Strange Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Your post was purely indented to insult. It wasn't; I'm sorry you got that impression. It was intended to help you understand what you need to learn to be able to (a) communicate your idea in a clear and consistent manner and (b) understand the arguments against it. Part of the problem is that you don't seem to understand that this "one simple change" has enormous implications for the way numbers and arithmetic work.
conway Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Ajb Ok, thanks for the information. I stated the axiom in a very specific way. As an axiom that is in addition to all current field axioms. I have done it in such a way as to not change the "rest" of mathematics whatsoever. So if some functions can not be inverted, fine, that has nothing to do with division and multiplication by zero, albeit as you point out in the above example, some rules have to change. It is not that the rules change Ajb, it is that I am adding a rule (a change). One single rule. So then again, point out, "mathematically" a rule that no longer holds, because of the addition to the rules I have made. For example graph a vertical line f(x)=y (something like that, its been awhile). It has no slope, it involves division by zero, the line is not undefined, the slope is not undefined, it is just that it is vertical, it is just that we have collectively decided to call it an undefined slope. The line exist, and it is vertical. I have defined the line exactly as it is. in it's totality, without using "undefined", without change the rules of how we got there. John The question never was, "can I tell the lawyer what to do" The question was, "how much money does he have, at the moment that he has no one to give it to" For a fact I have given a definition for division by zero. It remains to be tested, as (Ajb) is trying to help me do. (Thanks Ajb). Strange I am well aware of the "change" that it makes. The actually problem is that you do not seem to understand, that nothing "really" changes at all. Except multiplication and division by zero. Albeit, some "re-defining" has to occur To All Consider this idea without zero. Is it not then what exactly happens? (My idea or Not). It then is clearly a more accurate, simpler, description of multiplication and division. 2*3 2 is a value 3 is a space (x,x,x) is the space of 3 2 is value of 2 2 values into 3 spaces then add (2+2+2)=6 Edited July 9, 2015 by conway
studiot Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) 1) "what is the nature of zero" 2)"what is the nature of a number" 3)"what is value, what is space" 4)"what does it mean to put a value into a space" 5)These things are not mathematics, these things are philosophy. What people have been trying to tell you, here and elsewhere, is that mathematics has very specific definitions of (1), (2) and even (3). Using these definitions mathematics can even offer a meaning to (4). So the rest of the world considers these matters of mathematics, not philosophy (5). You seem to have different personal definitions for (1) (2) (3) and most particularly (4), so it is not suprising that your conclusion (5) is not in accordance with the rest of the world. Until you can bridge that gap you will never communicate, for certainty the rest of the world is not going to change to accomodate you. Edited July 9, 2015 by studiot
Strange Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 I am well aware of the "change" that it makes. Really? The actually problem is that you do not seem to understand, that nothing "really" changes at all. Except multiplication and division by zero. No, apparently you don't understand. And this is where Messrs Dunning and Kruger come in. You think you know enough to say "it has no other effect" but you are unable to formally define what you are proposing in order to prove this.
John Cuthber Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 John The question never was, "can I tell the lawyer what to do" The question was, "how much money does he have, at the moment that he has no one to give it to" For a fact I have given a definition for division by zero. It remains to be tested, as (Ajb) is trying to help me do. (Thanks Ajb). The question is "how does the lawyer divide up the money between zero people?". Once again, it's not that the answer to the question "What is 1/0?" is unknown. The problem is that the question is meaningless. There is no process by which it can be worked out. In the same way there is no process by which the lawyer can share out the money. the issue isn't "how much does each person get?" It isn't "Where does the money go?". the question is what is the process of division that the lawyer undertakes? And,as I have pointed out many times. You have not addressed that. What you have said is that he does nothing. Well, that doesn't divide up the money-so it is plainly the wrong answer. Try again. Come up with a means by which he can share the cash between zero people. Or, at least stop saying that you have done it.
Greg H. Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 To All Consider this idea without zero. Is it not then what exactly happens? (My idea or Not). It then is clearly a more accurate, simpler, description of multiplication and division. 2*3 2 is a value 3 is a space (x,x,x) is the space of 3 2 is value of 2 2 values into 3 spaces then add (2+2+2)=6 It's not a simpler definition of multiplication - it IS the definition of multiplication. And neither of them are "spaces". 2 * 3 literally means "2 + 2 + 2" just like 6 / 3 can be expressed as "How many times can I subtract 3 from 6" (the answer being 2). What you're trying to do is 6/0 or "How many times can I subtract 0 from 6?" and come up with some answer other than "An infinite number of times.". And that's why you're wrong - because I can subtract 0 from 6 until the sun dies, and I still won't have found the answer to the question. All your axiom does is break the definition of division in favor of some system that's not easier to use, it just makes things less clear. 2
Phi for All Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 Is there any more point in discussing this? Ten pages ago, conway asked for detailed reasons why dividing by zero must remain undefined. The more reasons he's gotten, the more he digs his heels in and insists he's right. This was obviously NOT a conclusion he reached rationally. If it were, he could be reasoned with, and this thread would have been no more than a couple of pages. He has an idea he feels is right but he doesn't know enough to know why it feels that way. He's made an emotional attachment to the idea, not an intellectual one, something that happens when you don't have enough data to analyze meaningful information. It's like only eating with your favorite spoon, you don't know why you have to do it, it's irrational, but it just "feels" right. It doesn't matter that multiple amateur and professional mathematicians, people who work with numbers all the time, tell him why it's undefined and must be that way. It's a deep explanation with many layers, and I think conway is only looking at the surface. Mainstream study equips one with an adequate shovel, but one must be willing to trade in their favorite spoon first. 1
conway Posted July 9, 2015 Author Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Greg If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period. Phi Of course I have attached an emotion to this idea. That does not mean I have not attached intellectualism. This thread is as long as it is, BECAUSE I continue to make good arguments (or you guys are bad at ignoring trolls). If you don't like this thread quit responding(be patient it will die). Especially when your only responding negatively. John. The question Never is "what does the lawyer do" The question always is "what do you have left". What do you have. What do you hold. Strange It is true that I only "think" I know enough to say "it makes no changes". Maybe it does. But because I know this I am here asking. Maybe then I do suffer from mental illness. But you or any one, has yet to give me an example of how it does change something other than multiplication and division by zero. So.......step it up. While MANY good reasons have been given as to why it can't happen, I have addressed all of them. Truly maybe not sufficiently, but clearly then I do not have this mental defect you like to talk of. Are you out of bullets? Maybe we can rehash you last bullets. Don't' want to? Fine....go somewhere else and insult people. To All I have made NO claims as to the superiority of my mathematical skills. I have made NO claims as the superiority of any of my skills. Therefore I do not suffer from the "dictionary" definition of Dunning Kruger. Albeit....maybe some other disease. Please note..... gregH said.... "it IS the definition of multiplication".... thanks greg! So I am taking the definition that ALLREADY exists, and I am making it apply to 0, it is only that before the concept of "relativity" humanity could not see it. Stephen Hawking "If I have seen farther than others it is because I stood on the shoulder of Giants".....not because he was educated, or smarter. Though true. Edited July 9, 2015 by conway -2
studiot Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Greg If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period If you bothered to read my post173 before you grumped this might be a more convivial thread. Edited July 9, 2015 by studiot
conway Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Studiot I actually did miss that post. Believe me it was not intentional. In any case I agree. But I make an addition, before the world settled on what the "answers" to the "questions" I posed, they were philosophy. If then a person wishes to debate these "answers" to these specific "questions", then they must return to philosophy. So yes I am redefining numbers. But not frivolously. And before this went "sour", I MOMENTARILY had a few people on my side. But also I agree with you. If I were a better communicator, more educated (especially in mathematics), then yes this conversation could have been more a convivial thread. For that I am truly sorry. To all..... List an equation that is affected by this, other that multiplication and division by zero. Then may we continue? If you feel this is a waste of your time, please leave no more comments. Just leave. (I would think regular members would have known this. In fact I believe they do. So then why do they continue to return to talk of mental disorders and lack of credentials? Because I am just that good of a troll? NO. I have no skills. As I have declared. So why then? Maybe...just maybe something is actually here.) Edited July 10, 2015 by conway -1
John Cuthber Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Greg If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period. John. The question Never is "what does the lawyer do" The question always is "what do you have left". What do you have. What do you hold. "If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period." Yes it is. It's the number of twos added together. You might not think the process is important, but most maths tests I saw said to show your working. Anyway, It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask what the process is and,, on this forum, you should answer. Either that or I'm caught between whether you are trolling or it's the K D effect.
ajb Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 List an equation that is affected by this, other that multiplication and division by zero. If we completely remove zero then we probably miss the problems. The questions are the following (inducing zero) 1) Solve 0a = 0. I.e. what unique number a satisfies that equation? 2) Does a(b+c) = ab + ac for all a,b,c? (check very carefully using 'your arithmetic') 3) Does a-a =0? (again, check this is consistent)
Strange Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Maybe then I do suffer from mental illness. No one has suggested that. I have made NO claims as to the superiority of my mathematical skills. I have made NO claims as the superiority of any of my skills. Therefore I do not suffer from the "dictionary" definition of Dunning Kruger. That completely misses the point. It is not about your claimed knowledge, it is about your belief in your competence: you believe that, despite not knowing much mathematics, that you can make statements like "it doesn't change anything" with certainty and dismiss all counter-arguments. Edited July 10, 2015 by Strange
Greg H. Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Greg If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period. gregH said.... "it IS the definition of multiplication".... thanks greg! So I am taking the definition that ALLREADY exists, and I am making it apply to 0, it is only that before the concept of "relativity" humanity could not see it. Dude - 3 is a number. It's the number of times you would add 2 to itself in that problem. Alternatively, I could also express it as 3 + 3, without changing the original problem. See what I did there? 2 * 3 can be written as 2+2+2 or 3+3. They're interchangeable, and it doesn't matter which one I use, I get the same answer. And you're not trying to change the definition of multiplication, but of division, which while it may feel like the same thing, it's really not. Do this for me. Convert 1/0 to a decimal value. Like 1/1 = 1 1/2 = 0.5 1/3 = 0.3333333... 1/4 = .25 Notice something? As the denominator gets larger, the resulting decimal gets smaller. Which means that if we reduce the value from 1/1 to 1/0 the result should be larger than 1. So what is that value? As another example Lets say I need to cross a room that's 50 meters wide, and I have a velocity of 0 m/s. How long does it take me to cross the room?
swansont Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 If you don't like this thread quit responding(be patient it will die). Especially when your only responding negatively. ! Moderator Note "The thread will die when you stop disagreeing with me" is not how this works.
conway Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 Swansont I did not claim the thread would die when I felt like it. I claimed the thread would die on it's own, in due course. Greg and John If we chose 3 + 3. then the it is 2 that is not a number in 2 * 3. See what I did there. It is a current mathematical fact, that when multiplying one SYMBOL is not technically a number but rather a representation of a space. Strange You have implied several times that I have a mental issue. I have not once said anything about you. I have only attacked your ideas. In all fairness you know that you have not done the same to me. To all Ajb has, shown time and time again how to attack a persons, ideas, and not the person. Others could learn tremendously from this. Including myself. AJb 1. 0/0 = 0.....unique number 0 fits the equation. 2. Yes. Distributive property still exists. So long as both expressions declare space and value alike. 3. Yes. A-A = 0. (a given symbol representing only value, as opposed to only space, is not used in addition and subtraction)
Greg H. Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 I'm still waiting for the decimal representation and an answer to how long it will take you to cross the room. Here's another one, while I'm at it. A sawmill has 75 logs that need to milled into lumber. It takes 2 hours for one man to mill one log into 25 boards and 2 posts. How many hours will it take 0 men to mill 75 logs?
John Cuthber Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Greg and John If we chose 3 + 3. then the it is 2 that is not a number in 2 * 3. See what I did there. No, because you didn't explain it. you just posted some meaningless words. " It is a current mathematical fact, that when multiplying one SYMBOL is not technically a number but rather a representation of a space." Would you like to try again?
Strange Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Strange You have implied several times that I have a mental issue. I have no idea what gives you that idea. If there are posts where I have done that then report them to the moderators (and I will apologise for doing so). Not knowing mathematics is not a "mental issue". But it is readily correctable by a little study. Why not devote a few months to learning some basic maths so you can understand the objections to your idea? 1
conway Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Strange I have studied basic math since I was a child. I need not study it any further. I came here to ask individuals with Advanced math education, to see what happens when this idea is applied to these particular fields. Again "my opinion" is that this idea only affects basic mathematics....which I know all I need to know of. You claimed I have Dunning Kruger's effect, a mental illness. I am not really offended, no need to report, but as I pointed out, what the state of my mind is has nothing to do with this idea. The idea is either sound or not. Independent of my mental stability. So attack that. Not me. You know what I am trying to get across here. Out of curiosity, why did you refuse to continue "helping" me (thanks by the way), when the process of "q into r" came up. It literally happens like value's placed into vectors'. This apparently is an Advanced math exactly like what I am stating. Yet you quit at this point saying you "didn't understand". John I do not want to try again. I meant exactly what I said. It is a fact. It is also a fact that it is NOT verbally expressed in this way. That's the whole point I am trying to make John.... It is not that I am changing ANYTHING in mathematics. I am changing our perspective of mathematics. Greg It is not really productive to talk rationales and irrationals at this point. But if you insist. As I have already stated, nothing changes in regards to division and multiplication outside of zero. So any thing divide by a rational or irrational, yields the CURRENT sum. It is however entirely possible to represent this idea while doing division by rationales and irrationals. If you and I could agree on the integers, and natural's representation, then we would agree on the rational and irrational representations. But alas we do not agree on the former, so "showing" the latter is a waste of our time......on second thought here you go. 1/4 = .25 = ( x / x,x,x,x...,the put 1 in the first x, 4 in the next four x's then subtract all but one) = (1/4)....tadaa! nothing changes. And Your "room" question.... 0veloctiy * 50meters = 0 0value * 50space = 0 = (x,x,x,x,x,...50 times, then put 0 in all and add) Made for a good example! Edited July 10, 2015 by conway
John Cuthber Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 For the record, I might be the reason he thinks "we" have questioned his mental state - more than once. Specifically, i have postulated that he may suffer from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect However, since it's just a cognitive bias and we all have those, it's not really worth worrying about. I have yet to see any evidence that my postulate is incorrect. John I do not want to try again. I meant exactly what I said. It is a fact. It is also a fact that it is NOT verbally expressed in this way. That's the hole point I am trying to make John.... It is not that I am changing ANYTHING in mathematics. I am changing our perspective of mathematics. Two points It's not your decision. The rest of your post makes no sense. 2
conway Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) John Thanks! I agree it's not my decision. It's humanity's decision. I have however tried my best to explain it the way it is, not the way I conceive of it to be. As evidenced by the "apparent" likeness to what actually IS current explanation of multiplication and division (just not by zero). We seem to be have a lot of post between us that we both consider to "make no sense".....so....thanks for hanging in there. Edited July 10, 2015 by conway
John Cuthber Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 No. It's the forum rules' decision. You are required to explain yourself and posting meaningless words doesn't meet that requirement. Do you understand that I post stuff and you don't understand it, but you post stuff and nobody understands it? If you don't think that's true please feel free to set up a poll.
conway Posted July 10, 2015 Author Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) John The forum is composed of humanity. I agree totally that you post things I do not understand. And also that I post stuff no one understands. Do you agree I have posted some stuff some people understand? But you claim to understand nothing of what I post. I do not think any of my words have been meaningless. Albeit this is yours, and possible others, opinion. Again, how about a post back onto the idea.....unless you just wish to further assault me. Edited July 10, 2015 by conway
John Cuthber Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) The forum is composed of a small subset of humanity that has rules. You can leave this site. Humanity will continue to accept you to exactly the same extent as it does now. However, if you plan to stay here, you need to follow the rules. I agree that you have posted stuff that nobody understands. That is because- as I said- it is nonsense.Stop kidding yourself that it has meaning. I'm not assaulting anyone. I'm just pointing out that, if you post "I can divide by zero because dfkjhysrtgoejrto8gfud90sert3kjtn9" you are not helping anyone. You need to explain what you mean. And, given the forum rules, you need to answer points and objections. So, where someone says "what does the lawyer do" you have to say what he dose. Saying "his actions are not defined" simply accepts the mainstream view that division by zero is undefined. Doing nothing isn't doing something. So, what thing does he do? It would also help if you said what you mean by the stuff you recently posted and which I pointed out was meaningless. Or maybe, you are just a relatively successful troll. Edited July 11, 2015 by John Cuthber
Recommended Posts