Bignose Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Even more to the point... by losing commutivity, you are telling me that there is a difference in distance traveled between a ball moving at 10 meters per second measured for 0 seconds, and a ball at rest measured for 10 seconds. And I strongly disagree. 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. How can I objectively determine which is a value and which is a space? Objectively. Not just in the way that conveniently gives you the right answer. And no, it is not clear at all why a garage is a value one time and a space another. I used the words in exactly the same way in both examples. If I were to build x garages on each of y plots of land, and either x or y or both may be zero... How can I be sure to get the right answer? 0 = z2=1 And you've got 0 = 1 here. Your item system has lead to an obviously false statement... You are literally just making stuff up at this point. Edited July 2, 2015 by Bignose 1
conway Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited July 2, 2015 by conway
Bignose Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) I used the words the same in both, just the numbers differently. You just decided which was which to get the 'right' answer. Please tell me how to do this objectively without knowing what the 'right' answer at the end is. Please answer my question about the distance traveled by the two balls. Please answer my question about x garages on y plots of land. In the current mathematics, I can answer it without knowing the values, but yours cannot. This is a major flaw. Lastly, you need to look up the definition of commutivity. Because your equations are exactly the opposite. In your equations, the order of operations matter, ergo you've broken commutivity. Edited July 2, 2015 by Bignose
John Cuthber Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 "Yes I am making stuff up, but I am not making stuff up with out merit. I evidence post #89. " It may have some artistic merit, but it's not actually useful- as demonstrated by the comments on lawyers, fast cars and pies. 2
conway Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) 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 Edited July 2, 2015 by conway
studiot Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Post#93 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. Post#78 divide $1 by 0.0000000001 How many dollars do I now have? My original question How many dollars? Your answer one billion Post#86 10,000,000,000 Your reply. So you are telling me that if I have one dollar that I can convert it to 1billion dollars by dividing it by one billionth. You are further telling me that you do not understand why this is wrong. I can only suggest that you need to study the process of division more thoroughly. To help here are some further questions to ponder. They are not tricks. These questions can be presented in symbols if you prefer. 1) Division of a number by another number greater than one always results in a smaller number. 2) Division of a number by one always results in the original number. 3) Division of a number by another number less than one, but not equal to zero, always results in a larger number. Are any of the above statements correct? Edited July 2, 2015 by studiot
Bignose Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I answered your question about the balls. Um, where exactly? conway, I am just trying to understand your point of view. If you aren't going to answer questions, then there isn't much point to participate in a discussion forum, is there? I am unconvinced of the usefulness and unconvinced you have thought about this enough not to recognize my issues, but I'm trying. If you aren't going to answer direct questions, then I'm not going to bother reading any more. Probably no loss to you, though it should be noted that this behavior is formally against the rules.In addition to being against the ethos of a discussion forum. Consider that since so many of us still haven't seen the usefulness, you might really need to work on the delivery of the message. I'd suggest doing that by studying the current number theory in depth so you understand the terminology and the issues better. But, your choice. Peace out.
conway Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited July 2, 2015 by conway
Phi for All Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I have tried to answer all you questions. You have left all of mine unanswered. Wow. Seriously?! I really don't know what else to say, if you can say this with a straight face on the sixth page of your discussion. 3
studiot Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) 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. This is just nonsense. Real numbers have what is known as the well ordering property. It is this property that allows us to compare two real numbers as greater than or less than. Yes all three statements are correct So my statements are all correct ? Let us see. 1) Division of a number by another number greater than one always results in a smaller number. 5 is greater than 1. Divide -10 by 5. Is the result greater than or smaller than -10? 2) Division of a number by one always results in the original number. Statement is correct by Group Axiom 3. 1 is the identity element. 3) Division of a number by another number less than one, but not equal to zero, always results in a larger number. -10 is less than 1. Divide 5 by -10 Is the result greater than or less than 5? Edited July 2, 2015 by studiot
John Cuthber Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Personally I do see purpose in it. Really; what? You have made the system more complicated and probably internally inconsistent, but you still can't use it to share out a pie. What purpose do you see in it? Are you admitting to trolling? 1
conway Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited July 3, 2015 by conway
John Cuthber Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 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. I have an alternative way of addressing the issue. x/0 = 42: always, for all x Obviously, it doesn't solve the pie problem, and it leads to contradictions. But it is very simple. Do you think it serves a purpose? (other than illustrating the problems with your reply)
Strange Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 I have not done away with the commuitative property. I can't tell if you don't understand the words you are using or if you just make up random stuff as you go along. You said: It is also that A*0=0 It is also that 0*A=A Therefore, NOT commutative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_property
conway Posted July 3, 2015 Author Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited July 3, 2015 by conway
Strange Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 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 Your abbreviation of these vector quantities so that they appear to be scalars may be part of the communication problem, then. Just to clarify, what are the values of the other combinations? a(z1)*0(z2) = A a(z2)*0(z1) = 0 a(z1)*0(z1) = ? a(z2)*0(z2) = ?
John Cuthber Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 I consider the purpose to be "a more accurate" description of reality, Then you have to accept that division by zero is undefined. Your attempts to say that both x/0 = x and that x/1=x lead to a contradiction.
conway Posted July 3, 2015 Author Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) Strange According to the axiom I gave. Any A in operation of multiplication (through extension division) is only representing z1 or z2 in any equation. So that no eqution every posses z1 and z1, or z2 and z2. It is and always must be z1 and z2, one from each A given. John x/0=x x/a=x It is assumed in both equations that x does not equal 0. So then there is no contradiction. Or maybe there is and I am not seeing it. Could you please give me an example via pure mathematics as to the contradiction? To All For every A in S there exist a z1 and a z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication, or division is representing only z1 or z2 in any given equation. Allowing that in division z1 is always first z2 is always second. Allowing that... z1 for 0 = 0 z2 for 0 = 1 z1 for A = A z2 for A = A 0=(z1,z2)=(0,1) A=(z1,z2)=(A,A) Edited July 3, 2015 by conway
John Cuthber Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 John x/0=x x/a=x It is assumed in both equations that x does not equal 0. So then there is no contradiction. Or maybe there is and I am not seeing it. Could you please give me an example via pure mathematics as to the contradiction? OK, but can we sort out a typo? x/0=x x/1=x Whatever games we play it's clear that x=x OK so let's consider x/a It's clear from the first equation that a = zero and it's clear from the second that a = 1 Thus one = zero. As I said, that's a contradiction. Are you still labouring under the misapprehension that this is useful
conway Posted July 4, 2015 Author Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) John just because in one equation a=0, and in another a=1 does not mean that 1=0. I am still not following your claim to contradiction. "its clear from the first equation a=0" "its clear from the second equation a=1" "thus 1=0" "As I said that's a contradiction." Really? Apologies for the typo Edited July 4, 2015 by conway -1
ajb Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 just because in one equation a=0, and in another a=1 does not mean that 1=0. I am still not following your claim to contradiction. If you allow such properties then you are not dealing with equivalence relations on sets. Your structures are very exotic and wild.
Strange Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 just because in one equation a=0, and in another a=1 does not mean that 1=0. I am still not following your claim to contradiction. Because the two equations are equal. x/0=x x/1=x Therefore: x/0 = x/1 Divide through by x: 1/0 = 1/1 Therefore 0 = 1
conway Posted July 4, 2015 Author Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Strange x/0 = x x/1 = x I agree that x/0=x/1 1/0=1/1 1=1 Im thinking you made a typo arriving at 0=1, following the current rules of mathematics the equations would have been.... undefined=1.....which we know is not equal. Ajb No equivalency sign was used in the two separate equations given by John "originally". If say... he had of said x/0=x/1......which is true (assuming x does not equal 0). Then we would have to consider the equivalency. But as I pointed out then we must assume that x does not equal zero. So then no contradiction. I believe ajb I read a post somewhere, in reach you replied to a person who suggestd a free energy maching that broke all the laws of physics. And that such a device would have to be very exotic indeed. Any time only variables exist such as x/a, we must at least know if the variables are or are not zero. But isn't this true anyways. That is unless only variables as sums are needed. Edited July 4, 2015 by conway
John Cuthber Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) You have missed the point, possibly deliberately. It doesn't matter that some things work when you set x/0=x. What matters is that (as strange pointed out) some things do not work. Maths that doesn't repeatably work is useless. Edited July 4, 2015 by John Cuthber
ajb Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 No equivalency sign was used in the two separate equations given by John "originally". If say... he had of said x/0=x/1......which is true (assuming x does not equal 0). In full generality if a =b and b=c does a=c? I believe ajb I read a post somewhere, in reach you replied to a person who suggestd a free energy maching that broke all the laws of physics. And that such a device would have to be very exotic indeed. Any time only variables exist such as x/a, we must at least know if the variables are or are not zero. But isn't this true anyways. That is unless only variables as sums are needed. Your system also seems exotic in the sense that it is non-standard; this is before we examine how consistent it is.
Recommended Posts