Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 If you have 1 apple and you square it you will still have 1 apple right? 1A x 1A = 1A If you have no apples, and you square it you will still have no apples? -1A x -1A = -1A I know the rules and concept, trust me. I just don't think they're applicable to reality - it's only useful in accounting. So what about -1^3 1
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 Why is the grey in the middle not '0' and to the right and left of it -1 and +1 ^ lol
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Why is the grey in the middle not '0' and to the right and left of it -1 and +1lol Funnily enough I am actually working through a book on colour management right at this very minute and I can tell you that not all colour space profiles would refer to the colours with the same numbers. The numbers are arbitrary, but their meanings are specified by convention within the colour space profile which is being used.
DJBruce Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Look, I have no opinion of this - to me the mathmatics we're educated are wrong. I'm working on proving that; so no I don't agree with it. I know why it does equate 1, I know the academic rules, yes. I don't agree with them. Ummm, I hate to brake it to you, but the statement, " to me the [sic] mathmatics we're educated are wrong" is in fact an opinion. Care to show any of your proof, and by proof I mean a well thought out, precise, logical, and complete mathematical idea. Also what makes you think that the mathematical system which has been created by the work of millions of the smartest people every to live over thousands of years is wrong? You closed that other thread because you know it was true, and you couldn't prove it wrong. If it can't be proved right, but everything said is true, and can't be proved wrong, then it's true. I am fairly certain that: A) not all of your assertions are true, over proven. B) That your statement is not a valid logical form of an argument. If you have 1 apple and you square it you will still have 1 apple right? 1A x 1A = 1A Wrong if you are using A as the unit for apples and you do: [math] 1A * 1A= 1(A * A)= 1A^{2}[/math] If you have no apples, and you square it you will still have no apples? -1A x -1A = -1A First, no apples would be represented by 0A not -1A. So your analogy makes no sense. Secondly according to correct conventional mathematics: [math]-1A * -1A= -1 * -1 * A^2=1A^2[/math] I know the rules and concept, trust me. I just don't think they're applicable to reality - it's only useful in accounting.[/Quote] If fully understand the rules and concepts behind this then where do you see the mathematical problem with it? So what about -1^3 [math] (-1)^3=-1 * -1 * -1= -1[/math] I would like to ask if you don't believe in this mathematical system how does yours resolve this problem? So the real question is, (-1)(-1) = ? and the answer is that the following convention has been adopted: (-1)(-1) = +1 This convention has been adopted for the simple reason that any other convention would cause something to break. For example, if we adopted the convention that (-1)(-1) = -1, the distributive property of multiplication wouldn't work for negative numbers: (-1)(1 + -1) = (-1)(1) + (-1)(-1) (-1)(0) = -1 + -1 0 = -2 As Sherlock Holmes observed, "When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Since everything except +1 can be excluded as impossible, it follows that, however improbable it seems, (-1)(-1) = +1.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) This is what I believe in: 1. 1 First God made heaven & earth 1 First Time made space & matter 2. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 2 The matter was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and Time was moving over the face of the waters. 3. 3 And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. 3 And Time said, "Let there be light" and there was light. 1. G = SM 2. 1^2 3. S + M = L 3. = Time being time. + representing time in that process. With this belief, any oneist math is wrong in my eyes - although I understand it, I don't believe it's true. It's actually garbage. Everything BAR black holes = to a 0 existence. So as I said before: -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5. -1 x -1 = -1. -1 is the opposite of 1. 1 wouldn't exist without -1. THIS IS MY BELIEF. I'm not forcing it on no-one, I'm not changing my belief. Let's stop the flaming cause it's gonna get neither of us anywhere. Edited July 25, 2010 by Klaplunk
Mr Skeptic Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 If you have 1 apple and you square it you will still have 1 apple right? False. You have an apple squared, not an apple. If you multiply an apple by an integer, you get an integer number of apples. But if you multiply an apple by an apple you get an apple squared. No different than with any other unit, such as meters. 1A x 1A = 1A If you have no apples, and you square it you will still have no apples? -1A x -1A = -1A Wrong equation; no apples is zero apples. 0A X 0A = 0A^2 1A X 1A = 1A^2 -1A X -1A = 1A^2 1A X 1 = 1A -1A X -1 = 1A I know the rules and concept, trust me. I just don't think they're applicable to reality - it's only useful in accounting. So what about -1^3 You don't know the rules and concepts. But you're right that I see no application for apples squared either. (-1)^3 = (-1)^2 X -1 = 1 X -1 = -1
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 Lol I just explained clearly... Good night. This is what I believe in: 1. 1 First God made heaven & earth 1 First Time made space & matter 2. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 2 The matter was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and Time was moving over the face of the waters. 3. 3 And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. 3 And Time said, "Let there be light" and there was light. 1. G = SM 2. 1^2 3. S + M = L 3. = Time being time. + representing time in that process. With this belief, any oneist math is wrong in my eyes - although I understand it, I don't believe it's true. It's actually garbage. Everything BAR black holes = to a 0 existence. So as I said before: -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5. -1 x -1 = -1. -1 is the opposite of 1. 1 wouldn't exist without -1. THIS IS MY BELIEF. I'm not forcing it on no-one, I'm not changing my belief. Let's stop the flaming cause it's gonna get neither of us anywhere.
DJBruce Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 THIS IS MY BELIEF. I'm not forcing it on no-one, I'm not changing my belief. Let's stop the flaming cause it's gonna get neither of us anywhere. Fair enough I will stop questioning you about what you believe, and let you believe whatever you want regardless of whether I view it as right or wrong. Just remember beliefs are not science, and this is a science forum. So unless you wish to have people debate your believes I would avoid posting them.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 More importantly, this is a discussion forum, where we discuss the merits of ideas presented. Publications of your ideas are better suited to a blog or scientific journal.
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 Hey, I'm open to discuss - I'm not liking the flaming though; last time I tried to discuss I was apprently preaching.
michel123456 Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 (edited) Sorry to interrupt. _Negative numbers have been introduced not by mathematicians but by accountants. Counting money, it happens quite often that money in your pocket is not enough to pay. In this case you are in debt. To express debt, accountants invented negative numbers. All mathematic rules that apply on operations with negative numbers & zero are ruled by the principles of money in order to have correct results under mutual arrangement. In this perspective zero means "no money". In many circumstances, it is much better than a debt: zero may mean you're free & alive, debt may mean you're in slavery or dead. _in this perspective also, upon the line number, zero is a point like the others. -10,-9,-8,-7,-6,-5-,-4,-3,-2,-1, 0 ,+1,+2,+3,+4,+5,+6,7+,+8,+9,+10 ------------------------------------------------------------------->>>>>>> The line goes from left to right continuously, -10 is less than -9, which is less than etc.... -1 is less than zero, zero is less than 1, etc... There is no actual symmetry around zero. The line does not grow till infinite on the left side contrarily as the numbers suggest. The line comes from infinite negative and progress constantly till infinite positive. It is a single line going from left to right by convention. It is not something that grows left & right with central point zero it is not like a mirror: <----0----> And there is nothing weird happening in the negative side. You can slide zero at whish along the line, all operations remain the same. The "sliding" is called "transformation", and using this transformation, you can compare all the results before & after the "sliding". Now, if you want to invent "mirrored" mathematics, I guess you can. But you will have to work from scratch. If you have 1 apple and you square it you will still have 1 apple right? No. Operations upon apples are not made with apples. Usually you can multiply apples with numbers, and get 2 apples: that's 1 apple multiplied by 2. When you multiply apple by apple, you get "squared apple" which is "something new", completely different from an apple. Similarly Csquared is not a speed anymore, it is "something different". There is an interesting article about multiplying bananas & umbrellas, from eminent & disgraced professor E. Laithwaite.. Edited July 26, 2010 by michel123456
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 Yes but I don't agree with that. I'm talking real-life maths, not maths for educational purposes. You can write lists upon lists of reasons as to why -1 x -1 = 1, and back it up with information from text books, right up to the very first text book, and feel perfectly correct; however, I'm not a pawn, I'm a human being and I live life! Therefore I know that educational maths is wrong compared to real life. I believe time is static/cubic, and we move through it - that means I believe everything equates to 0 BAR black holes, which equate to 1. 0 to me signifies duality: <--- 0 --->. Sure, you can progress from 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5... etc. But you would also progress in the opposite direction: 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5. This IS science, it just doesn't agree with the current THEORIES. It's not exactly supernatural, it's just against the solid rules put down by education - it's not life rules is it? If I have 0 apples and I square them I do not gain an apple. It doesn't work in context because it's context is real, and the educational concept is educational. I will prove this one day, although I think I already have.
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 I'm not quite sure what the difference between real life maths and any other type of maths, I'd suggest a lack of knowledge on the foundations of mathematics....
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 I'm wise because I can put 2 and 2 together. I'm knowledgable because I know that equates 4. Maths isn't exactly wrong, it's right, it's just right to 1/4 of existence... ---> this 1/4. "A Picture Tells 1000 Words"
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 So what you're saying is that maths is right in the measurable part of the universe you just think that 3/4 of the universe is not measurable?
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 I think the 3/4 of the universe is measurable. Word forces us to this 1/4 view point. We should use pictures and objects to describe the universe, rather than lines from left to right. Left side = Right side We know this, why do we still continue using it.
Klaynos Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 But without language we cannot tell anyone anything. That is why civilisations only started once people started to write things down. Left/right is simply an arbitary custom so that people we are telling things know what we are talking about.
uncool Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 Klaplunk: let's start at the beginning with the natural numbers - 1, 2, 3, etc. You agree that those are natural and that their addition and multiplication are natural, right? I will extend from there once you agree with this. =Uncool-
John Cuthber Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 "Look, I have no opinion of this - to me the mathmatics we're educated are wrong. " Must be the only thing he hasn't an opinion on. Anyway, two of the real uses of negative numbers are temperatures and bank balances; another one is time, where negative numbers are used to indicate the past. Last night I watched the temperature fall. It was falling steadily at 1 degree per hour. The rate of change of temperature was minus one degree per hour. Imagine I wanted a guess for the temperature a couple of hours before I made the first measurement. Two hours before I made my first measurement (i.e. at time = minus 2) the temperature was minus 1 (degrees per hour) multiplied by minus 2 (hours) ie plus two degrees different from the time I made my first measurement. Or, if you live in a world where Kaplunk lives, it was a couple of degrees colder before it cooled down. You can do the same sort of thing with a regular direct debit on a bank account; at negative time the net value was higher. The simple reason for the rules is that they give the right answer. Kaplunk, if your model of the universe gives the wrong answer, it isn't reality that's wrong.
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 (edited) Numbers 1 and 0 are natural. 0 = Duality 1 = Singularity Why do you think we use base 10? We measure time as if it were progressing, when it isn't, it's just commensing and where inside it. It's a huge cube of timey wimey... stuff (space and matter). The GMT system is flawed and useless. It makes us believe that time is aging so to speak, when it is static. It's not moving, we rotate and move through it. It's why a clock should have 4, 8, 12, 16. Four days occur on earth in one 24 hour earth rotation. We shouldn't measure time like we do, and it's the reason for everything we learn being oneist. The universe isn't expanding, it's infinite. Edited July 26, 2010 by Klaplunk
Klaplunk Posted July 26, 2010 Author Posted July 26, 2010 True 0 = Duality, <----- 0 -----> (and up and down) 1 = Singularity. We worship 1, not 0. I've explained it fully.
DJBruce Posted July 26, 2010 Posted July 26, 2010 Numbers 1 and 0 are natural. 0 = Duality 1 = Singularity Why do you think we use base 10? We measure time as if it were progressing, when it isn't, it's just commensing and where inside it. It's a huge cube of timey wimey... stuff (space and matter). The GMT system is flawed and useless. It makes us believe that time is aging so to speak, when it is static. It's not moving, we rotate and move through it. It's why a clock should have 4, 8, 12, 16. Four days occur on earth in one 24 hour earth rotation. We shouldn't measure time like we do, and it's the reason for everything we learn being oneist. The universe isn't expanding, it's infinite. PROOF! May I please have some proof of any of these claims? Just a quick few things I notice: One mean solar day according to its definition is 24 hours long. We have proof the universe is expanding. Wasn't your cube view of the universe already debated and closed on this forum? How do you know the universe is infinite? Please give me some empirical evidence of this. True 0 = Duality, No zero represents [math] 0*10^0[/math], which often has a applied meaning of nothingness. <----- 0 -----> (and up and down) No real idea whats going on here. 1 = Singularity. WHY?? You have not explained why this must be like this. You simply keep stating it is. We worship 1, not 0. I worship do worship numbers, but on a certain level the development of zero was much more important than the development of 1. I've explained it fully. You have explained or proved nothing. You simply keep making these assertions, without backing them up.
Recommended Posts