Does zero exist?

[bkadoctaj]

And if it does, does infinity?

Look before you leap

http://www.fractalicawakening.com/infinit1.htm









to conclusions.

[barrelhse]

Yes. I post, therefore I am.
Now I'll have to work on the infinity part.

[Blutteufel]

I had a very long arguement the other day with one of my friends about dividing by zero. I would have let it pass if he wasn't sober, and therefore had an excuse, but it turns out he's just an idiot, and a stubbornly arrogant one at that. He claims that zero divided by any other number is simply zero. It just doesn't work like that, though. You can't divide what's not fucking there.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Blutteufel

I had a very long arguement the other day with one of my friends about dividing by zero. I would have let it pass if he wasn't sober, and therefore had an excuse, but it turns out he's just an idiot, and a stubbornly arrogant one at that. He claims that zero divided by any other number is simply zero. It just doesn't work like that, though. You can't divide what's not fucking there.

And if it's not there, it does not exist. The imaginary concept of it, however, does. And may be used as a tool. However, 1 is a better tool than zero-based or infinity-based math, which is falsely polarized.

The link I posted proposes centering a three-"axial" graph at 1, -1, 1i rather than 0. You always have one of something, and understanding anything mathematical by comparing it to 1 is its multiplicative inverse. Any multiplicative, additive, functional, or complex inverse and its inversion are essentially one value, because the one is derived from the other by definition. By this nature, 1/2 and 2, 2 and -2, and 2i and -2i are the same. If one, or a whole, is the standard by which all else is valued, it therefore becomes absolute. It is a reference point, and far better than 0, which in many cases can't even be related to, because, as you said, "you can't divide what's not fucking there." When you divide by 0, you have a problem, because you can't divide something into a valueless number of parts. Therefore, the mathematical system actually limits itself by basing itself around something it can't do the inverse of multiplication to. The only reason you don't see a problem with a zero-based system when it comes to addition is that this problem of zero with addition is that anything plus nothing is itself. This is the origin of the dilemma of zero and the creation of infinity as something separate from one, itself.

Take it to an infinite scale: infinity + infinity = (still) infinity (according to mathematicians). Therefore, by this logic, you can argue that two numbers added together can equal either of the two numbers added. I'd say that this is untrue because infinity is at its maximum already (it is greater than any other value, and that's why it is infinite and has no "exact" value.) Infinity is more than value according to conventional mathematicians, and therefore values added do not add like infinities. One is the maximum in this proposed non-zero system, because it is the essence of inverse. Its multiplicative inverse is itself. Whereas zero's is infinity. Therein lies the problem. 0 and infinity don't exist, except to approximate 1.

[Smokin*Buddah]

IMO, "0" is just a place holder or variable, It has no numerical value and represents "nothing"

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Smokin*Buddah

IMO, "0" is just a place holder or variable, It has no numerical value and represents "nothing"

The ideal of nothing? Then why is it polarizing my understanding of reality?

In other words... addition is illusion. Addition is the only way to suggest that 0 and infinity are inverses, because the space between 1 and itself (1 + 0 = 1, according to conventional mathematicians) cannot be calculated. Addition means you must add something, and you must change something. That's why it's a function. 0 is a concept, like infinity, for that which does not exist in form. It is a "value" that cannot be compared to 1. The ratio is infinite, and no amount of multiplication will ever make them equal; thus the ratio, in and of itself, is nonexistent.

Any function has two essential parts, by my logic above: itself and its inverse. 1 has an additive inverse, but none exist for values greater than 1. Why is this? Because if you have 2, its inverse is -1. If you have 3, its inverse is -2. If you have -1, its inverse is 2. So, you either keep the positive or the negative numbers, because by their naturally inverted nature, each is the other, drastically simplifying the number system. Simplify the whole system and remove negative numbers. Scale everything to one.

EDIT: Sorry for all of the changes. I wanted to say it right.

[negligent]

i'm too high to comprehend what the hell i just read, it doesnt really make sense, just seems like someone tryin to make somethin so simple as numbers extremely complicated for no reason other than sounding smart

[Smokin*Buddah]

Originally Posted by negligent

i'm too high to comprehend what the hell i just read, it doesnt really make sense, just seems like someone tryin to make somethin so simple as numbers extremely complicated for no reason other than sounding smart

Thats what i thought, but then again I'm no mathmatician.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by negligent

i'm too high to comprehend what the hell i just read, it doesnt really make sense, just seems like someone tryin to make somethin so simple as numbers extremely complicated for no reason other than sounding smart

You're welcome to not read it. Or ask questions if you have any.

[Stoner420Chick]

Originally Posted by negligent

i'm too high to comprehend what the hell i just read, it doesnt really make sense, just seems like someone tryin to make somethin so simple as numbers extremely complicated for no reason other than sounding smart

Agreed. I;m pretty good with math but I;ve learned it's best to not try and make sense of every little detail but rather just do what you're supposed to.

[raherakty]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

In other words... addition is illusion. Addition is the only way to suggest that 0 and infinity are inverses, because the space between 1 and itself (1 + 0 = 1, according to conventional mathematicians) cannot be calculated. Addition means you must add something, and you must change something. That's why it's a function. 0 is a concept, like infinity, for that which does not exist in form. It is a "value" that cannot be compared to 1. The ratio is infinite, and no amount of multiplication will ever make them equal; thus the ratio, in and of itself, is nonexistent.

Any function has two essential parts, by my logic above: itself and its inverse. 1 has an additive inverse, but none exist for values greater than 1. Why is this? Because if you have 2, its inverse is -1. If you have 3, its inverse is -2. If you have -1, its inverse is 2. So, you either keep the positive or the negative numbers, because by their naturally inverted nature, each is the other, drastically simplifying the number system. Simplify the whole system and remove negative numbers. Scale everything to one.

The space between zero and one is one, the same as the difference between one and two, two and three, or any other two consecutive integers. The problem with describing anything as the inverse of infinity is that infinity is not a number -- ie, it does not belong to the set of real numbers, so you cannot write a mathematical equation that uses it. You can only use it in the context of a limit, such as defining the set of positive real numbers as (0,inf), but the equation 1 + inf = inf does not prove anything mathematically or logically.

That being said, when talking about sets of numbers, negative infinity is generally considered to be the inverse of infinity. One's additive inverse is negative one. Similarly, two's additive inverse is negative two. Only when you delete zero from the process does the math become convoluted, which proves little more than the fact that negative numbers rely on zero to make sense.

Without a zero and the concept of negative numbers, math as we know it falls apart. Suddenly the equation 6 - 8 = ? has no solution, or is considered equivalent to 8 - 6 = ?, depending on how the rules are structured. One can come up with increasingly convoluted ways to do math without these two important concepts, but every civilization that wanted to do more than count things with math eventually discovered the need.


Hope that helps.

[Rhythm of Life]

I have a very simple and obvious answer. Yes.

By the definition of Zero it exists and by the definition of Infinity it exists. If this a philosophical debate then we could go other places but ....

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by raherakty

The space between zero and one is one, the same as the difference between one and two, two and three, or any other two consecutive integers. The problem with describing anything as the inverse of infinity is that infinity is not a number -- ie, it does not belong to the set of real numbers, so you cannot write a mathematical equation that uses it. You can only use it in the context of a limit, such as defining the set of positive real numbers as (0,inf), but the equation 1 + inf = inf does not prove anything mathematically or logically.

That being said, when talking about sets of numbers, negative infinity is generally considered to be the inverse of infinity. One's additive inverse is negative one. Similarly, two's additive inverse is negative two. Only when you delete zero from the process does the math become convoluted, which proves little more than the fact that negative numbers rely on zero to make sense.

Without a zero and the concept of negative numbers, math as we know it falls apart. Suddenly the equation 6 - 8 = ? has no solution, or is considered equivalent to 8 - 6 = ?, depending on how the rules are structured. One can come up with increasingly convoluted ways to do math without these two important concepts, but every civilization that wanted to do more than count things with math eventually discovered the need.


Hope that helps.

Civilizations did not want to count things because "things" did not exist before math, and NUMBERS. You need a counting system, which means an understanding of separation and addition. This is necessary when one understands "value", or potential.

Math was INVENTED to model "reality". Who invented modern, zero-based math? Traders and bankers... people who worked to move objects between multiple people. This job required the ability to estimate the potential "value" of certain objects among multiple people, especially "buyers" and "sellers". Math was supposed to be an APPROXIMATION to a reality, but the reality was perception- and human "need"-based. When you are counting a type of object, how can you say that there are 0, if you are trying to count a REAL object? 0 is the absence of anything, or absolutely nothing, not one less than one of the object. 0 in economics, and therefore math, represents no value.

If it has no value, it can't be measured on a functional level, because it has no INVERSE. [Once, again, 0 is a part of math which is an APPROXIMATION of reality, not REALITY itself.] Additive and multiplicative relations are mathematical functions, and THUS [by the definition of FUNCTION] they have inverses. For every number "value" of a function there exists an inverse value.

0 [nothing] does not have a multiplicative inverse, and that is no surprise. 0 is a tool to make sure that 1 has an additive inverse. Without an inverse property to addition, how could one do subtraction? The problem is that addition does not exist until a counting system does. A counting system presumes equal objects for measuring. But any additive inverse, by virtue of being an inverse, has for its inverse the original value. 0 is worthless, like you said, because all it does is create a distinction between the inverses labeled +/-. Absolute value is the essence of my idea. You just need one value for any number and its inverse, because both can be derived from it.

[raherakty]

Well, as you said, math is an invention of man. We've created the rules and the sets of numbers that go along with it. There's no reason why you couldn't create a number system without a zero, if that's what you wanted to do. However, a number system that does not have a zero isn't going to be of much use in today's world. How will you express the numerical value of an empty bank account? The velocity, in meters per second, of a stationary object? The number of apples remaining at your store if you start with five and sell five? From a verbal perspective, you could write a verbal response: no money, no velocity, no apples. From a mathematical perspective, the number system is now broken, because you cannot represent the answer of five minus five in numbers anymore. As I said above, you can find weird ways around having a zero, but then doing relatively simple things like solving quadratic equations becomes hopelessly complex as you bend over backwards to try to avoid having a number with no numerical value.

We've all come to accept the simplification of mathematics that comes along with having a zero, while brushing aside questions like "how can you have zero of something?" Now, whether it makes sense to say something along the lines of "I have zero apples," that's a question for the philosophers, as Rythm pointed out above.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by raherakty

Well, as you said, math is an invention of man. We've created the rules and the sets of numbers that go along with it. There's no reason why you couldn't create a number system without a zero, if that's what you wanted to do. However, a number system that does not have a zero isn't going to be of much use in today's world. How will you express the numerical value of an empty bank account? The velocity, in meters per second, of a stationary object? The number of apples remaining at your store if you start with five and sell five? From a verbal perspective, you could write a verbal response: no money, no velocity, no apples. From a mathematical perspective, the number system is now broken, because you cannot represent the answer of five minus five in numbers anymore. As I said above, you can find weird ways around having a zero, but then doing relatively simple things like solving quadratic equations becomes hopelessly complex as you bend over backwards to try to avoid having a number with no numerical value.

We've all come to accept the simplification of mathematics that comes along with having a zero, while brushing aside questions like "how can you have zero of something?" Now, whether it makes sense to say something along the lines of "I have zero apples," that's a question for the philosophers, as Rythm pointed out above.

Alright, I agree with you that it should be moved to the S&P Forum [I'll ask a mod], and I will still say that true simplification of what the essence of Value is comes from eliminating zero as a "number". You are right that math would essentially cease to exist. Our world is the way it is because we use math to determine reality. Our brain thinks mathematically now, ever since math has become a staple of society, 0 being introduced around 700 AD. We accept and see (thanks to our five senses and their integration module) separation of objects, and understand individuality. But before math existed for banking, there's no reason the ordinary mind would have considered it or counting.

I was happy that you understood the gist of what I've been really trying to get at, whether you agree with my prognosis or not. haha

And, by this logic, if we can discard mathematics as a fundamental basis for understanding reality, we can truly begin to intuitively understand it. I'm saying that mathematical thinking is a limitation to understanding the true essence of reality. Definitely getting philosophical here... move this thing...