Help on Research Paper

I assume you agree that any number that is larger than zero can in fact be smaller?

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Craven, I disagree. If it were any bit larger than zero, then it could be smaller.

Indeed, but we need not go that for to disprove your claim, for if it is any bit larger than 0 it is not 0.

Quote:

However, I assume you have proof to back up your statement.

What kind of "proof" do you have in mind SCoates? When you answer that, apply burden of proof and supply said proof for your claim.

SCoates wrote:

I think trying to confine or express infinity in numbers is in fact part of the problem, which is why I expressed it in different terms.

Trying to express infinity at all is problematic given that humans have never and will never be able to document a case of infinity.

SCoates wrote:

I assume you agree that any number that is larger than zero can in fact be smaller?

Yes, but your error is in that you think it can be infinitely smaller to the point that it disappears.

1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16......

Go on and it gets smaller but there's no basis upon which to claim that at some point it becomes nothing.

0 Replies

Hmm... I still disagree.

As far as burden of proof, I never said you had to prove anything. I merely assumed you were able.

0 Replies

I believe there is a basis to claim it becomes nothing. I can express it in numbers, if .3... equals one third, then .9... equals 1. However I believe we both would find that example a little absurd, since it's merely an expression of numbers.

I still don't see the flaw in the reasoning that if it is bigger then nothing, than it can get smaller, therefor it is not infinitely small. Anything larger than zero could not be infinitely small, for it has potential to get even smaller. Since zero sets an obvious limit to how small an absolute value may become, it is the only point at which an object cannot get smaller. (I realize I'm mixing objects and numbers, but the concept is the same). Since "not getting smaller" is a necessity of being infinitely small, I draw the conclusion that an object that is infinitely small is non-existent.

Likewise, a number which is infinitely small MUST be zero.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

So far it seems everyone assumes I'm making a wild guess. I have done research and I see nothing relavent which conflicts with my view.

No one has said your making a wild guess. You DO appear to be trying to visualize the issue instead of working with basic mathmatical principles but that's just my view of what you've posted thusfar.

If I'm designing a web page and I want a line across the page I can define that line as being 334 pixels wide. If I miscaluclaute and it ends up 335 pixels wide no one cares - the width isn't perceptible at the pixel level at that point because the difference is so minute in comparison to the whole.

But you are dealing with mathmatics here and precision IS important when you are dealing with mathmatical theory. Your concept that a value can somehow disappear and become zero directly contradicts every mathmatical principle we have and is, IMO, a fatal flaw. Mathmatics isn't a matter of perception. It's one of the most exact sciences we have.

0 Replies

1/0

0 Replies

I don't believe your understanding of math is accurate. Nothing can happen at a physical level that cannot happen at a conceptual level.

Math is concept (for example: addition)
There is a conceptual application (1+3)
And a physical application (How many apples in the basket)

Math is the basis. If math cannot explain something which happens at a physical level, then it is the math which is flawed. Seconldy, my concept contradicts nothing. It is absurd to say it "contradicts every principle we have." I hope you realize that was an absurd statement...

0 Replies

Farmerman?

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

SCoates wrote:
So far it seems everyone assumes I'm making a wild guess. I have done research and I see nothing relavent which conflicts with my view.

No one has said your making a wild guess. You DO appear to be trying to visualize the issue instead of working with basic mathmatical principles but that's just my view of what you've posted thusfar.

If I'm designing a web page and I want a line across the page I can define that line as being 334 pixels wide. If I miscaluclaute and it ends up 335 pixels wide no one cares - the width isn't perceptible at the pixel level at that point because the difference is so minute in comparison to the whole.

But you are dealing with mathmatics here and precision IS important when you are dealing with mathmatical theory. Your concept that a value can somehow disappear and become zero directly contradicts every mathmatical principle we have and is, IMO, a fatal flaw. Mathmatics isn't a matter of perception. It's one of the most exact sciences we have.

That's one of the things I apologized for. Yet ironically, the impression is intimated within your very post assuring me there is nothing to worry about.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

It is absurd to say it "contradicts every principle we have." I hope you realize that was an absurd statement...

No. There is nothing absurd in my statement. The only absurd thing going on here is your refusal to accept the fact that you are fabricating mathmatical theory that defies mathmatics as we know it.

Quote:

Since "not getting smaller" is a necessity of being infinitely small, I draw the conclusion that an object that is infinitely small is non-existent.

Likewise, a number which is infinitely small MUST be zero.

This as another fallacy you are propagating. An object by it's definition is "something". Zero, by it's definition is "the lack of something". "Something" doesn't become "not something" just because of wishful thinking. As long as there IS an object there IS something - it matters not how small it is. There is no such thing as a "non-existant object".

Your conclusion is simply wrong hence, the remainder of your theory is wrong.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

As far as burden of proof, I never said you had to prove anything. I merely assumed you were able.

SCoates, you made the claim and burden of proof rests with you. What I have written to you is proof.

1+1=2

If you do not accept mathematics then there's no convincing you, but that doesn't mean no proof. Just rejection of proof and science.

But if you want to come close to understanding it do this.

0.0_01

1) Add a 0 in the blank space.

2) Repeat

3) Repeat until the 1 magically disappears.

Hint: it won't.

SCoates wrote:

I believe there is a basis to claim it becomes nothing.

Unfortunately there is not.

Quote:

I still don't see the flaw in the reasoning that if it is bigger then nothing, than it can get smaller, therefor it is not infinitely small.

Then allow me to explain. "Infinitely small", as you use it, is nonsensical wordplay that has no bearing on mathematics.

Furthermore in mathematics were something to become smaller in unlimited progression it does not disappear, it simply becomes smaller.

Quote:

Anything larger than zero could not be infinitely small, for it has potential to get even smaller.

So? This is mathematics, there is no limit at which the number could not be any smaller.

Quote:

Since zero sets an obvious limit to how small an absolute value may become, it is the only point at which an object cannot get smaller.

False. Zero sets no such limit. Numbers can get infinitely smaller without reaching zero.

Quote:

(I realize I'm mixing objects and numbers, but the concept is the same).

No, it is not SCoates. With objects at some point of smallness it's usefulness to us and indeed our very perception of the object can eventually be reduced to what we consider an absense of the object.

This is merely a limitation of our perceptions.

Quote:

Since "not getting smaller" is a necessity of being infinitely small, I draw the conclusion that an object that is infinitely small is non-existent.

SCoates, there are a lot of non-existent (to our knowledge) concepts. That is no basis upon which to take your next leap of faith.

Quote:

Likewise, a number which is infinitely small MUST be zero.

Here's the leap of faith. It's kinda like saying:

"Pink elephants are non-existent. Likewise you should sleep with me."

When I was about 4 or 5 I ran into this lil' infinity problem you are having. It started when someone was telling me that I should do something before they counted to 3.

I made an earnest effort to do it but couldn't and the adult recognized it and gave me time by counting like this:

1.... 2..... 2 1/2.... 2 3/4.... 2 4/5..... etc etc.

At the time I was convinced that at any time we'd reach three (which might have happened but not for mathematical reasons) but it took only a few minutes of thought to realize that it is not true.

And it should not be difficult for you to grasp this concept (despite the inherent conceptual complexities of infinity).

Hint: you are playing word association with this. E.G. "Infinity = no limits. 0 = Limit. So 'Infinitely small' = 0."

It might make sense to you right now, but it is not mathematics so much as confusion posturing as mathematics.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

SCoates wrote:
It is absurd to say it "contradicts every principle we have." I hope you realize that was an absurd statement...

No. There is nothing absurd in my statement. The only absurd thing going on here is your refusal to accept the fact that you are fabricating mathmatical theory that defies mathmatics as we know it.

Quote:
Since "not getting smaller" is a necessity of being infinitely small, I draw the conclusion that an object that is infinitely small is non-existent.

Likewise, a number which is infinitely small MUST be zero.

This as another fallacy you are propagating. An object by it's definition is "something". Zero, by it's definition is "the lack of something". "Something" doesn't become "not something" just because of wishful thinking. As long as there IS an object there IS something - it matters not how small it is. There is no such thing as a "non-existant object".

Your conclusion is simply wrong hence, the remainder of your theory is wrong.

I've actually contradicted every single principle of mathematics known to man? Come on, Fishin'... if you want your opinions to be respected you have to maintain some level reality in your comments.

We are dealing with application of concept. Something I have already explained. At a conceptual level something may be nothing. Just as the number zero is in fact nothing. That doesn't mean it has no conceptual use. Besides, that argument is entirely based on semantics. It really is laughable. So far, the only argument I've seen from you is based on your definition of existence, which I really don't care about since it is irrelevant to math.

0 Replies

What is your field? Like, this research paper would be towards a degree in/ published in a journal in the field of...?

0 Replies

I see. My argumnent is based on semantics and is laughable while your's is built on wishful thinking and is somehow respectable?

You keep repeating your nonsense and everyone else here has demonstrated you wrong. Go ahead and write your research paper. Let us all know what grade you get on it. You can tell us all how the zero you get on that is irrelevant to math too.

0 Replies

Craven, there is no burden of proof in a discussion. Perhaps you should reread my initial post. I have admitted that I may be wrong, and brought the subject up as a curiosity. I was curious if the idea could be proven wrong. So far it has not happened. I cannot prove that I am right, nor do I need to for the topic to be interesting enough for a paper. Your claims that I don't know what I'm talking about are as well-founded as my own claims. So far we each have opinions which are contraversial. Nothing more has occurred. No facts have been brought up to prove or disprove anything. We simply interpret the same facts differently. I interpret them correctly, and you try to interpret them correctly, bless your little heart. You've earned yourself a Scooby Snack.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

I see. My argumnent is based on semantics and is laughable while your's is built on wishful thinking and is somehow respectable?

You keep repeating your nonsense and everyone else here has demonstrated you wrong. Go ahead and write your research paper. Let us all know what grade you get on it. You can tell us all how the zero you get on that is irrelevant to math too.

Fishin', with all due respect (none) you are an idiot. I wish it wasn't so, and in that sense I am a wishful thinker. You have not proven me wrong, and all of my comments directed at you were completely accurate. I understand that it makes you somewhat angry to be so stupid, but you shouldn't take it out on me. Maybe you should go read some good fiction, I hear it's good for the ol' noggin. Don't get tricked into thinking it's reality though. I do worry about the current world of delusion you're living in.
If you ever learn to accurately percieve anything, feel free to hop back into the discussion.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

What is your field? Like, this research paper would be towards a degree in/ published in a journal in the field of...?

Just a simple college class. It's an english class. I've already drawn out some neat diagrams. The main character looks like a tall Bart Simpson.

0 Replies

If it's really an English class, that would make about as much sense as anything. The linguistics of it. Because, yeah, the mathematics of it is just pretty unyielding.

0 Replies

Hey, Sozobe, Fishin' is kind of silly, huh?

0 Replies

No. He's one of the smartest guys I know. And helpful, too.

Now 1 being equal to zero, even if there are a bunch of 0's in front of it...

;-)

0 Replies

Help on Research Paper

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know