flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Heap > Lunar CalendarSolar Calendar conflict Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next 
Author 

MHajduk
edfed wrote: math can explain many things, but they cannot explain maths itself. 

29 Feb 2008, 13:03 

revolution
I don't understand a word of what you are saying edfed. Are you surrounded by recently emptied bottles of ethanol based liquids?


29 Feb 2008, 13:12 

edfed
no way.
it just try to explain my feeling about mathematics. maths was invented to play with our reality ( two apples, one bootle of ethanol, 5,88667 liters of beer....) then it's normal to be confronted to problems in non "reality" things. a tool cannot be the explanation of everything. and math is a tool. like computer cannot make everything ( as everybody hopes), math cannot explain everything. 

29 Feb 2008, 13:15 

revolution
But you are going off on a tangent, you said the real fact is that 1<>0.999..., even after you were shown that the mathematical fact gives the opposite result. All you said above is that maths does not answer eveything, and that does not answer the Q about what are the real facts.


29 Feb 2008, 13:23 

edfed
the 1<>0,(9) is not a math proof.
it's a feeling. a 2 years old children can say it too. 1 is not equal to 0,(9) scientists named these numbers as irrational numbers. because it cannot be used in math applications. unexplanables things are like the violence, the accidents, the unprobable than append, the probable that never append. like me. impossible to explain what can i do, what i am, what can be my reactions... it's not to speak about me, and focus all the universe on me, but it's true, i'm the antiproof. nobody can predict what i'll do. for exemple, can you predict that now, i'll walk in my mountain for an hour or two? 

29 Feb 2008, 13:41 

vid
revolution: methanol


29 Feb 2008, 17:12 

victor
vid wrote: revolution: methanol Methanol, CH3OH, is toxic and may cause blindness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Health_and_safety . 

01 Mar 2008, 02:57 

revolution
Thanks, victor.
Ethanol is also toxic, just a bit less toxic than methanol. I've heard that oxygen is also toxic in large concentrations. As usual, all things in moderation. 

01 Mar 2008, 04:09 

Borsuc
vid wrote: there is nothing like "positive zero" in any number field (rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, whatever) i know. There is limit which can approach zero from either side, but there is no "positive zero". I ask you to "name" me the SMALLEST positive number you can. It isn't 0, surely since it's not positive. I call it +0, which is equal to: 0.0000...(infinite number of zeroes)...1 vid wrote: If you want 1/0 to be infinity, you are forced to drop lot of features of these fields. What for? It's the same as saying: "He will go out in town", but 'he' is undefined because it is out of context  who is "he"? If we had a previous information (phrase) that stated "John" then 'he' wouldn't be undefined anymore. Same with 1/0. If you have previous information that a positive value comes to 0, then you can be sure 1/0 will equal +infinity in this case (and not infinity). If it were to come from the negative side, you would have infinity. This is why it is undefined outside of context. No matter what you may think, the reciprocal of a positive value that decrements down continuously MUST pass throw +infinity before it comes down to the 'pure' 0. vid wrote: maybe you are referring to "nullity" idea... in that case, no, equations didn't work. they were pretty unusuable. 

01 Mar 2008, 18:22 

vid
victor: i wrote methanol on purpose
Grey Beast: do not extend math by your "custom" definitions. operations and numbers in math are precisely defined, and there is no "positive zero", no "pure/unpure 0", no "approaching", and no "value coming down to another value". Approaching only has meaning in context of limits, and what applies to limits, doesn't apply elsewhere. 

02 Mar 2008, 16:01 

Borsuc
vid wrote: do not extend math by your "custom" definitions. operations and numbers in math are precisely defined, and there is no "positive zero", no "pure/unpure 0", no "approaching", and no "value coming down to another value". And you did not answer my question. How would you name the smallest real positive number? And what would it's value be? (I already told you before). What do you mean by "operations and numbers are precisely defined"? I don't get it. A number is either: 1) a value 2) a symbol Therefore I have explained before to you, the following two things: 1) the value "smallest positive real number" which you seem to not understand 2) the symbol +0 assigned to that value. So what is not "precisely" defined anyway? You are just reading too many books and not doing it by yourself I believe, so it's probable you don't understand. As to the "no approaching" and "no value coming down to another value". Well I think this will be the last time I'm going to repeat myself. What were we discussing about in the first place? About the size of the Universe. As you may know (or not), this 'size' is now positive, hence it's a positive value. But to come down to 1/0 (or to start from there and going upwards to positively values), the value either shrinks or grows, respectively. Eventually, if you take it that it shrinks, size will come down to +0 (again read what this "symbol" means above), then 1/size will be, surprisingly, +infinity. So what did you not understand, exactly? Now, if it were to grow up from 1/0, then it would also be +infinity  because then we would have had an abrupt gap from infinity to +infinity (which would be "magical", or "undefined", or simply "incomprehensible" for some humans). Therefore in this case, it must have started from a positive number, the smallest positive number in existence  that is +0. So again, what did you not understand from this? Not to mention that size is something positive, right? Unless you have some weird theory on size being negative, then surely it's a positive number. So then, 1/size, no matter what value size is, will be a positive result. Hence, 1/+0 results in +infinity (and not infinity). Here's a link to some book I found randomly (hope you "trust" the book more than me): http://www.themathpage.com/aCalc/infinity.htm Scroll down a bit until it talks about "limits" for 1/0 (from the right or from the left, i.e positive or negative). Notice it uses the +0 symbols too, which you seem to claim are "not precisely defined", but then a symbol is just a symbol, right? vid wrote: Approaching only has meaning in context of limits, and what applies to limits, doesn't apply elsewhere. 

02 Mar 2008, 16:37 

revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote: Thing is, math is not flawed like "other" science (e.g physics), it does not have any "special cases", you don't need any conditionals to make it work. So, everything applies everywhere. 

02 Mar 2008, 16:44 

edfed
is it possible that the size of universe is simply 1
as the binary fixed point representation can be a fraction of 1 then, as everything is realative, the univers, is the absolute reference, then, it's size is only ONE all inside is a fraction of this 1. then, expantion of the 1 is possible as 1 human, it begin to be a little egg, then, grow, and grow. and stop growing (due to hormons and gravity). but in absolute, an human is 1 human, baby, adult, dead bones, but 1. ???? 

02 Mar 2008, 16:58 

vid
Quote: And you did not answer my question. How would you name the smallest real positive number? And what would it's value be? (I already told you before). sorry, i missed it. Thing which you seemingly didn't realize, is that there is nothing like "smallest possible real number above 0". For every real number, there is some smaller number. It is similar to asking about name and value of highest possible integer  that's nonsense, just like assigning some symbol to this nonexistent value. Quote: Notice it uses the +0 symbols too, which you seem to claim are "not precisely defined", but then a symbol is just a symbol, right? I said Approaching only has meaning in context of limits, and that's exactly how it is used in article you linked. Of course that in context of limits, symbol 0+ does have a meaning. But you used it outside of limits context. You said that there is some real number which is defined as 'smallest positive nonzero real number' and represented it by symbol 0+. This is simply not true, there is no such value. I hope i don't need to prove that for every real number above 0, there is some smaller number (x/2). In context of limits, "0+" doesn't denote any value. Limit of function approaching value is defined as follows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(math)#Formal_definition wrote:
That is what "approaching" means in context of limits. It simply specifies bound for interval on which we explore functional values. Used outside this context, it doesn't have any mathematical meaning (unless defined otherwise, in that case i'd like to see that definition). Edfed: Sorry, but your talking random nonsense is seriously not funny, and I strongly doubt anyone is interested in it, rather try to do something useful and productive. 

03 Mar 2008, 00:17 

edfed
sorry, i didn't expalin it well.
imagine, the size of universe, it is all the things there can be, then, it is the one, the main, or the maximum value possible, and everything exept the universe itself, is less than one. it's purelly abstract, and invoke some imagination tricks. if universe = 1, all inside it is <1. the sum of all inside = 1. then, the probability there is something in a selected x,y,z,t place is <1, but the sum of all proba is = 1. thebig bang, it can be the fact that the 1 was containing nothing, only seroes, and then, by mathemetics, we can say, 1/0, or more exactlly, how many 0 in 1? the result is an infinite exponential expansion. hem, it's coming to be clear in my mind, soon, i'll can explain it more preciselly. 

03 Mar 2008, 00:34 

vid
Quote: if universe = 1, at best, i can interpret this as using symbol 1 to denote universe, instead of it's classical meaning. otherwise, it sounds to me like without any sense, eg. "if blue is jump, then ...". Quote: then, the probability there is something in a selected x,y,z,t place is <1, but the sum of all proba is = 1. what exactly do you mean by "probability there is something"? That's extremely loose term. And how do you compute that probability? Quote: thebig bang, it can be the fact that the 1 was containing nothing, only seroes, how come? and what does "0" mean in your language (the one where "1" = universe) Quote: and then, by mathemetics, we can say, 1/0, or more exactlly, how many 0 in 1? by what mathematics? which area / law / method of math implies this? and why should 1/0 be number of zeroes (whatever you mean by "zero") in universe? I am afraid you are overstretching analogies beyond any sane bounds. Analogies (eg. "if universe is like number 1") is just explanatory helper to understand some concept by liking it to some alreadyunderstood similar concept. But everything must be defined in a better way than by analogy, prior to even think of explaining it to anyone. Also, analogy should only be used if concepts are similar. In your case they aren't. Instead of tripping your mind like this, try to learn some real math and understand it's exactness. 

03 Mar 2008, 02:04 

edfed
imagine it like this:
universe is the 1, the absolute 1, as 273°C is the absolute 0. then, at the start of everything, there was nothing in the universe. totally nothing. then, nothing is 0. how many nothing in something? an infinite. it can explain the big bang and the fact that everythig appears instantlly. analogy is the exact correspondanc between different things. 

03 Mar 2008, 11:40 

revolution
edfed wrote: 273°C is the absolute 0. 

03 Mar 2008, 11:53 

vid
Quote: then, at the start of everything, there was nothing in the universe. says who? if you take big bang as absolute beginning, then this claim is false. Quote: then, nothing is 0. how come? what is purpose to assign meaning of "nothing" to symbol "0" ? Quote: how many nothing in something? why? Quote: it can explain the big bang and the fact that everythig appears instantlly. what does it explain about big bang? and why do you call claim that "everything appeared instantly" a fact? Now instead of reiterating your "thoughts" again, please to respond my questions (previous post included) Quote: analogy is the exact correspondanc between different things. no, analogy is never exact. Just by two things being different, there can't be 100% correspondence between them. There is always some difference. That's why analogy can't be used for anything else than some explaination helper. 

03 Mar 2008, 19:53 

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next < Last Thread  Next Thread > 
Forum Rules:

Copyright © 19992020, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.