Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Is (t^2-9)/(t-3) defined at t=3?
Replies: 166   Last Post: Oct 30, 2013 9:41 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Tim Golden BandTech.com Posts: 39 Registered: 8/15/13
Re: Is (t^2-9)/(t-3) defined at t=3?
Posted: Oct 10, 2013 7:02 AM

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 4:49:09 AM UTC-4, Peter Percival wrote:
> Hetware wrote:
>

> > On 10/7/2013 8:39 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
>
> >> Hetware wrote:
>
> >>> On 10/7/2013 4:56 AM, David Bernier wrote:
>
> >>>> On 10/07/2013 03:21 AM, Robin Chapman wrote:

Heavy hitters on this thread, so where oh where is the discussion of the field requirements and their exception which is the source of the conflict? This goes back to operator theory, and the usage of division as fundamental does not hold up. This is because back in the field requirements, where division is laid out formally an exception was made for division by zero. Abstract algebra makes no treatment of division within its formal development of operator theory, and instead treats the arithmetic sum and product as fundamental.

We know that we are free to generalize the problem so that for any function g() we can build a function h which by algebraic principles is equal to g() but which will suffer the ambiguity at real a by setting
h(x) = (( g(x) )( x-a )) / ( x - a )
and it is the symbol '/' which should be scrutinized, for mathematics is not founded upon exceptional instances, and yet it can be exposed that the list of exceptions is not limited to zero. This is because there is a general dimensional math within which the quantity of exceptions rises in higher dimension. Though the two dimensional complex numbers still have only the zero exception the three dimensional form carries several more exceptional conditions, and these are positions whereby dimensional collapse is occurring. When we multiply by zero information is destroyed; the reverse operator does not hold any meaning. Within the three dimensional form the other exceptions include a reduction to one dimension and a reduction to two dimensions, as well as the reduction to zero dimensions in the old field requirement list. The list of exceptions continues to rise as we raise the working dimension.

This ambiguity is a valid attack upon existing mathematics. What will we do without the division operator? Division is still possible, but only when information is conserved. The information can be distorted and recovered, but when it drops a dimension (a discrete quality) then no reversal is possible. If this behavior carries physical correspondence then we must delve deeper into the system, and treat these fascinating qualities with more respect. It happens that these qualities yield arithmetic support for spacetime with unidirectional zero dimensional time.

Modern mathematics, as well as physics, treats the real number as fundamental, and this is a misnomer that has been purchased for some four hundred years. When it is exposed that the ray is more fundamental than the line; that the unidirectional ray is a finer representative of time; that the ray can go on to build the higher dimensional spaces with an arithmetic product; then the farce of modernity is upon us. Polysign numbers
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
offer a new interpretation; more like a hammer and chisel than the swiss army knife of modern mathematics since they take us into high dimension immediately, and the hammer has power not offered before, exposing P1 as a fundamental sibling to the real number and their big sister; the complex number. The old real number folds into its swiss handle along with as many other contraptions as you care to carry around. Still, even under the polysign interpretation the physical meaning of the arithmetic product lacks physical correspondence, so what gives? There is much more work left to be done, but the context of modern mathematics is not reasonable to work from any more.

- Tim http://bandtechnology.com

>
> >>>>> On 07/10/2013 04:34, Hetware wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 9/30/2013 4:03 AM, Robin Chapman wrote:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Hetware: 0/0 = 3
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Ciekaw: 0/0 = 1
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Any more entrants?
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> To be correct; Hetware: 0/0 = 1 (under certain circumstances).
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Not according to your original posting in this thread :-(
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Heware, if 0/0 = 1, then 0/0 = (100*0)/0 = 100*(0/0) = 100*1 = 100.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> So, assuming 0/0 = 1, we find that 1 = 100 :(
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> David
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> That statement came with a qualification. That is, given a function
>
> >>> defined by f(t) = (t^2-9)/(t-3), I could assume (t-3)/(t-3) = 1, even
>
> >>> where t=3.
>
> >>
>
> >> "given a function defined by" is irrelevant. At t=3 (t-3)/(t-3) is
>
> >> undefined.
>
> >>
>
> >>> I've already shown that a modified version of that
>
> >>> proposition does make sense.
>
> >>
>
> >> No you haven't.
>
> >>
>
> >>> Given a function f(t) continuous for all real numbers t and defined by
>
> >>> (t^2-9)/(t-3) everywhere the expression is meaningful, that function is
>
> >>> identical to g(t) = (t+3). My original mistake was to assume continuity
>
> >>> after using (t^2-9)/(t-3) to define the entire function.
>
> >>
>
> >> What you wish to say is that the function g:R->R defined by
>
> >>
>
> >> g(t) = f(t) if t=/=3
>
> >> = 6 otherwise
>
> >>
>
> >> has these properties:
>
> >> i) g = f where f is defined,
>
> >> ii) g is defined on the whole of R,
>
> >> iii) g is continuous.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > The value of 6 at t=3 follows from the stipulation of continuity.
>
>
>
> The value of what? f or g? f has no value at 3.
>
>
>

> > It is
>
> > meaningful to say that f(t) is continuous over the domain of real
>
> > numbers.
>
>
>
> So what? Is it true? Yes, by proof, not by stipulation.
>
>
>

> > It is also meaningful to say that f(t) = (t^2-9)/(t-3)
>
> > everywhere that the rhs is meaningful.
>
>
>
> I would say "f is defined everywhere (in R) that (t^2-9)/(t-3) is defined".
>
>
>

> > That is sufficient information
>
> > to determine that f(3) = 6.
>
>
>
> f(3) doesn't equal anything. One may "fill the gap" by defining g as I
>
> have done above, *then* g(3) = 6. But g isn't f.
>
>
>
> --
>
> The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
>
> Lincoln at Gettysburg

Date Subject Author
9/28/13 Hetware
9/28/13 Michael F. Stemper
9/28/13 scattered
9/28/13 Hetware
9/28/13 quasi
9/28/13 Hetware
9/28/13 quasi
9/28/13 Peter Percival
9/29/13 quasi
9/28/13 Hetware
9/28/13 Richard Tobin
9/28/13 Hetware
9/28/13 tommyrjensen@gmail.com
9/29/13 Hetware
10/6/13 Hetware
10/6/13 Peter Percival
10/6/13 Hetware
10/6/13 quasi
10/8/13 quasi
10/7/13 Peter Percival
9/29/13 Michael F. Stemper
9/29/13 Hetware
9/29/13 quasi
9/29/13 Hetware
9/29/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/6/13 Hetware
10/6/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/7/13 Hetware
10/7/13 LudovicoVan
10/7/13 Peter Percival
10/8/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/12/13 Hetware
10/12/13 fom
10/13/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/13/13 Richard Tobin
10/13/13 Hetware
10/13/13 Peter Percival
10/13/13 fom
10/13/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/13/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/8/13 quasi
10/8/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/8/13 quasi
10/8/13 quasi
10/12/13 Hetware
10/13/13 quasi
10/13/13 Peter Percival
10/9/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/9/13 fom
10/10/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/10/13 fom
10/7/13 Peter Percival
10/7/13 Hetware
10/7/13 fom
10/7/13 Peter Percival
9/29/13 quasi
9/30/13 Peter Percival
9/30/13 Peter Percival
9/30/13 Peter Percival
9/30/13 RGVickson@shaw.ca
9/30/13 Roland Franzius
9/30/13 Richard Tobin
9/30/13 RGVickson@shaw.ca
9/28/13 Peter Percival
9/28/13 Hetware
9/29/13 Peter Percival
9/28/13 Virgil
9/29/13 quasi
9/29/13 Virgil
9/29/13 Hetware
9/29/13 quasi
9/29/13 Hetware
9/29/13 LudovicoVan
9/29/13 quasi
9/29/13 Virgil
9/29/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
9/29/13 Peter Percival
9/29/13 FredJeffries@gmail.com
9/30/13 Hetware
9/30/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/6/13 Hetware
10/6/13 Peter Percival
10/6/13 Peter Percival
10/6/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/6/13 Peter Percival
10/6/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/6/13 David Bernier
9/29/13 Peter Percival
9/28/13 Hetware
9/29/13 Richard Tobin
9/30/13 Ciekaw
9/30/13 Robin Chapman
9/30/13 Virgil
9/30/13 LudovicoVan
9/30/13 LudovicoVan
10/6/13 Hetware
10/7/13 Robin Chapman
10/7/13 David Bernier
10/7/13 Hetware
10/7/13 LudovicoVan
10/8/13 Hetware
10/9/13 Peter Percival
10/9/13 Richard Tobin
10/7/13 Peter Percival
10/8/13 Hetware
10/8/13 Virgil
10/8/13 Hetware
10/9/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/9/13 Peter Percival
10/10/13 Ciekaw
10/9/13 Peter Percival
10/10/13 Tim Golden BandTech.com
10/13/13 Hetware
10/13/13 Peter Percival
10/13/13 Hetware
10/14/13 Peter Percival
10/13/13 Hetware
10/13/13 fom
10/13/13 Hetware
10/13/13 fom
10/14/13 fom
10/14/13 Hetware
10/14/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/14/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/14/13 Peter Percival
10/14/13 Hetware
10/14/13 quasi
10/16/13 @less@ndro
10/16/13 quasi
10/19/13 Hetware
10/19/13 quasi
10/19/13 Hetware
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 quasi
10/20/13 Hetware
10/20/13 fom
10/20/13 Hetware
10/20/13 Peter Percival
10/20/13 Richard Tobin
10/20/13 Hetware
10/30/13 @less@ndro
10/19/13 Hetware
10/10/13 Ronald Benedik
10/10/13 Peter Percival
10/10/13 Virgil
10/18/13 Hetware
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 Hetware
10/19/13 Peter Percival
10/19/13 Hetware
10/19/13 fom
10/19/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/19/13 Hetware
10/19/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/20/13 Hetware
10/20/13 quasi
10/20/13 quasi
10/20/13 Hetware
10/20/13 Peter Percival
10/20/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/20/13 Hetware
10/20/13 Arturo Magidin
10/20/13 Hetware
10/20/13 magidin@math.berkeley.edu
10/19/13 fom