Division by zero. Go ahead and laugh.

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

  1. Lefty

    Lefty Guest

    I agree completely.

    You have two separate worlds at your disposal. The world of abstraction
    where you can do as you please, and the real universe which does as it
    pleases with you.

    I have already provided a justification of why the naturals do not exactly
    fit the physical universe. You may object to this, but I think I have proved
    that identical objects in the physical universe are absolutely trivial. This
    is fundamental. If Ayn Rand was unaware of this, then I have no use for
    Rand. "Uniqueness" is a logical structure. This is not philosophy. This is
    math, but only if you can prove it, and it has been proved.

    I am blazing a new path. Perhaps it will lead nowhere. I do not care. I do
    as I please. There are no legalities upon my mind to complicate or limit my
    thoughts. I will not be afraid of being wrong. If I am wrong, if I am mad,
    then so be it. I am absoluetly ambivalent toward this and I shall not care.

    If you want to prove that space/time fabric is continuous, compact, grainy,
    whatever, you must get down to fundamentals. Must prove things regarding
    existence. It is not a dead end.

    And, you may indeed be a genius. If you are, as you say, a "f*&king genius",
    then I would certainly like to sleep with you and learn as much as I could
    about having sex. But for now, I study space/time.

    Will K

    : )
    Lefty, Oct 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Last I heard, space/time is H^3, where H is a Hausdorf space. Other
    models include R^10 or some other high power of R. R^3 covers neither
    time nor the curvature of space currently used to model how gravity
    affects light.
    Or perhaps you should ask in sci.physics to see what the current
    theories are before you start re-inventing the wheel.

    If calculus is providing accurate results within the limits of our
    ability to measure, then whether space is discrete or not becomes
    irrelevent. The linkage between math and physics may be non-rigorous,
    but that is because physics is an experimental science. We don't *know*
    the rules of physics, we discover them and see what models in
    mathematics give us accurate predictions.
    Will Twentyman, Oct 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lefty

    Lefty Guest

    From Harper/Collins Dictionary of Mathematics
    Hausdorff Space
    A topological space in which every pair of distinct points have a pair
    of disjoint open neighborhoods.

    Where's the proof that there are points in space ? "Open neighborhood"
    implies things too. One must make assumptions to use this for constructing

    I simply dont buy it.

    You have to get right down to the profound stupidly simple dirt level truths
    of the universe before your eyes. I see no proof that the universe is a
    Hausdorff Space. If it is, then I will go away and never show my face again.
    If people are using Hausdorff Spaces in their models, I have no objection to
    it, but they must confess that this was assumed, and not was not proved with
    due rigor.

    Yes, You are right. But let me say this. Prior to this proof, people are
    going around calling things "identical". I say that this is clearly
    impossble, and sloppy usage of language, and cleary non-rigorous thinking.

    In sci.physics, they call electrons "identical". I prove that no two objects
    in physical universe are identical, directly contradicting the current
    model. Will it lead anywhere ? I do not know. My hope is that it will. Man
    started by counting on his fingers. Now he has 100 different methods to
    calculate the volume of a sphere using algebra. It took 5,000 years to get
    where we are today, but it all started with 10 dirty, smelly fingers.

    I say that there is more to be proved. I cannot stop.

    Take a look at this.

    No two objects in physical universe can be identical.


    Consider a dollar bill in your hand. It is one piece of paper and it's value
    is exactly one dollar.

    Suppose that there were 2 identical dollars in the exact same position in
    space, and you held it in your hand.

    Now a third, 4th, and an Nth dollar bill, all stacked exactly together in
    space, occupying the exact same spot. You have an infinite number of dollar
    bills in your hand. It looks like a single dollar bill, but it is really
    woth $(infinity).

    This is clearly ridiculous. You do not have an infinite amount of dollars,
    you only have 1. The rest are all trivial.

    Reducto ad absurdum,


    Now, I think that we know something about the universe that we did'nt know
    before. And, when the physicists start talking about identical electrons,
    they might as well be talking phlogiston.

    This is clearly a new approach. I feel as if I were a caveman, and I count
    to ten using fingers and toes, knowing that there is a calculus somewhere in
    the future of man and I have utterly no comprehension of it, yet I know it
    must be there.
    Lefty, Oct 17, 2004
  4. Lefty

    Lefty Guest

    Point well taken. I'm an ass. JH got alot of criticism for being one, and I
    was hoping to draw attacks by being an irritating imbecile. I can assure you
    that I would'nt strike you that way if you knew me in real life.

    I say provocative things to inspire a more vicious debate. I feel that I
    need to be attacked without remorse. I am not a softy. I can take the heat
    and my feelings wont be scorched. If my idea is stupid, I want someone to
    tell me right to my face that it is idiocy. I appreciate this.

    Nothing personal. Apologies if I have offended.

    I do not want to learn what is known. I want to build something new. I want
    to make the linkage between math and universe more rigorous. I can assure
    you that my proof of Axiom1 or whatever it might be called was not cheap. It
    is excruciating and difficult.

    Imagine a calculator. Now break off all the buttons except 1,0, and =/=. You
    need to take this stripped down calculator and look directly at the
    universe. Now rebuild some mathematical structure using 1,0,=/=, and
    whatever else might be reasonable according to the process of rigorous
    justification and proofs which incorporate real physical objects. Maybe you
    have +, and maybe you dont. I wont know until I've seen a solid
    justification. I have to take that position. I have to understand it on a
    philosophical level to justify alowing it.

    I look at the universe just a little bit differently now, knowing that no
    two physical objects are identical, and I'm satisfied by it.
    Lefty, Oct 17, 2004
  5. No offense, but I can assure you there are plenty of people who will
    tell you you are wrong, whether you come across as arrogant or not.
    Toning it down will make you appear less of a crank and probably get you
    more of the results you are looking for. Cranks get in killfiles quickly.
    If what you build is not as useful as what is known, then you have built
    new junk. At least find out what you're up against. It will also help
    you understand how to communicate your ideas more effectively to your
    target audience. You don't have to like what is known, but at least
    have an idea of the scale of your project.
    Will Twentyman, Oct 17, 2004
  6. Points in space would correspond to what you've been calling
    "locations". "Open neighborhood" implies there is a way to measure the
    distance between points.
    If you don't believe there are locations and distances, you will have a
    hard time doing anything relevant to physics.
    In what sense do you think it is assumed? They made a conjecture, and
    found that the model agrees with experimental results. If it is a
    simpler model than other options to get the same accuracy, doesn't it
    make sense to use it?
    It depends on what is meant by "identical". Some use it to mean
    Have you asked what they mean when they say electrons are identical?
    Surely you can't think that they mean they are the same electron.

    Note: if you have an axiom in the mathematical sense, you cannot have a
    proof of it.
    You have infinitely many dollar bills, but they are also infinitely
    dense. I hope you enjoy being in a black hole.
    It sounds like you are warping their obvious meaning.
    Will Twentyman, Oct 18, 2004
  7. Lefty


    Apr 20, 2022
    Likes Received:
    I believe your calculation is correct, there are an infinity number of reciprocal values. When we divide by zero, we numerically traverse the whole distance of the number line. in this case form 1>0

    When we divide by 2 we traverse half the distance, towards zero. but when we divide by 1 we remain at the same point on the number line. I just posted a comment about this here


    I thought that might be one way you could explain 1/0 to a computer. If only you could explain what a number line is to a base 2 machine. Tricky :)
    in2infinity, Apr 20, 2022
  8. Lefty


    Apr 20, 2022
    Likes Received:
    If you start counting from 2 right. going backwards
    in2infinity, Apr 21, 2022
  9. Lefty


    Apr 20, 2022
    Likes Received:
    You are completely right. Just as division is not the same as a root number. The evidence of this is that a reciprocal root reiterated approaches the limit of 1 whereas a reciprocal divided through reiteration approaches zero.
    in2infinity, Apr 21, 2022
  10. Lefty


    Jun 27, 2021
    Likes Received:
    I thought 0/0 means indeterminate as taught in Calculus. No?
    nycmathguy, Apr 28, 2022
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.