Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind. The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on a number line. That in the scale below: -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, 5-------------- if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions! This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
On 24 Sep 2002 14:02:17 -0700, vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote:
>Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of >pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers >we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that >is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of >sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS >A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the >elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number >however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the >quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind. >The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same >number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on >a number line.
If you want to say there's no way we can prove that anything exists go ahead and say that - people may or may not be interested, but nobody's going to be able to prove you wrong (at least not if you simply decide that they and their proof don't exist.) But suggesting that the existence of zero is somehow more problematic than the existence of 1 is just silly.
>That in the scale below: > -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, >5-------------- >if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions!
What does it mean to extrude a fraction, and why do we have to extrude them all if zero exists?
>This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
Fabulous. For a second I worried that there would be consequences for both theoretical physics _and_ QM. But if the consequences are unimaginable then according to the above they do not exist; that's a relief.
> There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of > pure mathematics exist.
Don't need proof. they are mental constructs and they exist by fiat.
>Even without the proof of existence of numbers > we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing,
Not by any agreement except among the most naive
>that > is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of > sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS > A CONCLUSION
Or, rather , a Mental idea.
>and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the > elements of our thought.
Maybe of YOUR thought, but you don't have the right to dictate this as a universal.
> Therefore if we divide a number by any number > however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero.
This is a non sequitur, but it is true for other reasons
>The identity or the > quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind.
Maybe, maybe not, but how are these words of "identity" and "Qua;ity" somehow identical.?
> The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same > number.
This is ONE way, but not the ONLY way.
>I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on > a number line. That in the scale below: > -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, > 5--------------
So give the place occupied by it a different name.. It's still there.
> if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions!
Even with a clear definition of "Conclusion" I don't see how this that fractions need to be "Extruded" Please define "extrude" in this context.
> This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
You are correct here..I can't imagine any effect!!
You certainly have a right to examine and question concepts. It seems that you have a corresponding duty to obtain some amount of background in what others are doing. It's not enough just to get a basic familiarity , then dole out a string of stuff using some world-view that is unique to yourself.
> Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of > pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers > we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that > is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of > sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS > A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the > elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number > however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the > quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind. > The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same > number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on > a number line. That in the scale below: > -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, > 5-------------- > if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions! > This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
One of the formulations of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (on which all of mathematics is based) treats the empty set, 0, as an undefined term. When we play the game of "math," we make this object exist by default -- there is no need to prove its existence.
"V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:38af3945.0209241302.43dd14d@posting.google.com... | Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of | pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers | we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that | is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of | sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS | A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the | elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number | however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the | quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind. | The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same | number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on | a number line. That in the scale below: | -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, | 5-------------- | if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions! | This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
Ahem, does WHAT exist?
The Z-E-R-O word you post is alien and unfamiliar. Please explain what you are contemplating... This is all GREEK to me.
On 24 Sep 2002 14:02:17 -0700, vgopa...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote:
> Existence requires proof.
Well... What's the status of this sentence/assertion? Is it an axiom, part of an ideology or a believe?
> There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of pure mathematics exist.
Yes. But now... (Serious question) ... How SHOULD such a proof look like?
I mean... numbers obviously are no _physical_ objects... so it's hard to point at them...
> Even without the proof of existence of numbers > we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist.
Exactly!
> But zero is nothing, that is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal > - is out of sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore > ZERO IS A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the > elements of our thought.
I see what you are after... But you are wrong. Let me tell you why...:
Numbers can be introduced (and are introduced) in math as SETS. With other words: any number is (defined as) a set.
Now we can actually "imagine" (think of) a set that does not contain any element. (Think of a bag that is empty! That does NOT mean that there is no bag!!!) And we just define zero to be this set!
---> 0 := { }.
...where { } is the symbol that denotes the so called empty set.
Bushwah. How many apples do you have in your desk drawer? When you find yourself at the grocery store with empty pockets, how much money do you have? How much stuff can you buy? How many puppies are in your car right now?
A conclusion? Looks like a fact to me.
-Doug Magnoli [Delete the two and the three for email.]
"V.Gopal" wrote: > Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of > pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers > we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that > is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of > sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS > A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the > elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number > however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the > quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind. > The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same > number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on > a number line. That in the scale below: > -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, > 5-------------- > if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions! > This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
>Bushwah. How many apples do you have in your desk drawer?
I haven't looked, but there must be at least one - I can't imagine any alternative.
>When you find >yourself at the grocery store with empty pockets,
And I _certainly_ can't imagine going to the grocery store with no money in my pockets. I mean really, you should think these things out before posting them...
>how much money do you >have? How much stuff can you buy? How many puppies are in your car >right now?
>A conclusion? Looks like a fact to me.
>-Doug Magnoli >[Delete the two and the three for email.]
>"V.Gopal" wrote:
>> Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of >> pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers >> we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that >> is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of >> sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS >> A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the >> elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number >> however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the >> quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind. >> The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same >> number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on >> a number line. That in the scale below: >> -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4, >> 5-------------- >> if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions! >> This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
We use numbers in two different context. One is to denote 'quanty' and the other to denote the 'level' of a quality or level of an activity. A number by itself (in pure mathematics) cannot reveal in what context that particular number is used. Therefore all numbers in pure mathematics denote 'quantity'. Now the qquestion is: Is the number that we get by dividing one quantity by another quantity, again a 'quantity' OR the level of a quality/activity? The number that represents the level of a quality is an ordinal number. Can we place an ordinal number on a line that shows 'quantity'? How much space or time does an ordinal number occupy on a line that shows 'quantity'? It seems that cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers are perpendicular to each other. I believe that 'level' means "zero quantity" or dL/dT. Zero can 'EXIST' only as an ordinal number or the first derivative of a 'quantity'. 'Zero' quantity (X-X=0) cannot bring anything sensible to our mind; we can remove it from any expression or formula, any time we want.
Yes Bobby Dude. And that "Nothing" is Zero (the *one member*), therefore "0" exists. So let us, without the use of calculators (for all calculators have been determined to be irrelevent here in sci.math), try to prove that -1 multiplied by -1 does not equal -1, because (-1)^2 + (+1) = 0 [unless you, or anyone else, can prove otherwise (without the use of calculators, which was the purpose of my previous lengthy exercises here in sci.math)].
No, in fact two numbers, the unit or 1 and number of units, if the environment canot change number of units.There is only one type of number: the integers or number of quanta. A continuous 'quantity' like energy at constant level (level means frequency or temperature) has to be measured in terms of number of quanta. 1/2 is a quantum. 1/3 is another quantum. To add 1/2 and 1/3 we must find a common quantum that can be used to specify both 1/2 and 1/3 in terms of integral number of quanta - in this case 1/6. We have to convert every thing into number of quanta for the purpose of calculation. Therefore we arrive at zero only by one method: X-X=0. We cannot use an ordinal number or frequency in any calculation because ordinal numbers are the first derivative of a unit or zeroes (0) of different sizes or a point on a logarithmic scale.
> > "Garry Denke" <GarryDe...@USA.Net> wrote in message > > news:5f354c9a.0209250410.593dd23c@posting.google.com... > > > Nothing exists. > > If "Nothing" exists, then the class of things that exist contains at least > > one member.
> > rj p
> Yes Bobby Dude. And that "Nothing" is Zero (the *one member*), > therefore "0" exists. So let us, without the use of calculators (for > all calculators have been determined to be irrelevent here in > sci.math), try to prove that -1 multiplied by -1 does not equal -1, > because (-1)^2 + (+1) = 0 [unless you, or anyone else, can prove > otherwise (without the use of calculators, which was the purpose of my > previous lengthy exercises here in sci.math)].
> Good luck Bobby!
> G Willy
But in proving that nothing exists, you have proved that Something exists. So according to this scheme, then nothing is something, and something is nothing. which leads us to the conclusion that everything is everything else or nothing else, since yes is no and up is down. And Humpty Dumpy IS the river run and the frogs of Nirvana and it's Turtkes all the way down!!!
Isn't this all made clear on page one of Finnegans Wake??
> > "Garry Denke" <GarryDe...@USA.Net> wrote in message > > news:5f354c9a.0209250410.593dd23c@posting.google.com... > > > Nothing exists. > > If "Nothing" exists, then the class of things that exist contains at least > > one member.
> > rj p > No, in fact two numbers, the unit or 1 and number of units, if the > environment canot change number of units.There is only one type of > number: the integers or number of quanta. A continuous 'quantity' like > energy at constant level (level means frequency or temperature) has to > be measured in terms of number of quanta. 1/2 is a quantum. 1/3 is > another quantum. To add 1/2 and 1/3 we must find a common quantum that > can be used to specify both 1/2 and 1/3 in terms of integral number of > quanta - in this case 1/6. We have to convert every thing into number > of quanta for the purpose of calculation. Therefore we arrive at zero > only by one method: X-X=0. We cannot use an ordinal number or > frequency in any calculation because ordinal numbers are the first > derivative of a unit or zeroes (0) of different sizes or a point on a > logarithmic scale.
Wow!! And all the time I thought it was the hypercosine of a lateral phase. The Borel inclusion set parameter is not Applicable here, since the Weierstrauss exclusion principle prevents an open covering of a disjoint union of closed subcoverings and if Mount Everest doesn't move I am certain that it will prove that the MON, piaba, and de WOman, piaba, and de tan tan cole pakka lemon grass. And de lily root gully root belly root . YAH!! ( and de Famous Cranny Scratch Scratch!)
somehow I get the idea that The Borg have sent some of the used units to troll city!! Please post to alt.phantasmagoria RJ Pease
This made me think of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon, where there's a festival parade of magnificently apparaled preists carrying ornate icons shaped like zero's. As they go by, a bystander turns and asks his neighbor, "Is nothing sacred?"
No that is wrong. X is a variable and no body can deny that all the time, in all environments and at all values of X, X/X=1. Suppose L is a finite length. It is constituted of infinite number of infinitely small units - limit L->0. Here unit of length or 1-->0. When the variable length X is(0) zero, number of units of length 1->0 within X is zero but 1-->0 is a constant. When X, the length, increases, X the number of points in X, also increases but the relation: total length/number of units of length in it is the unit - the constant 1-->0. Here X is both the length as well as number of units of length in X. That is X/X=1--->0. Therefore 0.........111111111111111111111111111-----------infinity Herethe variable is X something continuous which cannot be quantified by any number unless we standardize the quantum called unit or 1. Where is 0 in this scheme?
|
