# Division by zero. Go ahead and laugh.

Discussion in 'Undergraduate Math' started by Lefty, Oct 7, 2004.

1. ### LeftyGuest

If I have one marble in my hand, then I have exactly one marble. This is
exact. It is precise. If I have lost my marble [ : )] then I have none, I
have zero marbles. There is no margin of error here.

Agreed completely. And this is a problem which must be fixed.

Exactly. It is the study of nature and space/time items. Thus far, they have
used abstract tools to describe things in the real world. I think that there
is a little bit of a disconnect because your jamming a round peg into a
square hole. The abstract world and the physical universe are two separate
worlds.

It may be possibly to construct a physics which is in fact the real world
mirror image of mathematics. It would require a whole different approach and
philosophy. I am not sure even how it would be done or what it would look
like. All I've got so far is my (axiom of uniqueness) for real objects in
the physical universe.

OK, it's wrong. But I never met a physicist who would not admit the same.

When one learns, he does not create a physical object. He creates an
abstract one. You are adding something to the abstract world when you invent

An exact physics would look very different from the "engineering" type of
models we are always using. One can never abandon these models because they
work quite nicely. But they are not exact. As a mathematician, surely you
could appreciate why an exact physics would be interesting.

Yet, it is believed that singularities exist in space/time. Are they the
result of a sloppy God ?

Plato was Jewish ? I'm going to check that with one of my orthodox freinds.
: )

Lefty, Oct 9, 2004

2. ### LeftyGuest

I dont want to see any of these things going away, except perhaps the

If I have one marble in my hand then I have "exactly" and "precisely" one
marble.

If I have no marbles in my hand then I have "exactly" and "precisely" zero
marbles.

This is the number system of existentialism. Ones and zeros. It exists, or
it does not. I do not know what can be made of 1's and 0's in space/time,
but programmers seem to have taken it pretty far.

I want to construct a simple system which exactly describes a physical
object. And if it can achieve this, then you have something which is not
quite an abstraction.

You are absolutely correct.

Lefty, Oct 9, 2004

3. ### Denis FeldmannGuest

Quite improbable. There are probably no more than 10^200 things in heaven
and earth, and a very small part of our philosophy (elementary arithmetic)
can dream of 10^10^10^10 (100 times) , not to mention Graham number...

Denis Feldmann, Oct 9, 2004
4. ### The Ghost In The MachineGuest

In sci.math, Lefty
<>
wrote
If you drop the marble, shattering it...but there's a better example,
at least in physics: the double-slit electron experiment.
Good luck; for starters there's the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
QM is a very weird beast for determinists.

The Ghost In The Machine, Oct 9, 2004
5. ### LeftyGuest

I dont believe in fundamental particles. It's a great model, but still it is
stick-figure mathematical modelling of space/time. To believe in a
fundamental particle, you must believe that there is such a thing as a
particle in the first place. The notion of "particle" is an abstraction,
which is being superimposed upon nature. There is no particle. Just waves in
space/time. You have a wave, or you do not. There is either 1, or there is
none (0).

Physicists just cant live without a terra firma.

Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
6. ### robert j. kolkerGuest

The science of physics is less real than physical reality. Physics is
our cleverest way of making good guesses about how the world works.

Bob Kolker

robert j. kolker, Oct 9, 2004
7. ### LeftyGuest

Agreed. The models which are used to describe the natural world are mostly
algebraic and abstract. The natural world, however, is non-abstract. These
two worlds do not mesh precisely.

Yet, in the physical universe, there must be a thing known as "truth". And
this truth is (by definition) as precise and exact as mathematical precision
in the abstract world. Mathematical exactness "is" manifest in the physical
universe by virtue of truth.

I think that using the naturals to describe physical objects introduces
error, because no two objects are identical. This implies a number system
for the physical universe, one which is precise and exact. I really do not
like it, but it seems logical. If I had my way, the naturals would describe
things perfectly. But if I said that I had 5 marbles, then by definition of
what 5 implies, these marbles must be exactly identical to each other. I
cant believe that this is possible.

The amazing thing is that even if there is an error introduced into the
model of physics because we allow all naturals, all the basic operations
still seem valid. I'm perplexed by this, but I still see this as a flaw in
the current model of physics.

The naturals cannot be exact, precise representations of physical objects.

Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
8. ### robert j. kolkerGuest

We are able to count objects that our seperated or seperable in our
perceptual field. The do not have to be identical, they just have to be
individually discernable. You have five fingers on each hand (unless you
are unfortunate). No two are alike yet you can count them. And nothing
we can formulate can describe anything perfectly. The thing and its
description are distinct and descriptions perforce must omit properties
otherwise we would never get done writing down or saying or description.
In order for us to comprehend we must abstract which means leaving out
stuff.

Bob Kolker

robert j. kolker, Oct 9, 2004
9. ### LeftyGuest

Unless the universe really is ergodic, in which case one will be correct,
eventually, regardless of what one says !

(Thats a joke.)

Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
10. ### LeftyGuest

Agreed. And for even the most simple physical object there is probably an
infinite amount of truth or facts which can be enumerated with words or
numbers. The only way to describe it _concisely_ is to give it a name and to
say that it either exists or does not. This is a numerically exact
description. There is 1 of something, or there is 0 of that thing.

I am absolutely perplexed that people can count things higher than 1, and
all the algebra seems to hang together very well. Everything works. Calculus
works. Statistics works. Engineering works. It seems that if there is any
error introduced by using naturals higher than 1, the math is so robust that
such error is not even observable until you try to unify physics.

Lefty, Oct 9, 2004
11. ### ZZBunkerGuest

Yes, yes, sure. We'll have to note the brilliant
QMer's have said *models*, rather than model.
So the "essentials" of QM are quite obviously
mererly the Central Limit Theorem, a light show,
and a clock that decays exponentially with rod-time,
rather than moves.

So the decaying clock is obviously
to be held only the astronomers,
and others well-quizzed in the
subject of mirrors, and the conservation
of mirrors.

So this space is hereby christened as
Flat space, for the mathematicians and politicians
to frolic in, with their Euclid of infinity fame.

And predictions made in this are logically,
equivalently confined to space-filling curves
of flat space. Which we would should
give a name, called volume.

are not predictions, since they
are space-filling curves.

So they curves should be called pressure,
rather than predictions. Since a
prediction of pressure, is not a
predicition, it's is just more pressure.

And where their theory of pressure
collapses, this should be called
the origin.

And when their theory pressure of collapses,
this should, this should be called
a twin of where the pressure collapses.

That would be useful if physics was a complex system.
But since most of physics can be computerized,
it is hardly what one would call a complex system.

Since it only has four known "laws".

ZZBunker, Oct 9, 2004
12. ### LeftyGuest

That was really beautiful.

Unfortunately I cant tell if you are talking over my head or making a pun.

Physics should be a mathematics in it's own right.

Lefty, Oct 10, 2004
13. ### robert j. kolkerGuest

Why do you insist on confusing the description with the thing described.
The map is NOT the territory. The word is NOT the thing.

Physics has to be about the physical world, not just a gossimer pattern
of abstraction.

Bob Kolker

robert j. kolker, Oct 10, 2004
14. ### Will TwentymanGuest

frustration you are observing is your persistent misuse of words. If
you want to have a philosophical argument, there are plenty of places to
take it. As it stands, those words have a defined meaning that doesn't
In some ways I am lazy, in others not. The trick is to know *when* you
can afford to be lazy.
Ok, fair enough.
The doctors tried to transplant one into me at birth, but my body
rejected it. I've been forced to live without one or risk my health.
I don't have a problem with that, it's your explanations of *why* that I
take issue with.
This presumes there *is* something external that can affect it. The
mathematical model is outside everything else.
Or perhaps math has nothing to do with reality and attempts to make the
two mesh is pointless.

Will Twentyman, Oct 12, 2004
15. ### LeftyGuest

Physics should be a mathematics in it's own right.

Physics shall be built upon axioms which have, as a foundation, the solid
bedrock of reality to rest upon.

Physics as we know it is an importation of of abstractions into the real
physical universe. Why must you confuse these worlds ?

contuinuous ?"

The tools you have at you rdisposal are INADEQUATE to answer this, because
physics is not "a" math. It MUST be made "a math" unto itself.

I have no axe to grind with engineers or accountants. But I will say this,
they are all WRONG. Their usage of mathematics is NOT rigorous. I do not
know if mathematics has ever been applied to solve a physical problem with
rigor. Maybe combinatorics, I dont know.

Lefty, Oct 13, 2004
16. ### LeftyGuest

consider discussing philosophical issues, especially that you have taken me
1/2 seriously in a seemingly provocative discussion of sorts -

- it is alway a pleasure to spar with folks who know how to fight so well.

But I must abandon that pursuit for another.

There is also a thread going in sci.physics.

I am trying to do some new things, and desperately need some quality attacks
on my ideas. All I'm getting from the physicists over in sci.physics is a
bunch of ad hominem and srtawman attacks. They are skirting the facts.

Please try to destroy my claims so that I can go back to my hole and not
become a James Harris. I must be destroyed, hoisted on my own petard.

Lefty, Oct 13, 2004
17. ### Will TwentymanGuest

There is only one axiom: If it does not accurately describe/predict what
we observe, it is wrong. Physics does not work the same way math does.
It uses math as a tool, but it is not math.
Could you provide an example? I've never seen a non-rigorous use of
math in physics.

Will Twentyman, Oct 13, 2004
18. ### Will TwentymanGuest

If you are throwing random ideas out for discussion, waiting to see
which ones don't get destroyed, you will probably wait a long time and
irritate a lot of people. You would probably have more success trying
to understand how mathematicians/physicists think about their field.
One of the things I've noticed is you approach these discussions with an
attitude of confrontation, and frequently get shot down for simply not
understanding how the material is thought about. I suggest you collect
some information about how the material can be viewed and still

Will Twentyman, Oct 13, 2004
19. ### LeftyGuest

Thats the way it is. Not the way it needs to be.

I go out on a limb to say this, but I have an imagination, and my
imagination tells me that R3 is an abstraction, and the space in front of my
own 2 eyes is something else, something real.

You can do all the math you want in R3 to approximate reality, or you can
try to find a way to fit the principles directly onto space/time fabric. I
know it sounds crazy. But, I envision this happening. Maybe I'm a loon.
Maybe I'm crazy. But I do know this, I provided a pretty good argument in
favor of "uniqueness" of "all existing real physical objects".

There is no abstraction stage in that argument. I skipped the abstraction. I
want to do the same thing on space/time fabric.

I could have just as easily said "consider all the points in R3, bla bla
bla, all points in R3 are unique, therefore universe is X,Y,Z, bla bla bla".
You dont need an abstraction to make a model work. But when you take the
abstractions out, everything is different.

I think I need to step back and look at it.

Yet, there MUST be a way to show if space/time is continuous using some type
of rigorous analysis !!!!!!!

Yes. They count higher than 1. I dont think that they should do that
neccesarily. They also use calculus while claiming that space is discrete,
or grainy or something. Honestly, the math is absolutely the most rigorous
thing which exists in either world. It is the linkage between math and
physical world which is not rigorous. I want to fix this linkage.

It is very crazy. Must understand space/time as if it were R3. Must think in

Will K

Lefty, Oct 16, 2004
20. ### GarryGuest

Just read some fuckin Ayn Rand. Save yourself the headache of of trying to
prove things don't exist when they so clearly do. You exist, I exist, and
that fuckin thing over there exists. Math is an abstraction, it is seperate
from reality. Applied mathmatics is exactly that, the application of math
to explain what exists in reality. Got it, Chico.

Garry
A Fuckin Genius

Garry, Oct 16, 2004