Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Re: 0 = 1
Replies:
20
Last Post:
Oct 5, 2017 3:03 PM



Conway
Posts:
119
Registered:
9/21/17


Re: 0 = 1
Posted:
Oct 5, 2017 3:02 AM


On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:25:29 AM UTC5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote: > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:59:00 PM UTC7, FromTheRafters wrote: > > Conway pretended : > > > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 8:41:08 PM UTC5, FromTheRafters wrote: > > >> Ross A. Finlayson used his keyboard to write : > > >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:42:13 PM UTC7, Conway wrote: > > >>>> Peter > > >>>> > > >>>> Correct me here if I'm wrong... > > >>>> > > >>>> This thread was over a week old with no replys... > > >>>> > > >>>> Why did you bring it back up if nothing had changed in your opinion? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Only two scenarios exist... > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. Your just a troll > > >>>> 2. Something I said is nagging the back of your mind....saying...he may > > >>>> just be right. > > >>> > > >>> You might as well go on with your constructions > > >>> not receiving much shall we say constructive, > > >>> criticism. > > >>> > > >>> Though, you can readily expect others to understand > > >>> their constructive content. > > >> > > >> I have not been fighting the idea, but it is my belief that he is > > >> trying to 'get around' some perceived problem with zero  it being > > >> excluded from being a denominator. I feel that the socalled problem > > >> has already been solved via the Limit idea. > > >> > > >> Ingrained in my mind is the idea that numbers are values devoid of any > > >> other thing such as he suggests like 'space'. The reason is by the > > >> surprising (to me at the time) idea that the rationals are not > > >> continuous. It would seem that due to the fact that denominators can be > > >> any natural number, perhaps infinitely large, that the 'distance' (or > > >> space?) between adjacent ones on the rational number line could be > > >> completely filled. Their being 'discreet' values had escaped me at the > > >> time. > > >> > > >> Then there are irrational numbers arrived at by algebra (such as the > > >> squareroot of two) which must 'fit' between some two of these > > >> previously determined rational numbers. Okay, so that surely must fill > > >> the line up. These irrationals are algebraic and are countable. Then > > >> there are the transcendentals, and again there must be "room" for them. > > >> Uncountably many of them. I think that there must be no "width" to > > >> numbers at all on the real number line. > > >> > > >> So bottom line: > > >> > > >> 1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > > >> 2) That doesn't mean such an idea is meaningless, in fact new math is > > >> often created while exploring things which for all intents and purposes > > >> *seem* meaningless to others at the time they are being explored. > > >> Euler's Totient function comes to mind here, I read somewhere that it > > >> was considered 'a neat trick, but what good is it' by other > > >> mathematicians of the time. It turns out to be quite useful today in > > >> simplifying calculations reducing the 'computing cost' of encryption > > >> related calculations. > > > > > > > > > Ross > > > > > > I feel your post makes my point. I do not say this sarcastically or > > > rudely....as you say > > > > > > > > > "there MUST be ROOM for them all......" > > > > > > you however say...therefore this means numbers have NO space > > > > > > I however say... this means space and value are "interchangeable"...or > > > "relative" > > > > > > > > > "if it ain't broke don't fix it"...I agree > > > > > > but this does NOT mean > > > > > > "if it ain't broke don't improve upon it" > > > > > > there is always room for improvement > > > > > > as you say > > > > > > this all might seem pointless now...but later..... > > > > I'm not Ross, I was replying to Ross. I agree with Ross about you not > > being discouraged in your explorations just because of a lack of > > constructive criticism. > > This is Ross. > > I'd carry on with your alternating systems about numbers > then where you can define a notation to reflect the results, > about later having something like "equals" > having been overloaded or "0 not equals 1". > > So when you describe these value spaces and comment on > their properties it's pretty much always with a rather > limited, direct, expressive, and correct name and notation > in "mathematics" that it already has all its names just > from what it is. > > That's not to say that anybody's paying attention, > even though they might and have constructive criticism > (or often and usually references to existing work). > > Anyways the structures have all their content then > for example 0 to 1 etcetera. > > It's how they do not that they don't, then for where > your definitions are sound when they fit with all your > other definitions.
Ross
I have done this in another post
Let zero have the multiplicative property of zero Let zero have the multiplicative identity property of 1
and so on......
no "table" or "equal" signs necessary....should you like I will post it here again



