Jump to content

Greg H.

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Greg H.

  1. Greg


    In this case it did NOT make the problem simpler did it. In fact it yielded an incorrect sum didn't it. But I will bite. Why then is "cancelation" allowed" outside of pemdas? If cancelation exists in an effort to help prepare to solve, than it is PART of solving it. Therefore the standard PEMDAS, which as you pointed out, exists to be used when solving. So why then can I cancel? In fact I just so happen to know an equation than when you do "cancel" it gives a wrong answer. Further if I solve with out "canceling" and I arrive at one sum, but if I cancel then arrive at another....isn't something wrong?

    You can use cancellation to simplify even when there is nothing to solve - indeed when you have no equals mark at all.


    For example


    [math]\frac {2x-2y}{x-y}[/math]

    By factoring out the two, it's possible to show that this is really just two, dressed up with some extra bits. But I didn't solve anything. There was no equation here, so PEDMAS doesn't even come into play. All I did was cancel out the parts that don't affect the actual value.


    Cancellation can also be combined with factoring to reduce fractions to more understandable values.

    Par exemple

    [math]\frac {99}{144}[/math]


    By factoring, I can remove a 3 from both values, and by cancellation I can drop the 3s.

    [math]\frac {33 \times 3}{48 \times 3}[/math]


    [math]\frac {33}{48}[/math]


    But wait, I can do that again.

    [math]\frac {11 \times 3}{16 \times 3}[/math]


    [math]\frac {11}{16}[/math]


    Seriously, I'm flabbergasted that you're literally trying to redefine division, while (seemingly) unable to grasp some of the more simple concepts of math itself.

  2. Ajb, Strange, Greg


    Again I do not see how there is a problem here at all. If at all times we follow the rules of (PEMDAS), then one NEVER arrives at 2 = 1. Ajb why do you not "have" to distribute. Clearly you break a rule by NOT distributing. Clearly multiplication comes before division. What am I missing here? Division by (a-b) is not a problem at all when the numerator is zero. The numerator is Zero. NOT 2. 0/A = 0. This "cancel" like Strange has done, is not correct. We may be able to cancel like divisors in expressions if we only had + and - in the numerator. Again PEMDAS.

    PEDMAS doesn't apply until I start trying to solve the equation, IOW actually trying to work the problem. I'm simplifying the equation, not solving it at this point Factoring and cancellation can occur outside of a standard PEDMAS approach, in an effort to make the problem simpler prior to solving it.

  3. Greg


    Because it allows for division and multiplication by zero is the reason it "over turns" current mathematics. It is that 2 * 3 and 3 * 2 yield the same sum, but they are not exactly the same. For that matter, the only thing that really matters is which is value, and which is space. I may put space first. That is 2s * 3v.


    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 )





    In the end it is not MY definition of multiplication and division. It is CURRENT definition of multiplication and division. It is only that I found a more accurate way of stating it. You have always been told that 2 * 3 = 2+2+2 = 3+3. But you where never told why. This is why Greg. One number only represents value, One number only represents space. The value is placed into the spaces and added.


    hypervalent_iodine, Bignose



    I believe you guys are forgetting a step. (Pemdas) demands that multiplication occur before any division so that....


    2(a-b) = 1(a-b)


    (2a-2b)/1 = (a-b)/1


    0/1 = 0/1


    0 = 0


    You must distribute the 2 and the 1 before you can divide......

    These two posts, if you will forgive me for saying so, show that you have a lot to learn about how math currently works, and they also explain why we're repeatedly covering the same ground with you. The steps involved in my example are basic first year algebra involving reduction and cancellation - I would expect a first year college or university student to understand these steps and how to apply them before they step foot on a campus.


    For the record, I am well aware that 2 = 1 is a false statement. The example given shows the dangers inherent in trying to make division by zero a defined operation. You end up with nonsensical answers.


    where did you come up with 2=1 ? You can't just drop your variables into thin air.


    The fact that you don't know how I did simple algebra really makes me question your ability to do math. I encourage you to read Imfataal's explanation of it to see where the variables went - they didn't just disappear (well, they did, but in a mathematically viable way).

    Therefore the equations are different.


    But they aren't. According to the rules of math, 2 * 3 is exactly the same 3 * 2, because if they aren't, multiplication breaks down. As has been pointed out to you multiple times.

    And while you keep saying they aren't the same, you've never given anyone a good reason why they aren't the same, except in your version of multiplication. Which is fine, except that your version isn't the commonly accepted version, and you haven't really provided anything approaching a thorough enough explanation to show us why it should overturn the version that's worked just fine for thousands of years just because you don't accept that you can't divide by zero.

  5. Simplest form


    50m/0v=50seconds,....of no movement

    And this is exactly the issue I have - you have to quantify your answer with extraneous information that isn't required under the present mathematical system.


    Under the present system, I don't have to quantify the answer is any way. I can look at the question and immediately know what the answer means. It also doesn't help that the answer changes meaning when a zero is involved - this also increases the complexity of the system, without providing any additional benefit, since the end result is the same. I know I'm not moving, the velocity value tells me this - I shouldn't need to clarify the answer to indicate it.


    Let me give you another rather famous example of what happens when you try and divide by zero.


    [math]a = b [/math]

    [math]a + a = a + b [/math]

    [math]2a = (a + b) [/math]

    [math]2a -2b = a + b - 2b [/math]

    [math]2(a - b) = a + b - 2b [/math]

    [math]2(a - b) = a - b [/math]

    [math]2 = 1 [/math]

  6. Greg


    I am confused. I did not think I implied at all that you crossed the room instantly. Or that you crossed the room at all.


    0v * 50s = 0........therefore you did not cross the room.

    We're not multiplying, we're dividing.


    Now, according to your axioms, which, if I am quoting this right, yield the following results







    So if I have a 50 meter room to cross, at 0 meters/second, the time required can be determined by the formula.


    [math]t = \frac {d}{v}[/math]

    Inserting the numbers from my simple example, we get

    [math]t = \frac {50m}{0ms^{-1}}[/math]

    Cancelling out all the unnecessary measures, we're left with

    [math]t = \frac {50}{0}[/math] seconds.


    According to your statements, a/0 = a, so then 50/0 = 50 seconds.

    Which means it takes me 50 seconds to cross a room when I'm not moving at all. Awesome.


    But wait - 50 meters is roughly 164 feet. And if I'm moving 0 meters per second, then I am also moving 0 feet per second. So it takes me 164 seconds to cross the room if we measure it in feet. Even though it's the same room.


    So is it 50 seconds(meters), or 164 seconds (feet), or 54 seconds (yards), or 5000 seconds (centimeters).


    This is just one example of why division by zero doesn't work. It gives nonsense answers, like I can cross a room by not moving, but the time it will take depends on the unit you use to measure the room.


    Well, at least you were right about not crossing the room instantly.

    This is the point at which I usually refer people to my signature and say If the predictions of your theory do not match reality, it is not reality that is wrong. In this case, I will simply say - you cannot cross a room by not moving (relative to the room), no matter what your "math" tells you.



    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!

    So by not moving, I can cross the room instantly? Wow. My morning commute is about to get a lot faster.



    So is a pension?


    Let’s forget legality, just for the moment, in order to determine the line that it’s legitimate to fight for.

    Not everything worth fighting for is a right. I would fight to save my marriage (were it in trouble) but that doesn't mean I have the right to keep it (or even to be married in the first place).


    So which question are you trying to answer - what's worth fighting for, or what rights are worth fighting for?

  9. Let me give you a very well documented case that since you had not followed all discussions you appear to had missed: Lavoisier denial of the reality of meteorites and that denial backed by the full force of the French Academy of Sciences that stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites.

    So your inference rule may have exceptions.


    I'll agree that the inference may have exceptions. With a very few exceptions, the same could probably be said of every inference. (You see what I did there?). Fortunately for us, the French Academy aren't the only chaps doing science then, huh? Suppressing scientific knowledge is incredibly hard, because anything one person can discover, another person can discover as well - and it only takes one person to publish to spread that knowledge. It is exponentially more difficult in modern times when ideas can be spread so rapidly to a wide audience. That's the reason "I'm being suppressed" carries so little weight as an argument.


    Has it happened in the past? Sure, and it wasn't always the scientific community doing the suppressing.

    Could it happen now? If we're dealing in absolute probabilities, then yes, it is possible. Is it likely? No, not really.


    Further, reading about the incident you mentioned seems more a combination of either misunderstanding or misapplying the science and significant group think on the part of the scientific community, rather than the outright suppression of an idea. Indeed, the scientific community of the time, investigated the claim using the methods available to them, and published results based on those investigations. That is called doing science. When later investigation and experimentation overturned the previous findings, this wasn't a case of throwing off the yoke of suppression, but a case of the scientific method doing what it does - finding the truth based on the available evidence, and adapting to match updated evidence.

  10. A bonus is never a right. It's a bonus - it doesn't matter how long you received it. Unless the company is contractually obligated to provide it, you have no right to expect it,


    For example: My employment contract states that I am entitled to a bonus of a certain percentage of my yearly salary, based on certain criteria. If I meet those criteria, then the company is legally bound to pay me that bonus. If I don't, then they aren't (and won't). That doesn't make the bonus a right - it's simply part of the payment under that particular contract.


    Let's make sure we aren't conflating "Things I am legally entitled to" with "My rights". While I am legally entitled to my rights, not all the things I am legally entitled to are rights.

  11. I haven't been following this discussion from the beginning, but anytime someone plays the "Mainstream science is trying to keep me from telling you this!" card, my bunk-o-meter immediately nudges into the "Suspicious" zone.


    You realize that properly expanding or overturning a mainstream theoretical model with a better, more accurate model is one reason they hand out Nobel Prizes, right? Or that it would take a worldwide collusion of people who are, at the end of the day, in competition with each other for research funding to suppress a valid scientific idea?


    Given the choice between "Science is suppressing my ideas to protect their monopoly on knowledge" and "I'm wrong.", can you guess which one sounds more likely?

  12. 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?

  13. 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.



    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?

  14. 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 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



    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.

  15. I know from experience that skunks and raccoons will also eat cultivated melons, including watermelons, cantaloupe, and similar. I don't think 100% of the seeds survive, but you don't need 100% fecundity to get new plants.

    I'm not sure I wanted to, but I think I successfully experimented on corn.

    I think everyone has, at some point. :)

  16. Given


    \frac {x}{0} = x




    \frac {x}{1} = x



    Then we can say that


    \frac {x}{0} = \frac{x}{1}



    Since we know that x = x, and the two fractions are equal, then 0 must be equal to 1, unless you're changing the definition of equals.


    (And I know I said I wasn't coming back to this thread, but this thread has reached hitherto unplumbed levels of what comes out the south end of a north facing cow.)

  17. Greg


    considering that a piece is not a whole. Then a pie comes already divided into zero equal pieces. Look GreagH philosophy is not mathematics. You seem to be stuck in the philosophy of the matter. I can divide 5 apples by nothing and I still have five apples. It is a fact in reality, nothing disappears certainly not a pie. So I ask you


    No, the pie is one equal piece.


    That aside, you've proven time and again, you're not actually listening to the arguments against your topic, you're simply waving your hands and saying look over here! This is supposed to be a discussion, not a demonstration of verbal sleight of hand.


    Have a good day. I am now withdrawing from this thread.


    (Side note: That doesn't mean you're right. Just that I've recognized the futility of trying to continue this discussion with you).


    This thread is now about the Greek Financial crisis, and how we can solve it with apple pie.

  18. Greg H.


    It is not that 0 has no value. It is that it is value that is undefined.


    As a fact no value does not exist.


    Value is everywhere.


    Also my statement was equivalent to multiplying by one. I agree. I have proposed an axiom to follow all current field axioms. Post #23


    Additionally 0 in binary is not the same as 0 in mathematics.

    I love how you completely skipped over pretty much every point I made, and made yourself look silly in the process.


    Just do this for me. All I ask is for you to divide a pie into 0 equal pieces.


    Take your time. I'll wait.

  19. The problem is not that the question yields multiple answers. The question n/0 yields literally an infinite number of answers. There are so many answers that having the answer does not, in any way, help you better understand the problem.


    Here's the example I give people when they ask me this question.


    Take a pie.

    Now, divide it into 0 parts without destroying the pie.


    There may be some systems of mathematics where division by 0 is defined differently than it is in everyday algebra and arithmetic. But by and large, the answer is undefined (or indeterminate)

    You can, by not doing anything at all.


    If I have five apples, and I don't do anything, then I have done the equivalent of dividing and multiplying by zero. I have tried to answer your question.

    Actually you have done the equivalent of multiplying and dividing by 1, not 0.

    I wonder how many times this topic will keep popping up, considering how many times it has been brought up on many other forums. Can't people just accept you can't divide by 0?

    They do once they come to grips with the fact that 0 isn't really a value. It's a lack of value. I had that epiphany when I starting learning binary and came to realize that the 0s in binary numbers are just placeholders for numbers that aren't there.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.