My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree11Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
November 10th, 2017, 04:36 AM   #21
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,042
Thanks: 2344

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway51 View Post
Also the distributive property is addressed in the op. (with all combinations of 0)
I don't try to decipher in-line math notation. It's too much like hard work. I generally feel that, if an idea is worth expressing, it's worth expressing it clearly in $\LaTeX$. Perhaps I'm a snob, but I noticed that you used some $\LaTeX$ in the OP.

Note that distributivity works for all elements of the space, not just zero.
Thanks from topsquark
v8archie is offline  
 
November 10th, 2017, 06:03 AM   #22
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,042
Thanks: 2344

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
This video has a very simple explanation of why we can't divide by zero.
v8archie is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 06:36 AM   #23
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 67
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
Yes, so axcording to your system, 1=0. That's quite catastrophic for a n7mber system. It means that all numbers are equal.
NO...

IN the same way A is NOT equal to B...
but as long as V is inverse of A and B ...operations can be used to go from A to B
Are you not at all concerned that the equation you gave is valid for any number other than zero.

0 = 1 if and ONLY if a SPECFIC set of operations exist between them and the equalities sign.

Can I not say

1 = ??????? = 2

and as long as logic exist in the operators between the equalities it is valid...

play fair.....or just stop responding....

Last edited by Conway51; November 10th, 2017 at 06:45 AM.
Conway51 is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 06:38 AM   #24
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 67
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
I don't try to decipher in-line math notation. It's too much like hard work. I generally feel that, if an idea is worth expressing, it's worth expressing it clearly in $\LaTeX$. Perhaps I'm a snob, but I noticed that you used some $\LaTeX$ in the OP.

Note that distributivity works for all elements of the space, not just zero.
Note the same is said with the equation given by you in post 13

clearly you are a snob. There was nothing complex about the equations presented nor did it need latex. Further...you apparently did read it...as you complained about it.
Conway51 is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 10:32 AM   #25
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,659
Thanks: 652

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway51 View Post
Goals...
1. Relative binary multiplication by zero.
2. Defined division by zero.
3. Create varying amounts of zero.
4. Unify semantics, and physics with theoretical mathematics.
5. Offer a new approach on the continuum theory.
6. Suggest solutions for the physics regarding the unification of quantum and classical mathematics.
First off, in post 1) of this thread you have posted two lines:
0 * 1 = 0
0 * 1 = 1
Yes, I know you were using the 0.z1 and 0.z2 stuff but the implication here is that 0 = 1. v8archie is just quoting a result you yourself wrote in the original post.

Browsing through your list of goals I doubt you'll be going anywhere far with your research, at least if you think 1) leads to 2) leads to 3), etc. They don't seem to be leading anywhere.

Look, I know there are some people here that are giving you a hard time but frankly I don't understand what you are doing? There are a number (I think) of papers with the idea of dividing by zero but it is not a wide field and I don't personally know of any results that would be useful, at least for Physics. But until you get some of these problems addressed you are likely to get a lot of negative feedback.

Other than that, since I have re-posted your outline I should mention a few things.

4. Is there something wrong with Physics in terms of Mathematics? I'm fairly close in spirit to a Mathematical Physicist and I have neither heard or seen any problems there.

6. There is no such thing as "Classical Mathematics" vs. the Quantum version...this statement is meaningless. Math is Math. Physics will apply different Mathematical techniques to study both Classical and Quantum Physics but there is no such separation in Math itself. (And a lot of the Mathematics in Quantum Mechanics is nothing more than Linear Algebra on steroids. So no real difference between the two anyway.)

-Dan
topsquark is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 10:46 AM   #26
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,042
Thanks: 2344

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway51 View Post
NO...

IN the same way A is NOT equal to B...
but as long as V is inverse of A and B ...operations can be used to go from A to B
Are you not at all concerned that the equation you gave is valid for any number other than zero.
You don't understand. What I gave was (I think) completely general for a group with commutativity and associativity. It demonstrates that whatever operator you have, distinct elements have distinct inverses. Same inverse means same element. This is independent of the set and operation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway51 View Post
Can I not say

1 = ??????? = 2

and as long as logic exist in the operators between the equalities it is valid...

play fair.....or just stop responding....
The line I gave is not a set of operations that takes you from one element to another, it is a set of equalities that hold on the specific condition given.

I am playing fair.

It occurs to me that the problem may be that 1 is not the multiplicative identity element in you system, or that 0 is not the additive identity element. But if that is the case, they cease to be such important elements and you'll just have moved the problem you were trying to solve to somewhere else. I believe that this is important because any isomorphism between the standard system an yours would have to preserve the identities. This effectively means that changing the identities changes the properties of the whole system meaning that yours won't behave much like reality.
Thanks from topsquark
v8archie is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 10:52 AM   #27
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,042
Thanks: 2344

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway51 View Post
There was nothing complex about the equations presented nor did it need latex. Further...you apparently did read it...as you complained about it.
If they aren't complicated, why write them in a form that makes them so hard to read?

I have no idea which equations you think I complained about, I did't try to decipher them. topsquark's suggestion that I used you equations is wide of the mark. As I said before, what I wrote was a general statement of a principal upon which you are trying to build your system.
Thanks from topsquark
v8archie is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 12:05 PM   #28
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 67
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
You don't understand. What I gave was (I think) completely general for a group with commutativity and associativity. It demonstrates that whatever operator you have, distinct elements have distinct inverses. Same inverse means same element. This is independent of the set and operation.



The line I gave is not a set of operations that takes you from one element to another, it is a set of equalities that hold on the specific condition given.

I am playing fair.

It occurs to me that the problem may be that 1 is not the multiplicative identity element in you system, or that 0 is not the additive identity element. But if that is the case, they cease to be such important elements and you'll just have moved the problem you were trying to solve to somewhere else. I believe that this is important because any isomorphism between the standard system an yours would have to preserve the identities. This effectively means that changing the identities changes the properties of the whole system meaning that yours won't behave much like reality.
If V is the inverse of A and B....

A and B are NOT the same element...

Then this contradicts yourself in line 4 of the above quote

It seems you are confused....Whether you like it or not the equation you gave is BOTH a set of operators that take you from one element to the next...plug in ANY number other than zero...and it is also true that they are a set of equalities holding to specific conditions....such as the commutative and associative properties..

You seem to be upset that I solved for the equation...

Point of FACT

If I have shown 0 = 1

by solving the given equation

Then you have shown a = b

by offering the equation as argument to begin with

there is no argument here... a can be b... if and when a specific set of operators are applied.

Anyhow clearly this will be an impasse for the two of us.

I thank you for your time. It is valuable and I appreciated it very much.
Conway51 is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 04:52 PM   #29
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,042
Thanks: 2344

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conway51 View Post
If V is the inverse of A and B....

A and B are NOT the same element...

Whether you like it or not the equation you gave is BOTH a set of operators that take you from one element to the next...plug in ANY number other than zero...
Do you really not understand what an equality symbol $=$ means? You seem to have decided what you want to be true about $a$ and $b$ and then bent your understanding of basic mathematics to make it true for you.

My time might be appreciated, but I'm beginning to think I'm wasting it.
Thanks from topsquark
v8archie is offline  
November 10th, 2017, 06:02 PM   #30
Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 67
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
Do you really not understand what an equality symbol $=$ means? You seem to have decided what you want to be true about $a$ and $b$ and then bent your understanding of basic mathematics to make it true for you.

My time might be appreciated, but I'm beginning to think I'm wasting it.
Clearly you did with this reply...as I made abundantly clear in the previous reply........
Conway51 is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
approach



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why does (1+x)^(1/x) approach e? VisionaryLen Calculus 19 October 28th, 2016 12:29 PM
How to approach this problem? alikim Elementary Math 6 June 10th, 2015 10:35 AM
How to approach this problem JohnA Algebra 2 February 19th, 2012 10:29 AM
How do I approach this? cmmcnamara Advanced Statistics 4 February 10th, 2010 06:49 AM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.