conway

Strange Unicorns exist in an abstract sense. That does not mean they are real. There are M mammoths on mars abstractly speaking. Abstraction exist, but is not real. A universe containing no matter an no energy is not empty. It still has dimensions. Therefore is not nothing. You can not conceive of a thing that does not exist. Nor can you represent it. To clarify....Give me again what you consider the be the BEST reason why / by zero must remain undefined. Again also I suggest that the definition of zero is undefined value, defined space. What then Strange is your definition of zero?

Bignose It is that A is composed of a quantity of defined value, "inside of" a quantity of defined space. That is... A = (z1 A , z2 A) = (A as value, A as space) = A 2 = (z1 2 , z2 2) = (2 defined values, 2 defined spaces) 0 = (z1 0 , z2 1) = (1 undefined value, 1defined space) 1 = (z1 1 , z2 1) = (1 defined value, 1 defined space)

Bignose I understand what you are saying, and I agree. I do think however that it comes down to what we are defining as z1, and z2. Where as you are suggesting that they both are dimensions. I am suggesting only one is a dimension, while the other is a value.

pzkpfw yes indeed, sloppy language by me. I apologize I meant division by zero. If "nothing" does not exist then it can not be represented, physically or abstractly. Because the abstract and the physical exist.

Strange It is impossible to represent anything that does not exist. Any symbol exists, therefore the thing it represents must exist. Otherwise it is a contradiction to its own definition. Individuals have claimed zero represents "nothing". I am glad you agree with me, that it does NOT represent nothing. Maybe then you and I could move on to the next point? Perhaps Strange you and I could start from the beginning of the intention of this thread. Would you give me "again" a reason why zero must remain undefined. Bignose I had no intentions of talking dimensions. I have only stated that for every A in S there exist a z1 and z2,.....etc.

Bignose If you would read the previously posted axiom that might clear things up. Strange I did not bring it up, another poster did. In any case..... My apologies if you did not say that zero apples means nothing. I must have crossed this information over with my discussion with john. John Thank you for you time and information.

John Please lets drop the rude posting here? I will listen to you. But you need to stop claiming I have dunning kruger issues. The very fact that I have admitted my ability to be wrong, proves this is not the case. You however have yet to admit that ability.

Given the validity of all axioms found in the link on #17 Given the validity of the axiom I offered.(allowing in / z1 is always first, z2 is always 2). 0 = (Z1=0,Z2=1) A= (Z1=A,Z2=A) 0/0 = (z1 / z2 ) = 0 0/A = (z1/z2) = 0 A/0 = (z1/z2) = A 0*0 = (z1 * z2) = 0 0*A = (z1 * z2) = 0 0*A = (z2 * z1) = A A*0 = (z1 * z2) = A A*0 = (z2 * z1) = 0 Strange I can concede that my understanding of binary is completely wrong. I don't see that it makes a difference in any case. "If you have zero apples in (binary or hexadecimal), then it means you have no apples." I agree it says nothing of oranges or zebras....but if you don't have apples..... what do you have. You do not have "NOTHING". Therefore your value while it is zero, is not "nothing".

It is only that they are "philosophically equivalent". The only real definition for division is the inverse of multiplication. 0 in binary is a bit of information. That is 0 in binary is "on,or off" "open, closed" "yes, no", where as in mathematics it is the representation of a value that is undefined. Or "nothing" as john so insists. Again it is a physical FACT, that nothing does not exist. That means "no values" do not exist. While I may have zero apples, I do not have nothing, nor will I ever. Even if all I hold is an empty dimensions, that is still a something AJB 0/0=0 and always will. If z1 and z2 for zero must both be used, then the answer will always be zero. It is only that 0 has properties of 1, and 0, that is why there is the confusion on it's "similarity" to 1. John not always in multiplication by zero and by 1 equivalent. I gave an axiom. Thus there is not inconsistency. Insulting me is not necessary. I will be the first to tell you what it is I do not know. Did I not start this thread off by asking for help, asking a question? It is only you JOHN that has claimed to have all the correct answers so I wonder if then it is you that suffers from the dunning kruger affect?

good episode!

Greg H. It is not that 0 has no value. It is that it is value that is undefined. As a fact no value does not exist. Value is everywhere. Also my statement was equivalent to multiplying by one. I agree. I have proposed an axiom to follow all current field axioms. Post #23 Additionally 0 in binary is not the same as 0 in mathematics.

You can, by not doing anything at all. If I have five apples, and I don't do anything, then I have done the equivalent of dividing and multiplying by zero. I have tried to answer your question.

John. post #31 you state... "If I divided them(apples), between zero plp, I would give away 0 apples until I ran out" - If I have X apples and give them away 0 times, then clearly I still have X apples. This is not the same as If I have 0 apples and give them away X times, then clearly I have 0 apples. 0 * A = 0 = 0z1 * Az2 = 0 = Az2 * 0z1 = 0 A * 0 = A = Az1 * 0z2 = A = 0z2 * Az1 = A

John "If I divided them between zero plp I would give away zero apples until I ran out. But I'd never run out would I?" EXACTLY...so you still have five apples, why don't you face up to that? Ajb Yes the distributive is kept, the additive inverse is kept. That is... A*A-A*A=0 A(Z1) * A(Z2) = A z1 For A = A z2 For A = A (Az1 * Az2)-(Az1 * Az2) = 0

Ahh I see what you are saying ajb. If you will follow the link provided in #17 you will see that there is a group of two sets of axioms. One for addition one for multiplication. I stated in #18 that axioms for addition were kept as well. I however only posted multiplication.

It is still equal. It is still commutative. This axiom follows after all other axioms. Z1 for 0 = 0 Z2 for 0 = 1 Z1 for A = A Z2 for A = A A does not equal 0 ( 0(Z1) * A(Z1 or Z2) = 0 ) ( A(Z1 or Z2) * 0(Z1) = 0 ) ( 0(Z2) * A(Z1 or Z2) = A ) ( A(Z1 or Z2) * 0(Z2) = A )

This axiom is in addition to all axioms I posted in #18. Which was from an article linked in #17 by Studiot. To be honest I think that my use of the word "undefined" was very poor. So that if I may restate the following Z1 for zero = 0 Z2 for zero = 1

pskpfw, unity+ Again assuming the following axiom, I can solve for any equation presented by either of you in your previous post For any A in S, there exist Z1, and Z2, constituting A, so then any A in operation of multiplication is only representing Z1 or Z2, in any given equation. Allowing that Z1 for zero = undefined, and Z2 for zero = 1. Allowing that Z1 for A = A, and Z2 for A = A

John It may be I am misunderstanding you. This is to say there is another way of stating all examples you gave. It is possible that you were thinking of zero, therefore I could have guessed. If I hold 5 apples and divide them by zero I still hold 5 apples If I hold 5 apples and multiply them by zero I still hold 5 apples. Nothing in physicality disappears or has no value. It is only that value is undefined.

associative distributive multiplicative identity multiplicative inverse So then assuming only one axiom is added then technically all the above, including thoese for addition can be kept, and allow for (A*0=A) as well as (0*A=0), as well as (A/0=A) For any A in S there exist Z1, and Z2, constituting A, so that any A in operation of multiplication is only representing Z1 or Z2, in any given equation. So that. A = 2 = ( 21 , 22 ) B = 4 = ( 41 ,42 ) such that ( A * B = 21 * 42 ) My apologies, one more axiom to add. 0 = Z1 = undefined Z2 = 1

Unity+, Ajb, Sato Your equations come down to * by 0 as well. I think like ajb and Sato pointed out, that the "problem" seems to consistently come back to this same issue. So then if this is the case why can we not change the "zero product property". What axioms ajb would break down and weaken. This is to say "assuming" you allow me to discard the "zero product" property I can rewrite all equations given by Sato with correctness. YdoaPa Could you spare me the time and tell me what happens. Johncuthber If I tell you I have a dog or a poodle.....in neither case does my dog disappear, or become undefined. Physicality allows for / by zero...ergo the equivalent of no operation being performed. Physicality also suggest multiplication by 0 is not necessarily 0. Which I think was the point of your analogy. Strange Then under these very assumptions, would the single fact alone , that it more accurately describes physicality, be useful enough, in and of it's self.

I am sorry I will clarify what I meant. It could be that..... n/0 = n .....but 0/n = 0 .......so no inconsistency would occur. I really have no idea what I did wrong in my previous post to receive negatives. I realize saying this is at risk of receiving more.

What is wrong with multiple solutions? If then b=0, then I can say anything / 0 is the thing itself. So while always different. The same rule is always followed to reach that sum. The first part of the wiki article was mostly why / by 0 fails in regards to computing. Simply re write programming. The rest was mostly references to others work, (all very old work), and then an in depth discussion of how division is the inverse of multiplication, and "zero product property" exist so then nothing can be divided by zero. Well then why does the "zero product property" exist. Not that I am questioning this particular axiom, just suggesting it is "circular" proof. Why on earth did I get a negative point for this post?

I am looking for in depth reasons for why division by zero must remain undefined.

what is the importance of photons mediating the electromagnetic force, and electrons (higgs field particles), also relating to the electromagnetic force?