November 10th, 2017, 03:36 AM  #21  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,403 Thanks: 2477 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Note that distributivity works for all elements of the space, not just zero.  
November 10th, 2017, 05:03 AM  #22 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,403 Thanks: 2477 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
This video has a very simple explanation of why we can't divide by zero. 
November 10th, 2017, 05:36 AM  #23  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
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 05:45 AM.  
November 10th, 2017, 05:38 AM  #24  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
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.  
November 10th, 2017, 09:32 AM  #25  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,888 Thanks: 765 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
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 reposted 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  
November 10th, 2017, 09:46 AM  #26  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,403 Thanks: 2477 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Quote:
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.  
November 10th, 2017, 09:52 AM  #27  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,403 Thanks: 2477 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
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.  
November 10th, 2017, 11:05 AM  #28  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
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.  
November 10th, 2017, 03:52 PM  #29  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,403 Thanks: 2477 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
My time might be appreciated, but I'm beginning to think I'm wasting it.  
November 10th, 2017, 05:02 PM  #30  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
 

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 11:29 AM 
How to approach this problem?  alikim  Elementary Math  6  June 10th, 2015 09:35 AM 
How to approach this problem  JohnA  Algebra  2  February 19th, 2012 09:29 AM 
How do I approach this?  cmmcnamara  Advanced Statistics  4  February 10th, 2010 05:49 AM 