if 17*0=0
and 3*0=0
then 17*0 = 3*0 is true
cancel out the zeroes 17 = 3
So there you have it. If anyone can start to explain to me the flaw with my reasoning there, I would be very happy. The only way that 17 cannot equal 3 is if some of the other parts are incorrect. The part I find most likely to be false is the 3rd one (I highlighted it for convenience). The reasoning behind that being that the 2 others are certainly true, and the 3rd one has the possibility of not being. Look at 0 as, instead of the singularity point for mathematics, as just one more symbol in an endless production line. For example, if you take -5 as the singularity point, then 0 would be equivalent to 5, and therefore 0^2 would be 25, but minus 5, because the singularity point has been moved back 5 spaces, meaning that every number is worth 5 more than normal. So, 0 squared, in that instance, is 20.
You may be wondering what the point in that was, but I can tell you that it will be important. Now that you understand that the singularity point can be moved back an infinite number of places, and eventually out of existence, you can begin to look at 0 in a different light. If 0 had a value, just like any other number, 17*0 and 3*0 would have very different values. But because common mathematical law states that anything multiplied by 0 equals 0, we are stuck. The only answer is to say that 0 can stand for an infinite number of values, but every value of 0 has the same properties. I would need to think about this one more before I can say more on it, but when you divorce 0 from its usual position in the decimal system, it can be very interesting.
That was what was bothering me, and if anyone can suggest anything else, then it would help a lot- I might finally be able to sleep at night.
2 July 2008
An Annoying Thing That I Can't Quite Explain
Posted by Max PW at 19:48
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi!
Just some thought about this, coming from someone who knows close to nothing about maths... but who still has some tiny bit of information that might lead to a satisfying answer.
There are things called, if I remember correctly what my maths teacher told me one year ago, algebraic groups. They are composed of two ranges of numbers, one basic operation and one element that cancels the operation that you can perform on it. In "standard maths" (the group of the real numbers) you have positive numbers, zero (that cancels), negative numbers, and one combining operation (addition).
Therefore, since you are using a special element of your algebraic group, I'm not sure you can consider this as relevant (since 0 isn't, in that case, considered as really a number, but as something that basically cancels the "×" you put afterwards).
Now, this is from someone who is barely mathically literate (opposition in terms? XD ), but I hope it can help.
(disclaimer : don't take what I wrote as completely proven truth : I might very well be wrong, or partly so. I just posted this because you might want to investigate on that path to find an answer ;-) )
Good luck with that nasty piece of algebra,
French Frog
Thank you frog, it is informative, although it sounds oddly familiar...?
It doesn't change my conclusion though, and it still leaves the problem of 0 unsolved. We can establish that 0 is by no means an ordinary number, but it is only abnormal because it happens to be sitting on the singularity point of mathematics, the one number without a value.
so, for the expression to work, 0 must be assigned a value, which, logically, is something between 1 and -1. But surely there are an infinite number of potential values of 0 between these two points?
so, how do you define 0? Once we know the answer to that, we will know the answer to a lot more things- it is the key- the key to unlock the problem of mathematics
Well, zero is the number that cancels the operation and that separates the two subgroups of numbers (I think that there are some vectors thrown into it too, but this goes far beyond my abilities in maths and far beyond my knowledge too).
I'm not sure we can consider as really a number. Its numeral value if nothing, but has more properties than just a numeral one.
That's at least how I would see zero.
You might want to ask Gedboy about it. He knows a lot about maths, and it very interested in them. Or to Alodnamra, he is quite knowledgeable in science as well.
It would also be good material for a thread in the Science board of the Haven.
umm, you are right, 0 is not a number, or what we can liberally consider an number.
You are also right in the fact that 0 separates 2 subgroups of numbers.
Therefore, we need to think of some new applications of 0, or at least look at it in a new light, and yes, you are right, we need to get someone more knowledgable on the subject onto this.
I was thinking that if 0 is the stem of all other numbers, then theoretically its only property should be that it does nothing- a black hole of numbers, if you like. Anything it touches is automatically reduced to 0, but its power is when you put 2 of them together (has anyone ever tried putting 2 black holes together? soundls like fun)- for example.
x*0=0
x/0=0
but...
0*0
0/0
both must equal infinity if my small random thought is to have any truth. An alternative possibility is that any equation with a 0 in it is 0- how does that work?
I will post this on the haven now, I cannnot take much more of this
The cancel out the zeroes part is wrong. If the equation were 17+0 and 3+0, the solutions to the equations would be exactly the same as they were at the beginning, rendering the 0's useless.
However, in this case, the zeroes play a vital role in the equations, because the answer differs. If you have 17 and you multiply it by zero it is no longer 17. The zero is important in de-seventeening (?) seventeen, so you cannot cancel it out.
That is the conclusion I came to, although mine is slightly different.
If you can't cancel that because the answer changes, how does this work?
3*4=3*4
You can cancel out any one of those, even though the answer changes- if 0 is the same value every time, then the change in values would be roportional- but it isn't.
That must mean that 0 can be several values, or is a flawed concept
Post a Comment