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

vid
Quote: but as time is infinite, there is always a time before, and a time after... carefully with these assumptions. it's not sure that time is infinite. it can be very well finite. Quote: how many time i need to put this infinity of 0 apples in my bag? but still you will have zero apples in bag, not one. this is example that infinite zeroes doesn't make one, infinite zeroes is still zero (this can be easily proven mathematically too, with induction) Anyway, doing lot of study to support you ideas will surely be very helpful to you. Study how Newton and Pascal tested and proved their ideas, and try to do same with yours 

03 Mar 2008, 21:45 

edfed
no, the time cannot stop, the real one...
not the time refered to the rotation of electrons around a kernel... but more the time. like a constant, stable, y=1, there, it is one dimention. adding the 3 others, you will obtain a big strange thing. with an infinity of solutions. imagine, just to speak about an other thing, with fun... brain cooling. a 320 * 200 * 8 bitmap. it is an image, but can be an unique value. 65536*8bits number. how many possibilities? 2^524288 consider the palette... there, you enter in an other dimention... because one image can have color variations, but limited to 256 colors. and colors in the palette will decide of the rendered image, if all colors are the black, then, the image are all blacks, and then, all the same. the goal is to calculate the number of possibles images with the mode 13h. 320*200*8bits. very high resolution for a number. then ones you have generated all the possibilities... i'm sure there is a period by doing this, it will take a lot of time to genrerate all the possibilities, but it will end... and reloop. 

03 Mar 2008, 22:08 

vid
edfed: time is NOT linear, that's already known, tested, and proven. See "time diletation".
Maybe you referer to something other than time, but in that case you are misusing proper term for something else what you would like the term to mean. That's not a good idea. Instead, you should describe you "custom idea", not assign some existing term to it, and create ambiguity. 

03 Mar 2008, 23:13 

edfed
i know, the time on the clock, the time in the universe bubble. it is not linear. but it is always here, if you make a pause in execution, the time exists. if you switch off the clock, the machine stops to see the time, and see it as variable, but it is a sensation depending on physic laws. the latency of chimic reactions, or the acceleration due to gravity...this will influence not the base time, or "big time" but will modify the space time envelloppe.
some years ago, they tryed some things, with high speed planes " avions supersoniques". the atomic clock in the plane had it's time biased. but it don't mean you can travel in time. if the space time was not linear, with holes and mountains, then, it will mean that if you go to a space time hole, and then, cross a black hole, see your time clock reversing, and then, return to earth in 1900. 

03 Mar 2008, 23:44 

asmhack
time is the fourth dimension..
btw what's the point of this topic ? to reinvent the wheel ? to show how much we know maths ? i will end by saying something that Socrates had said a long time ago.. "the beginning of the wisdom is to admit that you don't know anything". 

04 Mar 2008, 00:24 

Borsuc
I give up, I can't seem to explain it well enough, but I'll try a different approach.
vid wrote: sorry, i missed it. Thing which you seemingly didn't realize, is that there is nothing like "smallest possible real number above 0". what do you mean? there MUST be such a number  just like pi, a number that we can't 'write down' because it's precision is infinite. In other words, a 'number' is defined how you want it to be. Surely, there must be a "smallest positive number ever", just like infinity is "the value greater than any other value". Therefore, I define: Code: number: +0 (or 0+) symbol: +0 value: "the positive value, smaller than any other positive value in the real number system". This is enough for a definition of a number  just like Pi is the number defined as follows: Code: symbol: Pi value: "the ratio of the circumference of the circle to it's diameter" This defines Pi, the irrational number that we will never know 100%, but it is defined nonetheless! What's wrong with the definition of +0? It seems really close to the definition of infinity (although infinity is not a number, but only a 'value', one that is greater than all others). vid wrote: 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. And perhaps I'm talking about the hyperreal number system instead? Quote: I hope i don't need to prove that for every real number above 0, there is some smaller number (x/2). For example (and please take a look at this): How do you call the following value (i.e give me the symbol): 0.000(infinitely many zeroes)...1 ?? It is "+0" defined above with a 'symbol' and a 'value'. I hope it's more clear this time. 

05 Mar 2008, 15:21 

edfed
then, +0 = 1*10^oo ??
Last edited by edfed on 05 Mar 2008, 15:50; edited 1 time in total 

05 Mar 2008, 15:35 

revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote: 0.000(infinitely many zeroes)...1 

05 Mar 2008, 15:46 

Borsuc
edfed wrote: then, +0 = 1*10^oo ?? revolution wrote: I think that in maths you are not supposed to be able to put anything after an infinite number of something. There is no "the next after infinity", that it not sensible. 

05 Mar 2008, 15:51 

revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote: Uhm, that's for the large value of infinity  I talked about 'common sense' idea of infinity (i.e an infinite number of decimals), works on any base. 

05 Mar 2008, 15:57 

Borsuc
What I meant was that I didn't use the infinity (i.e oo) in mathematics. I only said "an infinite number of decimals" (or rather "infinitely many zeroes").
And that is not a 'mathematical' representation but a more intuitive one, I only posted in to be understandable rather than 'mathematically proven'. It wasn't talking about the oo in math and I didn't 'define' such infinity. but then perhaps my intuitive explanations (at least how I thought they were) are not really good will try to be more 'technical' from now on 

05 Mar 2008, 16:01 

MHajduk


05 Mar 2008, 17:15 

Borsuc
Yep, exactly:
0.000000....1 is positive (wheras) 0.000000....1 is negative Therefore, it is called +0 and 0 for a reason of their 'sign' (since '0' is supposedly without sign!) 

05 Mar 2008, 17:21 

Tomasz Grysztar
Do not judge The_Grey_Beast too quickly. Even though it's true there isn't such thing like a smallest positive real number, the definition of "the positive value, smaller than any other positive value in the real number system" is a good definition that doesn't really lead to any contradiction.
I recommend reading this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal wikipedia wrote: In 1936 Maltsev proved the compactness theorem. This theorem is fundamental for the existence of infinitesimals as it proves that it is possible to formalise them. A consequence of this theorem is that if there is a number system in which it is true that for any positive integer n there is a positive number x such that 0 < x < 1/n, then there exists an extension of that number system in which it is true that there exists a positive number x such that for any positive integer n we have 0 < x < 1/n. wikipedia wrote: An infinitesimal number is a nonstandard number whose modulus is less than any nonzero positive standard number. Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 05 Mar 2008, 23:25; edited 1 time in total 

05 Mar 2008, 23:18 

Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
This also is not quite true. Well, it's true that you cannot define a real number this way, however it is quite possible to define various series of transfinite orders where you put new elements after already infinite number of elements. There is even such a thing as a transfinite induction. Recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number 

05 Mar 2008, 23:23 

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

Copyright © 19992020, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.