The Math Forum



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

Topic: Re: 0 = 1
Replies: 20   Last Post: Oct 5, 2017 3:03 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Conway

Posts: 88
Registered: 9/21/17
Re: 0 = 1
Posted: Oct 5, 2017 3:02 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:25:29 AM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:59:00 PM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > Conway pretended :
> > > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 8:41:08 PM UTC-5, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > >> Ross A. Finlayson used his keyboard to write :
> > >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:42:13 PM UTC-7, 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 so-called 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



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.