uncool Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Bignose uncool ok.......rewrite the axiom to be a "secondary" form of multiplication, in addition to the original. I see that this changes nothing. It means you don't have to conclude that 1 = 0, which is quite useful. It also allows you to relax the other axioms when applied to this "secondary" form of multiplication, which would be necessary for your axiom to make sense. As to it's usefulness.....and examples as to it.........that should be obvious. The equations already posted up to this point show how to satisfy the axiom. If I tangibly held apples in my hand and multiplied them by zero I still hold apples in my hand, and so on..... The same is true if you tangibly have 4 apples and you multiply by 3.14; you still end up holding 4 apples. All you're saying is that multiplication doesn't apply in that way. So no, I still don't understand how what you are doing is in any way useful. Edited February 14, 2017 by uncool
conway Posted February 14, 2017 Author Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Bignose I hope you understand that I do understand what it is you are trying to tell me. You insist.... "It is imperative that I show a way to label a specific "thing" as z1 or z2". I do not feel this way. I think that it is inherent. It does not need to be shown. And I agree you have given an example that shows how it leads to "wrong" answers. I also showed you examples how it can lead to the "correct" answers. GRANTED only because " I " chose z1 and z2 accordingly........... I have found that 99 percent of the time I disagree with someone it is because of a lack of understanding on my part. I am sure this is the case here. But until I can see your perspective as valid ( as yet I can not) there remains no reason to continue on this line of debate. Much thanks for your consideration! Uncool I can not assign meaning to something for you. Either you find something meaningful or you do not. I can talk semantics...."apples" and so on....but I'd rather not. I HAVE concluded that 1 = 0. Only as if zero is used as z2. If zero is used as z1 it is NOT equal. This in and of its self should show you the "usefulness". Again if you do not agree...I can not change that. Perhaps I can change my perspective on the matter...that I can do....perhaps you can offer me reasons why ( 1 = 0 and 1 ( not =) 0 ) can not BOTH be true.......as I am stating. Edited February 14, 2017 by conway
uncool Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) Uncool I can not assign meaning to something for you. Either you find something meaningful or you do not. I can talk semantics...."apples" and so on....but I'd rather not. I HAVE concluded that 1 = 0. Only as if zero is used as z2. There is no "z1" or "z2" in the equation 1 = 0. If zero is used as z1 it is NOT equal. This in and of its self should show you the "usefulness".Not really. Again, use it to analyze something and get a result in an easier way. Groups, for example, are useful because they tell us about the symmetries of an object. That is one of the major reasons mathematicians study them in the first place. Again if you do not agree...I can not change that. Perhaps I can change my perspective on the matter...that I can do....perhaps you can offer me reasons why ( 1 = 0 and 1 ( not =) 0 ) can not BOTH be true.......as I am stating.That goes to basic logic. You can't have that a statement is both true and false at the same time, under the usual assumptions of logic. Edited February 14, 2017 by uncool
conway Posted February 14, 2017 Author Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) uncool There is a z1 and a z2 in 1 = 0. If I define it as so. Yes to be specific I must say 1 (as z1) = 0 (as z2) 1 (as z2) (not=) 0 (as z1) I agree I am not using "usual" assumptions of logic......perhaps this is my greatest issue. I however see no issues with the following statement being logical..... 1 (is and is not) equal to 0. In the same way that a particle can be in a state of superposition. Edited February 14, 2017 by conway
Bignose Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 But until I can see your perspective as valid ( as yet I can not) there remains no reason to continue on this line of debate. OK, so you just get to decide if my point of view is valid or not. Kinda like you get to decide whether a value is a z1 or z2. Whatever. What is the point in positing this to a forum, then? If you aren't going to engage in discussion, then this isn't material for discussion forum. You can go start your own blog. But more than that... my perspective is one of practicality. If you can't demonstrate any practical reason to use this, and furthermore there are many practical reasons demonstrable why it leads to really wrong answers... what is the point? You've created a self-conflicting, only-conway-knowns-what-it-means, demonstrably-wrong-answer-giving system. Huzzah.
Phi for All Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 But until I can see your perspective as valid ( as yet I can not) there remains no reason to continue on this line of debate. ! Moderator Note Good call. Since you proposed the same thing two years ago and continue to fail to take any other perspective on board, please don't bring this up again. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts