conway

Strange I am sure that if you scroll through this mess of text you will see where I have posted more the once what I mean. Actually I will re post for your benefit. a(z1)*0(z2) = A 0(z2)*a(z1) = A 0(z1)*a(z2) = 0 a(z2)*0(z1) = 0 John No john I do not think it serves a purpose. Further you can't offer why your statement is so. Only that it is. Which is far less than I have tried to do. I consider the purpose to be "a more accurate" description of reality, which is after all the purpose and intention of mathematics in the first place. At least if you ask me.

So while they are not equal they exist at the same time?

Phi It is not that I feel you have not addressed my questions. It is that I feel John has not, which I am fine with, only he claims I am side stepping his questions. Thought truly this is not the case. It seems John and I have trouble communicating. Or another alternative is that I am just plan wrong. In any case thank you for your time. John Purpose is most often subjective. Surly anything I offer as purpose you would find un-purposeful. It is my onion I have made the system simpler. I agree that it remains that the system may be inconsistent. It is my opinion you can use it to share a pie. I believe I have gone above and beyond what any troll would attempt....lol...it could be I am the largest troll on the internet. Again John, thank you for your time. Studiot. I agree I was very unclear in my reply's to your question in regards to 1/.0000000001. I have been in quite a rush all day. It wasn't until this morning when I realized what it was you pointed out that I was doing wrong. To then to edify/rectify my previous posts in this regard. And to ensure that I now understand what I did wrong. 1$/.0000000001(of a single cent )= 10000000000(mini-cent) I did not apply units. Where as "mini-cent" is a "new unit". 10000000000(mini-cent) = .0000000001(of a cent). So that if I were to multiply 1$ * .0000000001(of a cent) = .0000000001(of a cent) = 1000000000(mini-cent) so that 1$/.0000000001(of a cent) = 100000000000(mini-cent) Your statements 1st statement depends on the nature of equalities. That is assuming negatives are not really less than but only opposite of. Then -2 is less than -10. Both in space and value. But it is clearly "closer than/greater than" than -10 to the positives. 3rd statement depends also on the nature of equalities. That is 5 / -10 = -.50 . -.50 has more quantities of value and space than 5, but they are all smaller than 5 , as well as being opposite of. So that .....(-.50, has more quantities of space and value, but all spaces and values are smaller than 5). So smaller in size larger in quantity. I may be stretching to close to semantics here Studiot. In any case I have no inclination of altering non division by zero. you have clearly shown me much more work needs to be applied in this area non the less.

Studiot As of yet I have not discussed rationales and irrationals. It is not that 1$/.0000000001 gives you 1000000000 dollars. It is that you have 100000000000 of a cent. Again...... 1$ as value / .0000000001 as space. Therefore 1 dollar "cut" into this many "spaces" and all other values subtracted leaves me with 10000000000 of a cent. It is only that my perspective of whole, verses piece changes. Yes all three statements are correct Bignose I have tried to answer all you questions. You have left all of mine unanswered. If your "ball" question only had issue under the assumption that the commutative property was gone, and since it is not, then no issue is present. In any case thank you for your time. I appreciate your efforts to help me. I apologize for the difficulty we had communicating.

Bignose What your "words" mean are totally dependent on the "number" you applied to it, you can not separate the two. I did not decide anything. I answered your question about the balls. The commutative property still exists. It is a fact that you can only "answer out" if you know x or y is or is not zero. If I know this as well then I can also "answer out" John Lol, can't argue there. Personally I do see purpose in it. "lawyers, fast cars, and pies" - lol

Bignose I have not done away with the commuitative property. I have given examples of this. The axiom I have given lets you objectively dertimine. You did not use your "words" the same in both sentences. sentence 1. garage=1 land=0 sentence 2. garage=0 land=1 Yes technically the equation is flawed, to be more specific 0 = (z1,z2) = (0,1) = 0 So that yes the "one" or "z2" I used is not technically an A or number 1, but only a component of an A. This case A being zero. Where all other A's in S are z1=A and z2=A. Yes I am making stuff up, but I am not making stuff up with out merit. I evidence post #89.

Bignose I agree nothing is "intrinsically" clear. But I think if we exam the wording, it then becomes quite clear. 1 garage, as previously stated is a value, 0 then is space, land, water, or cosmos, in this sentence. So then 0 = z2=1 1 = z1 = 1 1 garage * 0land(still space) = 1 garage (just not a garage on land.) 1 land, is then the value, 0 then is the space, just not the space of a garage. So then 0= z1 = 0 1=z2=1 1 land * 0(garages)....again you still have space.= 1 land. In the real world it is entirely possible for me to have 1 garage and 0 land In the real world it is entirely possible for me to have 0 garages and 1 land.

thanks ajb lots here to learn about.

Bignose By making the statement 1 garage, clearly then you are using z1 for 0 in multiplication. That is 0(z1=0=value of car) * A (z2 = A = space of garage).= 0 A(repeat of above) * 0(repeat of above) = 0 Note however the opposite of this.... 1 Lamborghini * 0 Garages, interesting enough you will still have 1 Lamborghini wouldn't you. Not zero. That is 0(z2=1=(space, that is not a garage) * A(z1=A=Lamborghini) = A A(repeat of above) * 0(repeat of above) = A Endy0816 Thank You, You have given me much information to look into. I agree that zero is philosophically the key here. As you state "perception of absence". I suggest again that the real definition of zero then is a compilation of undefined value, and defined space. Not that value is absent. Just not the value in question, and or a definable value. Thank you for your time. The absence of definable value, but not the absence of definable space.

endy0816 It is also that A*0=0 It is also that 0*A=A That is multiplication by zero is relative. Input a function for z1 and z2 where z1 for 0 = 0 z2 for 0 = 1 z1 for A = A z2 for A = A As well as a "function" for choice of which is z1 and which is z2 in any multiplication operation. Allowing in division z1 is always first z2 is always second. Also the following axiom may help For every A in S there exist a z1 and a z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication is only representing z1 or z2 in any equation.

So....particles always have wavelength, but wave function(describes particle) exists when particle is "at its lowest intensity", and "can" give rise to different/more wavelengths?

I think I understand what you are suggesting here. But then if relativity is "not a good theory" at the quantum scale, then why? Say if then it was not, that time and space were so small that they can not be defined, but rather that a "perspective" change has occurred and any further defining, requires a measure from the new point of reference. I don't know.... say relative mathematics perhaps. What examples are there for electrodynamics?

Phi. Nothing was said in the "parameters" of whether the lawyer keeps the money or not. Though John and I are talking about that. It is only said that the lawyer has no one to give it to. In any case phi, a/0 says nothing of what is done" with anything. But what is ALWAYS the case is the question "what is left in the hand"...no matter the operation. Clearly if the money is in his hand, and he has no one to give it to, then in his hand still is the money......latter "something" is done. John. Just because he has no one to "give it to" does not necessarily mean he keeps the money. It only means at the time for him to give the money away no one was there to give it to. At that time he held in his hand 120k. Later he does or does not "do" something with the money. Again if its money and addition...say, I have (hold) five dollars. I add 2 dollars. "How many dollars do I have (hold)." Undebatable 7. And the question always is john.....how many do I have (hold). The question never is "what do I do with it, or what happens to it". John maybe if you and I would talk only in mathematics we could be more successful in exchanging information. If I claimed then the following, would you show me a contradiction "mathematically". 0/0=0 a/0=a 0/a=0 0*0=0 0(z1)*A(z2)=0 A(z2)*0(z1)=0 0(z2)*A(z1)=A A(z1)*0(z2)=A Studiot Are you saying that the way in which you "worded" your equation demands .0000000001/1, as opposed to 1/.0000000001 ? I still haven't figured out what your saying I have done wrong here.

John. No one said anything about the lawyer keeping the money. What was "done' with the money is NOT undefined. He kept or he through it away. It is not undefined. He still holds in his hands 120K. Ajb Actually according to the link in #17 all everything I have talked of since is of fields and rings. You gave me much education in this regards. I proud to say the axioms for fields and rings are the same found in the link. I have based everything I have said since on field and ring axioms. Studiot I have never been good at application of math. So tell me what I did wrong. Additionally, the rain man could solve severely more complicated equations then the one given by you, yet he couldn't tie his shoes. I have yet to see any claim this idea has any merit. So thanks I will take that as a compliment! So in order to save the professors hair, put one of my staments in the proper context for me please.

So assuming the right information than there is no / by zero? Is there any other cases though?

Swansont I am confused, I thought you implied particles stay collapsed, unless acted on.

Pzkpfw 0cookies/0friends = 0/0 I have at no time claimed that 0/0 does not equal 0. Your link was unfair. Greg "No the pie is one equal piece" So what do I have in my hands after I do "nothing".....or divide it by zero. The question always is "what is left in your hands". I have one equal piece...which by the way is known as a whole. A piece is whole unto its self, but a whole must be divided for anything to be a piece. Such as every field is a ring, but not every ring is a field. Unity+ This thread may indeed be dead. I hope not. Hopefully I can continue to find a way to help resolve this in my mind. Thank you for you time. Studiot 10,000,000,000 I am not sure what your point here is. John "what happens to the money" 120000/0=? well the "money" doesn't become "undefined" does it John. The "money" doesn't disappear does it. Sure no one receives the money. But that does not mean the money doesn't exist. So then..... If your lawyer friend is holding 120k, and he has no one to give it to. How much money is in his hand? 120K 120000/0=120000(that no one gets)...........not "undefined", and not "infinity. Phia Ok I finally understand what you are saying here. Perhaps this is what Bignose is getting at. So that if I "move" at all the number line becomes 2d. But up to that point it is still 1d. Is this correct. Therefore a person can not have 2d with in 1d. Correct? Yet again.....if I do not move at all on my "number line" and it is composed of 1d and it is ALSO composed of "points", "numbers", "value" . Then clearly I have 1d with more than one characteristic. Ajb Thank you What's wrong with a number being "as we usually understand things". I think you have mentioned this to me before...could you suggest again. It seems to me that a number line is both "space, and value". Its difficult to argue the differences, but clearly you agree that a number has value. Others talk of how a number line has space. So come on guys numbers "sit" on lines. Lines are composed of numbers. Numbers have value, lines have space. It seems to me the reality is that a number has both components of space and value inherent with in it. Why is this really any different than saying that only lines are space, and only numbers are value. We put one with in the other all the time anyways. I meant that X on an axis has 2 directions. As x is known as a dimension. Same as all the other dimensions.

decay33 so.....if a particle is collapsed, and as swansont says it stays so except for outside forces, would then these "used" electrons behave as particles if "not" observed in a double slit experiment? I think this a wonderful question. What about a machine that changes states of particles from wave to particle and back again, something like swansont suggested? How then would this device affect the experiments outcome. But wouldn't "using" the "particle/wave" device be akin to observing the electron. Thus always causing it to collapse every time the experiment was ran, no matter the configuration?

Greg considering that a piece is not a whole. Then a pie comes already divided into zero equal pieces. Look GreagH philosophy is not mathematics. You seem to be stuck in the philosophy of the matter. I can divide 5 apples by nothing and I still have five apples. It is a fact in reality, nothing disappears certainly not a pie. So I ask you Divide a pie by zero equal pieces, and have it disappear, or have it change it's self into something undefined. You'll look pretty silly in the process. Bignose Explain to me again how this has anything to do with what I am suggesting. Why can a number not have more than one component? Why does z1 and z2 require definition at all. Why do z2 and z1 have to both be dimensions, and why then does that make the axiom I gave not work. It seems self inherent that a single object can posses 2 components. The value of the object, and the space of the object. In any case.....why does a number have to posses one and only one characteristic? Any dimension has two directions. This is a fact (right?). So then a single dimension may posses more than one characteristic. Thank you Bignose for your help

Bignose What say you then to the idea that a 1-d object exist and is also composed of a value. Is this possible? If so then can I not represent both the value, of the object, and the 1-d space of the object?

Fair enough, do you suggest then that this is not the case. Further that this case never occurs. Or that if so , it is "dealt" with by other means of mathematics?

Well sir I can reference a documentary entitled "who's afraid of a big black hole". In which physicist Michio Kaku explains then when "merging" the mathematics of quantum black holes and classical black holes, that equations such as A/O arise.

How often is division by zero found, when merging mathematical statements of classical and quantum representations? I know of at least one, that is black holes.

Strange I certainly agree you scenario happens more than the one I posed. I have asked questions. Many times. I have gone out of my way to bring it back to the very specific thing in which I do not understand. Now you and I may talk philosophically about ,dividing by zero with apples, but this will never do the conversation justice. As you have pointed out it only leads to a continues debate. So then I again evidence post #17, in which all field axioms are listed. I only add one axiom, requiring that all other axioms listed stay the same. So then what zero is or isn't, is not really of consequences. The axiom in which I gave allows for * and / by zero. So if this is so,(maybe it isn't), then the only thing stopping it would be "another" reason why / by 0 must remain undefined. Bignose I am glad that you chose a vector as an example. It perfectly describes what I am suggesting. While "part" of a vector is a dimension, the other "part" of the vector is velocity. So then again a value and a space, composing one thing...a vector. If you wish to consider a mathematical vector like the one you linked, it also seems the same to me. A length, space, and a "direction", value. Here we will certainly debate "direction", as it seems to me that it is a "potential" dimension, therefore a value.

Strange. This post has nothing to do with "my" theory. Such a post would be against the rules. I am trying to understand why / by zero is undefined. If you feel that I "just" won't get it, then stop responding. Maybe others will continue to help me. Maybe not. I am aware that many reasons have been given in this post as to the "reason" for /0 remaining undefined. I personally either A)no not understand them B)disagree with them. This is my inherent right to try to "finalize" this idea with in my own mind. Thank you Strange for your time in this matter. I am sorry for it to have been related to anything other that my inability to understand and or accept / by zero. I will also raise your conversation scenario with another conversation scenario caveman- "Hey I got this idea the world is round" caveman2- "That's stupid" caveman- "Well here's why, tell me what you think. Specific reason A,B,C,D" caveman2- "Well I know more than you, and your just wrong." caveman-"But why?" caveman2- "Shut up poopy head" Bignose. Because they are ONE object. A = one object = composed of z1 and z2 = z1 is value inside of z2 which is a dimension. z1 and z2 are two objects, but they compose ONE object. such as a cheeseburger has many objects, but is ONE object. two objects requires two spaces and two values one object has one space and one value......but two things.