also makes sense. a*b = c b*a = c a*b = b*a In all the above equations all variables but ( c ) represent only a space or a value. In each separate expression only 1 value and 1 space exists. So that..... a(is a value) * b(is a space)......or a(is a space) * b(is a value) Then the "value" is placed into the "space" given. Then all values are added. (a+a+a+a+a), where I have as many (a) as spaces in (b) 2 * 3 (3,3) this is the value 3 placed into the space of 2....then added. (3+3)=6 (2,2,2) this is the value 2 placed into the space 3....then added. (2+2+2)=6 This again is not my idea. This is current explanation.....different perspective albeit.

Ajb, Strange, Greg Again I do not see how there is a problem here at all. If at all times we follow the rules of (PEMDAS), then one NEVER arrives at 2 = 1. Ajb why do you not "have" to distribute. Clearly you break a rule by NOT distributing. Clearly multiplication comes before division. What am I missing here? Division by (a-b) is not a problem at all when the numerator is zero. The numerator is Zero. NOT 2. 0/A = 0. This "cancel" like Strange has done, is not correct. We may be able to cancel like divisors in expressions if we only had + and - in the numerator. Again PEMDAS. Ajb While a*b and b*a are not the same but yield the same result is not trivial. I understand why one would think so. It is in fact trivial until a or b or both contain 0. Depending on if 0 is used as space or value is dependent on the sum. 0 or A.

hypervalent_iodine, Bignose I believe you guys are forgetting a step. (Pemdas) demands that multiplication occur before any division so that.... 2(a-b) = 1(a-b) (2a-2b)/1 = (a-b)/1 0/1 = 0/1 0 = 0 You must distribute the 2 and the 1 before you can divide......