guigus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 08:22 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
It means there is no number that can be multiplied by zero resulting in one. In other words:

? * 0 = 1

You can as well replace "?" by "no number" or "nothing."


I do get this. It is not hard to understand. But that doesn't change the fact that it is just plain wrong.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN YOU MULTIPLY WITH ZERO AND HAVE THE OUTCOME BE ANYTHING BUT ZERO!


That's precisely the premise of my reasoning, if you didn't notice.

Cyracuz wrote:
If you had said "no number * o= 0 then sure. That would be consistent with the operation the * actually signifies.


The symbol "?" has no mathematical meaning, if you didn't notice: the expression "? * 0 = 1" is not a mathematical operation, although you insist in its being one. It means the question: what (?) can be multiplied by zero and produce one?

Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
Now it is you that must explain us how the falsity of "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" does not entail the truth of "something multiplied by zero equals one." I'm so excited...


Well, the first statement simply does not prove that the second is true.
"nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is wrong. "something multiplied by zero equals one" is also wrong.


The only way for "something multiplied by zero equals one" to be "wrong" (or false) is if a number were not something. Are you telling me that a number is not something? What is it then? Nothing? This is getting funny.

Cyracuz wrote:
So how can two statements that are wrong lead us to the logical conclusion that one of them is actually right after all?
It can't. It just can't.


If just they were both false...

Cyracuz wrote:
Here's a similar "logic proof":
If we agree that the statement "I can pull gold out of my ass" is false, then it follows that the statement "I can pull feathers out of my ass" is true. But we know the latter is false, so the former must be true.
Don't you see? It's even too dumb to be funny as comedy.


This last example of yours deals with two totally unrelated sentences, which is not the case of mine. I suspect even you can see that.
guigus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 08:37 am
@Cyracuz,
Why don't you stop screaming and protesting and stop a moment to really think about what I am saying? Try not posting any reply for some time (forever? Just joking.) and take that time to honestly consider the possibility that I am right.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Mar, 2011 08:48 am
@guigus,
Quote:
This last example of yours deals with two totally unrelated sentences, which is not the case of mine. I suspect even you can see that.


I don't, actually. Can you please demonstrate to me how logic dictates that "?*0=1" is true because "x*0=1" is false?

Your sentences are no more related than mine.
TheThinker
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 01:39 pm
@kennethamy,
In a sense nothing does exist because there are things in this universe which are vacuums where there are no particles but these things are regarded as something and to be nothing you cannot be know you cannot be anything so to even simply exist in a form of some type and to be given a name is to be something so for a vacuum even though it contains 'nothing' and is 'nothing' it is something as it is registered to exist it has been catalogued named and ordered so it must be something so no 'nothing' does not exist as everything exists it is simply the way in which you perceive it.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 10:39 pm
@TheThinker,
I agree: a desert mirage is real, a real mirage. Illusory only if we try to bathe in it.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2011 10:39 pm
@TheThinker,
I agree: a desert mirage is real, a real mirage. Illusory only if we try to bathe in it.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 05:23 pm
To see the ambiguity of nothing, just ask:

Code:What is the definition of nothing?


If you answer that "nothing is not anything" -- which is indeed its definition -- then this definition is not a definition -- of anything -- neither is it even a meaningful sentence -- a statement about anything -- since it refers to nothing. So, as long as "nothing is not anything" still has its meaning -- thus keeping "nothing" as definable -- nothing must be something.

Otherwise, the answer to your question:

Code:What is the definition of nothing?


Which must be "not anything," could only mean there is not any definition of nothing, including:

Code:Nothing is not anything.


Therefore, each time you say that "nothing is not anything" you necessarily contradict yourself. Likewise, when you say:

Code:Nothing multiplied by zero equals a nonzero number.


Given the contradictory nature of the definition of nothing itself -- which depends on the "reification" of nothing -- you must be saying that something called "nothing" can be multiplied by zero resulting in a nonzero number. Which is precisely what allows you to see that "nothing" and "zero" are different concepts:

Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.
Zero multiplied by zero does not equal one.
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 05:29 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
This last example of yours deals with two totally unrelated sentences, which is not the case of mine. I suspect even you can see that.


I don't, actually. Can you please demonstrate to me how logic dictates that "?*0=1" is true because "x*0=1" is false?

Your sentences are no more related than mine.


Unless you come up with a number or anything else that multiplied by zero equals one, nothing multiplied by zero equals one. And if you can find a number that multiplied by zero equals one, then something multiplied by zero equals one, unless you can show that a number is not something.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 08:02 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
nothing multiplied by zero equals one


There is not a number that when multiplied by zero equals one.

Of course, only numbers can be multiplied. Cat * 0 = 1 isn't true nor false. It's nonsensical. Use clearer language and your thoughts will be clearer as well.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 04:16 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
nothing multiplied by zero equals one


There is not a number that when multiplied by zero equals one.


Are you saying that nothing is a number?

Night Ripper wrote:
Of course, only numbers can be multiplied. Cat * 0 = 1 isn't true nor false. It's nonsensical. Use clearer language and your thoughts will be clearer as well.


This is not a matter of being clear: it is a matter of you accepting to consider the possibility of your being wrong. Rephrasing my last post (just before yours above):

Since not any number nor anything else can be multiplied by zero to produce one, not any and every being can -- either because it does not yield one (but zero for numbers, matrices of zeros for matrices, and so on) or because it cannot be multiplied at all. And "not any and every being" is precisely nothing.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 04:49 am
@Night Ripper,
Your fundamental problem has nothing (our old friend) to do with mathematical operations -- it has to do with accepting the ambiguity of nothing itself:

Code:Nothing is not any and every being.


If we read "nothing" in the sentence above as already meaning "not any and every being" (which you never do, since your argument depends on reading "nothing" in that sentence as being something, or you have nothing to deny an existence to), then the resulting statement is this:

Code:Not any and every being is not any and every being.


Which means any and every being is any and every (other) being, hence not itself, as thus nothing -- so nothing is not only something, but also everything.

To avoid this we must read "nothing" in the sentence "nothing is not any and every being" as meaning something called "nothing" -- which you already do, inadvertently of course.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 05:20 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
Are you saying that nothing is a number?


No, I'm saying there is not a number that when multiplied by zero equals one. That's not the same thing as trying to multiply "nothing" with zero which is what you seem to be trying to do. There's a difference.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 05:43 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
Are you saying that nothing is a number?


No, I'm saying there is not a number that when multiplied by zero equals one.


And you are correct -- I have been saying precisely the same thing.

Night Ripper wrote:
That's not the same thing as trying to multiply "nothing" with zero which is what you seem to be trying to do. There's a difference.


You are already reading "nothing" in my sentence as meaning something:

Code:Something called "nothing" multiplied by zero equals one.


You will only understand what I am saying by first reading "nothing" in that sentence as meaning, say, "not a damn thing" (as you have insisted nothing to mean):

Code:Not a damn thing multiplied by zero equals one.


Later, "nothing" will become something -- called "nothing" -- but this will have not a damn thing do with mathematics anymore, and only with the ambiguity of nothing itself -- which you keep failing to grasp.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 10:37 am
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
And you are correct -- I have been saying precisely the same thing.


Good then. We agree. Bye.
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 01:31 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
And you are correct -- I have been saying precisely the same thing.


Good then. We agree. Bye.


Code:You say yes, I say no
You say stop and I say go, go, go
Oh, no
You say goodbye and I say hello


Although we do agree on that point, we unfortunately disagree on the logical consequences of it. So consider this:

The meaning of "nothing" cannot be, say, multiplied at all: it can be multiplied by nothing. So the meanings of "nothing" and "zero" must not be the same, or "nothing" would mean something that can be multiplied, as if being zero. Even though, if nothing is not zero, then everything is -- including all numbers, which are hence false, along with anything else.
Night Ripper
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 02:26 pm
@guigus,
guigus wrote:
Even though, if nothing is not zero, then everything is -- including all numbers, which are hence false, along with anything else.


If someone says that "nothing is not zero" they mean that the concept of nothing is not the same concept as zero. They aren't saying "everything is zero", which would be absurd.

In more technical terms, "nothing is not zero" isn't using "nothing" as a quantifier.

Try again.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 03:03 pm
@Night Ripper,
I am very surprised with the extent of your patience...who would imagine or guess such level of availability for this stuff from you ? Jaw dropping...
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 03:26 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
Even though, if nothing is not zero, then everything is -- including all numbers, which are hence false, along with anything else.


If someone says that "nothing is not zero" they mean that the concept of nothing is not the same concept as zero. They aren't saying "everything is zero", which would be absurd.


Take care: the logical way of invalidating a conclusion is invalidating the reasoning behind it, rather than protesting against the absurdity of the conclusion itself.

That said, at least you agree that the concepts of "nothing" and "zero" are different, which is not a small victory. So back to our contention:

Unfortunately to you, all any concept has is its meaning, which, in the case of nothing, is not a damn thing. Or can you see any difference between the concept of zero and zero itself?

Of course "nothing" can mean something -- called "nothing" -- but that is not the "concept" of nothing: it is rather its "reification," which you so vehemently condemned not so long ago.

Or could you point to something that the concept of nothing means, other the absence of anything? (What does that concept mean to you, precisely?)

Night Ripper wrote:
In more technical terms, "nothing is not zero" isn't using "nothing" as a quantifier.


In more technical terms, if nothing were a quantifier, then it would be zero, which is precisely what we agree that it is not, in addition to being, as much precisely, what "nothing is not zero" means.

Night Ripper wrote:
Try again.


I'm trying, believe me...
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 03:28 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I am very surprised with the extent of your patience...who would imagine or guess such level of availability for this stuff from you ? Jaw dropping...


Then my patience is "jaw stripping"...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2011 04:03 pm
@guigus,
Aye Aye...whatever works for you...strip away till nothingness comes out of your mind lad !
(Maybe you get it then...)
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 08:18:23