Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

reply to post by requireduser


if infinty is just a posibility, then there is the posibility of you doing all the problems at once. no that doesn't really make since maybe if you hade enough people but that would require infint amount of people. I have no idea how to do it I just think its possible.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

And that is exactly what I am saying. And based on what you said, given the fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, then we do have the opportunity of riding the wave into infinity. But there is nothing within the realm of possibility that will allow us to get to a point of nothing.

This is trying to compare trees to ecosystems.

Taking practical mathematical concepts and attempting to derive universal proofs out of it is somewhat misguided. As many have already said - I don't have an orange. Therefor, zero has a valid place in practical mathematics. Now, I do have some apples, and some orange-flavored kool-ade. That's all well and good, but exist as factors outside of the set we are looking at.

This is something you get into as you get further into math, as well. The concept of isolation and relativism. For any given function, you have relative maximums and relative minimums indicating a relative peak or trough in values. The function may continue indefinitely - but you are only concerned with the portion you can graph or are working with.

When asking me how many oranges I have, it does you no good for me to say: "There are 84023853 oranges known to exist, the digested remains of 894563 being converted into corn as fertilizer." Doesn't really answer the question. I don't have any.

In this instance, we begin to treat the universe not as a single equation but as a whole system of information storage and processing - much like a database system. (Wouldn't that be some sick joke - find out we are all part of an out-of-control MS Access 8950 macro?) The total value of the system cannot be known by any one component, yet cannot be zero or practically demonstrated to be infinity. However, zero does serve its place in practical mathematics as the lack of a queried item.

This may only apply on a macroscopic level, however. For example - two neutrons interacting with each other will never experience a practical instance of zero - they will always be interacting with other particles in some way, shape, or form. Though I could be demonstrating some ignorance in that respect.

I wouldn't go so far as to say math is wrong - but that concepts of math don't always translate too well between systems.

I get what you're saying.

Objective mathematics is infinity based. Subjective mathematics is 0 based. Good work.

If I have 2 oranges, and I give you 2, its not that I have 0 oranges, its that you can't really ever have something as that something is an entity in and of itself. So those two oranges still exist in the environment of themselves as oranges.

If I put it another way and say, I have two oranges and I take away two, how many oranges are left? The answer is 2.

If I put it another way and say 2-2=0, the question remains, where did the 2 go?

If I say 2-2=infinity, then we know that the 2 has been displaced but it still has its existence, much like the oranges that are no longer mine, but they still exist.

reply to post by smithjustinb

If I say 2-2=infinity, then we know that the 2 has been displaced but it still has its existence, much like the oranges that are no longer mine, but they still exist.

That is not scientific mathematics though...that is theology...big separation....if you theorize that the two oranges still exist...well then mathematics does not apply...

Of course they still exist....but not in formulation....in equation...you do not have two oranges!

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If I say 2-2=infinity, then we know that the 2 has been displaced but it still has its existence, much like the oranges that are no longer mine, but they still exist.

That is not scientific mathematics though...that is theology...big separation....if you theorize that the two oranges still exist...well then mathematics does not apply...

Of course they still exist....but not in formulation....in equation...you do not have two oranges!

And that's when I smile and say your subjective viewpoint is valid, but so would be your objective one.

Infinity is bound by the end of space and time.
0=0

reply to post by jerryznv


I didn't think we were ever talking about scientifc mathmatics.

Originally posted by googolplex
Infinity is bound by the end of space and time.
0=0

Space and time are not bound. They don't even exist except by relative comparison of two points that do exist. Therefore, infinity is boundless. 0 is both boundless and bounded. Therefore it is not within the realm of possibility for anything to come from 0 and thus math is inconsistent with objective reality.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Okay fair enough....two oranges still exist...but you having two and losing two...leaves you subjectively with zero...no oranges..so the math works...theoretically two oranges are still out there somewhere...but not with you...so you have zero oranges.

Am I understanding that correctly....or would you like your oranges back?

In that case mathematics has failed morally and we are left theorizing....theory is mathematics with a twist....so maybe your tending for absolutism...just guessing!

In mathamatical terms a Infinty is said to be equal to 2 googolplexs, but then you could always have 2 googolplexs and one.

Break one pencil in half, throw one part away and continue to keep breaking such in half etc. At what stage do i reach Zero ??? I know such may become too small to divide, yet i know i can never reach 0.. To reach infinity means a continued addition and thats what space keeps doing does it not ?? So yes Math's are handy, yet still become wrong. Great thread, keep up the good work...

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

If I say 2-2=infinity, then we know that the 2 has been displaced but it still has its existence, much like the oranges that are no longer mine, but they still exist.

That is not scientific mathematics though...that is theology...big separation....if you theorize that the two oranges still exist...well then mathematics does not apply...

Of course they still exist....but not in formulation....in equation...you do not have two oranges!

There enlies the problem. Science is supposed to be objective, but is basing its calculations on subjective relativity. If we are advanced enough, then it is time to integrate this objective mathematics (infinity based) with objective science, and we will move forward intellectually in a way that has been unavailable to us thus far.

reply to post by smithjustinb
It appears with that concept that you do not exist.
Space and time are bound as Infinty, by there existance, the end of which, is beyond anyones abilty to coprehend.

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Okay fair enough....two oranges still exist...but you having two and losing two...leaves you subjectively with zero...no oranges..so the math works...theoretically two oranges are still out there somewhere...but not with you...so you have zero oranges.

Am I understanding that correctly....or would you like your oranges back?

In that case mathematics has failed morally and we are left theorizing....theory is mathematics with a twist....so maybe your tending for absolutism...just guessing!

But infinity is still an all-inclusive formlessness, and the object of oranges, for me, is now formless.

Infinity allows for the event for my posession of oranges to occur because that possibility is included in the totality of infinity as having its existence in some undefined location. The only thing 0 has is 0, and by the fact that something cannot come from nothing, I should never be able to have an orange again.

So even subjectively speaking, infinity has its place.

reply to post by smithjustinb

infinity based) with objective science, and we will move forward intellectually in a way that has been unavailable to us thus far.

Okay...scientific science aside...your purposing you have a new mathematical system to replace our current understanding of the subject....or are you just reconstructing the old mathematical system of numerology?

If your intention is to purpose a new system...I am all ears....reconstructing the old system...well you had better have something more than theory!

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

It appears with that concept that you do not exist.

No. I exist. Its the space that doesn't exist except by you observing me in reference to something else.

Space and time are bound as Infinty, by there existance, the end of which, is beyond anyones abilty to coprehend.

edit on 28-8-2011 by googolplex because: (no reason given)

There is no end to infinity. That is the only comprehension necessary.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Understand....I know what you mean about infinity...but zero...really can it be disputed in a mathematical way that makes sense...I would love to hear it....2 - 2 is still nothing...and that is what zero represents....so how do you come up with and infinite possible in that equation?

Of course we don't want to infer religion into this but infinity is a symbol that carry a weight of understanding in mathematics...are you purposing a change?

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

infinity based) with objective science, and we will move forward intellectually in a way that has been unavailable to us thus far.

Okay...scientific science aside...your purposing you have a new mathematical system to replace our current understanding of the subject....or are you just reconstructing the old mathematical system of numerology?

If your intention is to purpose a new system...I am all ears....reconstructing the old system...well you had better have something more than theory!

This can be seen as both. At this point, it doesn't necessarily change current mathematics except how you view origins and how you view operations using infinity as an origin point. So it is more like a new perspective. 1+1 still equals 2. 1 + 0 would be more accurately put as 1 + infinity.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Ummm...respectfully...may I disagree....what would we say of 1 + 0 + 2....

Shall we say it is infinite...+2?

Does not work my friend...sorry...mathematically it is inaccurate!

I'm a reader, and not a poster. But I feel I must speak a word here. I have a masters degree in mathematics. There is a rigorous way to deal with infinites in math. In fact, there are college courses based on infinity. Our universe is infinite from the inside, but finite viewed from the outside. All of those interested in this threat should read Quantum Enigma, by Bruce Rosenblum. Any math questions are welcome.

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Understand....I know what you mean about infinity...but zero...really can it be disputed in a mathematical way that makes sense...I would love to hear it....2 - 2 is still nothing...and that is what zero represents....so how do you come up with and infinite possible in that equation?

Of course we don't want to infer religion into this but infinity is a symbol that carry a weight of understanding in mathematics...are you purposing a change?

I don't care what the symbol is, as long as the mental imagery associated with the symbol is congruent to the understanding of the principle.

Can zero be disputed? I say yes. Mathematically w/o going off on a tangent as to why, probably not.

When people verbalize equations semantically and say 0 times 2 is another way of saying you have 0 two times or you have 2 zero times, my question is in regards to the semantics, "how do you HAVE zero at all if zero is nothing to have and to have it is impossible?" Or "how do you have 2 if you have it zero times?"

Semantically, zero doesn't have its place in the realm of existence. Infinity, however, does have the ability to operate within the realm of existence even as an effective point of origin.