# Bignose

Resident Experts

2575

## Posts posted by Bignose

### Understanding * of Intergers

You can also think of multiplying by -1 as rotation by 180° (which reverses the direction along the number line). This answers this question and also nicely leads on to an understanding of complex numbers.

+1.

### Understanding an exponent of Zero

Why is it considered indeterminate as opposed to undefined? Why the difference?

It is indeterminate because if you look at x^y from the two perspectives, x going to 0 and y going 0, you sort of get two answers. As x goes to 0, x^y goes to 0, but as y goes to 0, x^y goes to 1. So, it is indeterminate because you can't determine whether 0 or 1 is the 'right' answer, but there are two choices.

This is as opposed to 0/0 because, as your other very long thread demonstrated many time, 0/0 can take any and all values and results in the breaking of many other basic rules of the normal mathematical operations. Hence 0/0 is undefined because it can't be defined.

In the end, it is kind of semantics because really the end result is the same. Neither 0^0 or 0/0 are equal to anything, just for slightly different reasons.

### Understanding an exponent of Zero

I am looking for reason why anything raised to the power of zero is 1.

Please make sure to note that in the conventional operations, it isn't 'anything' to the power of zero = 1. $0^0$ is taken to be indeterminate, for example. In many cases, it is useful to treat the value as equal to 1 or 0, but formally it is indeterminate.

### Understanding / by Zero

2(a-b) = a-b

does NOT equal

2 = 1

it equals

2a-2b = a-b

so please......post this mathematically viable way of producing (2 = 1) out of ( 2(a-b) = a - b )

conway,

please don't take this as a personal attack or insulting in any way. But if you honestly do not know enough basic algebra to understand the above steps, then you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on modern mathematics. You need to know this stuff before you can convince anyone that the modern mathematical development needs to be modified in any way. You have to know what the current method says before you try to change it.

There are free classes online. You can do this if you want to. Or you can continue to lecture us about things you are obviously ignorant on. If have any true desire to improve your communication, I cannot recommend this path enough.

As before, this advice is worth exactly what your paid for it. You may chose to ignore it. It is just my opinion on what you can do to help your own knowledge and communication.

### Understanding / by Zero

It does not take skill to have an idea.

Right. But it takes a lot of skill to develop that idea into something meaningful in a scientific sense. Just browse Speculations for a few minutes to realize this. That is all I am asking. Take some time to learn the current language so that you can speak it when people are giving you feedback.

And, sure, you didn't explicitly make any claims of 'greatness'. But the reluctance to take time to understand the many objections presented to you implies your feelings about your ideas. And the reluctance to take the time to learn the terminology used by professional mathematics. And the reluctance to answer direct questions. It builds a profile.

Again, I could be wrong. I am just voicing an opinion and some advice. It is worth exactly what you paid for it. If you don't want my advice, just ignore it.

### Understanding / by Zero

I have only ever talked of arithmetic. Arithmetic is the foundation of mathematics. What is truth of the foundation is truth of the rest.

The problem is that you aren't just in artihmetic. You have touched upon number theory. You have touched upon vector theory (and reading one thread on that does not make you an expert on it (I've used vectors for nearly 20 years now and there are many thick volume's worth of stuff I don't know)). You are hitting upon much deeper parts of mathematics than just simple arithmetic.

You gripe that '"I don't know what this means"......in regards to (q,r)', but you had never defined that notation. And you used it very inconsistently. We're not mind readers, man. In a proper exposition, every piece of nomenclature and notation is explicitly defined the first time it is used.

Lastly, you can take Strange's post in two ways. You can choose to be insulted; I can understand that perspective. However, as an alternative, you could choose it to be blunt straightforward criticism. And a recommendation to take some time to learn the extraordinarily rich language of mathematics to help you present your ideas in terminology and notation that is already familiar with people. You can learn what the current theory says so that you can learn what changes you want to make. And further you can learn why the above posts all drew certain conclusions, and how to address them in the structures employed by mathematics today.

Frankly, this overwhelming self-assuredness that you present to the forum smacks of Dunning Kruger effect to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect I could be wrong, maybe you've stumbled on the greatest concept in number theory to date. But as above pointed out by a few of us now, the communication problems need to be addressed. Learning what the current number theory says will only help with this because you'll learn the language that is used by professional mathematicians every day.

### Understanding / by Zero

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.

### Understanding / by Zero

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 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.

### Understanding / by Zero

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.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

By making the statement 1 garage, clearly then you are using z1 for 0 in multiplication.

How is that clear except that it gives the right answer???

How the hell an I supposed to know what is the first component and what is the second one.

Can they change?

What is I wanted to put 1 garage on 0 plots of land? How many garages do I have then?

How about 0 garages on 1 plot of land? How many do I have now?

One of these two examples fits your pattern... so in one of these two examples I have garages on some land per your formula. Yet in the real world...nothing.

See how there is nothing 'clear' here?

### Understanding / by Zero

It is also that 0*A=A

That is multiplication by zero is relative.

Please tell me how I can use this to fill my garage with Lamborghinis. I have 0 Lamborghinis now. I want to fill 1 garage.

0 Lamborghinis * 1 garage = 1 garage full of Lamborghinis according to the above.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

What say you then to the idea that a 1-d object exist and is also composed of a value. Is this possible?

Yes, as a 2-D object, like a vector. You don't get both. It is either 1-D and you only get 1 component (number), or is it higher dimensional and you get multiple components (numbers). You can't have 1-D with 2 components.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

I am glad that you chose a vector as an example. It perfectly describes what I am suggesting. While "part" of a vector is a dimension, the other "part" of the vector is velocity. So then again a value and a space, composing one thing...a vector. If you wish to consider a mathematical vector like the one you linked, it also seems the same to me. A length, space, and a "direction", value. Here we will certainly debate "direction", as it seems to me that it is a "potential" dimension, therefore a value.

It doesn't matter what units you use in your vector. Volume, velocity, mass, whatever. The fact is that it is still a vector. And you are trying to resolve an issue in the 1st component by invoking a second component.

This doesn't fix division by 0 on the plain old regular 1-D number line. 1-D. Where there doesn't exist multiple dimensional objects. That's what the 1-D space is. As far as the 1-D space is concerned, 2-D things don't exist. And you can't 'fix' something by invoking that second dimension. At least not while still claiming it is the same space. You've invented a new space. Huzzah. Just don't expect results from it to apply to the regular plain old 1-D number line.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose.

Because they are ONE object.

A = one object = composed of z1 and z2 = z1 is value inside of z2 which is a dimension.

A vector is one object, too.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

By your own words, you have a an object with two components, z1 and z2. This is a vector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_vector

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

It is that A is composed of a quantity of defined value, "inside of" a quantity of defined space. That is...

A = (z1 A , z2 A) = (A as value, A as space) = A

2 = (z1 2 , z2 2) = (2 defined values, 2 defined spaces)

0 = (z1 0 , z2 1) = (1 undefined value, 1defined space)

1 = (z1 1 , z2 1) = (1 defined value, 1 defined space)

Explain again how these aren't 2D objects? (A, A), (2, 2), (0, 1), and (1, 1)...

You've explicitly listed 2 dimensions, z1 and z2. These are 2d vectors. The 0 vector in 2D is usually (0, 0). You're just trying to change the definition without taking into account the consequences.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. I do think however that it comes down to what we are defining as z1, and z2. Where as you are suggesting that they both are dimensions. I am suggesting only one is a dimension, while the other is a value.

The simple fact that you are using 'the other' means that the second value is independent of the first one. Ergo, another dimension, in the mathematical sense.

Either, you are 1) using a 2-D object (and trying not to call it that) or 2) by trying to use this 'value', you are simply saying, "hey, I know that you tried to divide by 0, but really, you meant to divide by 1, right. 'Cause z2 = 1. That's what you meant. I'm going to just go ahead and use 1 then, ok?"

Either way, you haven't fixed anything. You've just shoved some new terminology in there, and didn't bother to worry about how this new terminology leads to other incompatibilities.

Look, I appreciate the effort. I can understand how unsatisfying just having something seemingly as simple dividing by 0 is left as indeterminate or undefined. But these band-aid fixes over it isn't the solution. There are very deep issues on how number theory is built that all need to be worked through. It is certainly possible to build a number theory with either of the two 'fixes' above. But it isn't possible to build one with those 'fixes' and have it be the same as the everyday common one. It just doesn't work that way. The everyday common one has left division by 0 to be undefined for good reasons, see the many numerous replies in this thread.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

I had no intentions of talking dimensions. I have only stated that for every A in S there exist a z1 and z2,.....etc.

by making a z1 and z2, you'd made a 2 dimensional object. Because you have a number for each of the dimensions, z1 and z2. Please at least look at some vector development. You've done it exactly. You can't fix division by 0 in 1-D with a 2-D object. You can't have a z1 and a z2 without it being a 2-D object. You only get one thing, z1.

### Understanding / by Zero

Bignose

If you would read the previously posted axiom that might clear things up.

I've read this whole thread. And I've seen what you did there. You've added a 2nd dimension. Which doesn't say anything about a regular 1-D number line.

### Understanding / by Zero

0 = (Z1=0,Z2=1) A= (Z1=A,Z2=A)

All you're doing here is making '0' a 2-D vector object of some sort. And then making your own rules about that 2-D vector space. And not using very good vector notation which is why a lot of this isn't very clear.

This doesn't answer anything about a 1-D object like the number line wherein division by 0 is undefined and 0/0 is indeterminate. Not to mention that 2-D vector spaces already have a zero element 0 = (0, 0) that follows most of the exact same rules that the 1-D 0 follows.

### Relative Mathematics

1/2 * 0 = 1/2

So... if I have $0 in my bank account, can I give him$0 and then show him this equation and show him that he really has 1/2 of my rent? And then the really great thing is that I can do it again, and he'll have all of the rent!

I suppose you can redefine mathematics with your idea here, but I really fail to see anything too practical to do with it. It seems too contradictory to what I would consider common sense math. Because I want A/0 to cause an error. And I don't want 0 * A to = A.

### Relative Mathematics

If then division by zero is the thing itself, that is (A/0 = A). Then nothing is lost.

I disagree. The fact that division by zero is undefined in the 'regular' mathematics is lost. Accidentally dividing by zero occurs probably more often than it should. Nevertheless, the fact that when you try to perform a calculation with division by zero, the calculator or computer returns an error is extremely useful. Useful in that it shows you that you made an egregious mistake somewhere.

If dividing by zero is the same as dividing by 1, then these errors won't be caught, and future calculations based on it will be in error.

Besides if A/0 = A, and we know that A/1 = A... doesn't that mean 0 = 1? This doesn't seem right to me.

### Non topologically equivalent orientable surfaces in R3.

The continual dismissal of "manifestations" observed consistently around the word and easily verifiable is just a manifestation of that attitude taken by many people that claimed to be following a scientific approach, which clearly is far from that.

This statement is factually untrue. This forum (I assume that's who you are talking about) has always acknowledged the observations. It is your leap toward interpreting them as some 'plasma beings' or 'extraterrestrials' or 'serious threat' that we've been skeptical of. Simply put, you've never presented evidence to support any contention that these are something other than trash in the wind. This attempt to show that something is amiss in the topology of these items has been, frankly, trivially shown in error.

This railing against science seems misplaced. Science is naturally skeptical. It behooves the supporters of an idea to gather more and better evidence to support their contentions. Being angry at 'science' for this request doesn't really help; the scientific method as practiced today has served us pretty well.

### commentary on a closed topic

No one has the right to silence another human being. It is suppression!!!!

And you, me, the author of that thread, anyone else, can go and start their own webpage and write as much as they want about whatever they want.

On the other hand, none of us have any right to force this server to publish anything. There is no freedom of speech on this server. The owner of the server can do anything they want. They can shut it down today. They can ban users for using the letter e. They can turn your posts to baby speak. The owner can do with it as he wants to.

Freedom of speech only guarantees your right to publish what you want. It has nothing to do with forcing someone else to publish it for you. And it certainly does not force someone else to actually read it.

This server works in the same way a newspaper publisher works. Do you really expect every letter to the editor to be required to be published? Or a book publisher be required to publish every manuscript they receive? I hope not. These examples have rules about what they publish, just like this site.

Next time you claim repression, please take a few moments to actually check out what you're claiming before trying to ignite something.

### Non topologically equivalent orientable surfaces in R3.

You are absolutely right Bignose, I am trying to understand the topological properties of the surfaces of balloons in fly, this is not even "speculative", but I posted in this section of the forum to be on the "safe side", no need to be "defensive".

I wasn't trying to be defensive. I was being sarcastic. I guess I don't know what you're really aiming for, here. Because it does looks like pieces of trash in the wind. In the high turbulence, high velocity upper atmosphere, the pictures look typical to me of the shapes a flexible shape could easily take. I imagine there is quite a variety there.

×