Hey, Sozobe, could you share your thoughts. I want to get some more opinions against the theory. So far the only reputable stuff I have is what Craven said.
I think it's all been said, dude. Mathematically speaking, you can't say that a number (though it may be infinitismally small) is equal to zero. Period. A number is by definition not zero.
I can see you doing some interesting Dave Eggersian riffing on it in an English class. But really, a zero is a zero is a zero.
Not a "bunch" of zeros. INFINITE zeros. I see a big difference. All of the arguments expressed so far seem to put limitations of infinity. The only way I can see .0001 as it progresses towards zero, as larger than zero, is if it eventually stops. Of course, if you measure it at any point it is something, but that is irrelevant.
OK, you've almost got the English-major non-mathematician (me) to see what you're saying. Oooh, just for a flash. No, it still doesn't work.
But could be an interesting riff. Go for it.
Are you any good at calculus? I'm under the impression that calculus should be able to pull up some examples for or against my theory. I figured at least someone would try to use math to disprove my math theory. Just kinda makes sense, huh?
But they did! No matter how many zeros are in front of the 1, if the 1 is there, it's not going to be equal to zero. You don't need calculus for that, it's just a very basic mathematical fact.
But I think how this could be cool is if you really weave a convincing web... lots of tangents and mysticalness and oh you could do it... and make people question this basic mathematical fact, if only for a second. That would be an achievement.
Well, at least I'm spreading flashes of coherence. That's a start. By friday I would like to harness and focus those flashes into a steady beam. I'm just not getting very far, since the theme around here seems to have digressed. I'm getting people to attack me, which is good. But "Scoates, you're an idiot" doesn't fit very well in my paper, even if I have good counter arguments.
sozobe wrote:But they did! No matter how many zeros are in front of the 1, if the 1 is there, it's not going to be equal to zero. You don't need calculus for that, it's just a very basic mathematical fact.
But I think how this could be cool is if you really weave a convincing web... lots of tangents and mysticalness and oh you could do it... and make people question this basic mathematical fact, if only for a second. That would be an achievement.
No, I mean USING math. Anyway, I'm not interested in facts. If the paper gets to factual it's not contraversial enough for an english paper. Also, I do have some good arguments. I just haven't brought them up here (Matthew 7:6). I bet if you read my finished paper I could convince you.
OK, the part that made sense to my addled brain for a minute (and I think the addling part is the most interesting part of this -- "two plus two is five") was that if the march of zeros before the one stops, it's not infinite! [cue trippy Twilight Zone-y music]
It doesn't WORK, but it got me for a minute, so go with that. Flesh it out more.
sozobe wrote:OK, the part that made sense to my addled brain for a minute (and I think the addling part is the most interesting part of this -- "two plus two is five") was that if the march of zeros before the one stops, it's not infinite! [cue trippy Twilight Zone-y music]
Egad! Sozobe, you may have something there... care to expound?
SCoates wrote:Anyway, I'm not interested in facts.
We know. :-)
This does sound kind of cool though, would be interested in seeing what you come up with.
I can't expound, it was a brief flash that didn't stand up to a fraction of a second's analysis. But weave your web, liar boy.
SCoates wrote:sozobe wrote:OK, the part that made sense to my addled brain for a minute (and I think the addling part is the most interesting part of this -- "two plus two is five") was that if the march of zeros before the one stops, it's not infinite! [cue trippy Twilight Zone-y music]
Egad! Sozobe, you may have something there... care to expound?
It has already been said to you SCoates:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=709899#709899
Craven de Kere wrote:SCoates, the problem then is that the ending "1" can't rest at the end of infinity as there is none.
One can't be at the end of that which hasn't one. Now we have dueling wordplay but I maintain hope that you reconsider abandonment of mathematics.
Sadly, Craven, mathematics will have quite some role in my paper. The title is "Parallel Lines: Math or Myth", but in the body of the paper I will disguise all of the math as geometry, which is friendlier and more approachable.
thats why 1/0 is the simplest , most elegant explanation of infinity. its a aimple unity, divided by nothing, therefore it equals a quantity extremely large.
Dont think it out too much its not difficult to conceptualize
I just saw that you wish to make your paper a graphics exercise. To start the conversation re: infinity, take the length of your parallel lines (which you say is infinately long) then dicvide this by zero. That will give you a concept that is infinity to the infinity "power" and its graphically based.
Re: Help on Research Paper
SCoates wrote:Part of my research paper explores concepts of infinity. I would like to knwo if anyone has any ideas or sources for the subject. To be a bit more specific, I partly want to show the unpredictability of infinity (meaning it is often misunderstood), but also anything that YOU find interesting on the subject, any concepts whatsoever, feel free to share. I'm still at a brainstorming stage.
Secondly, I will attempt to disprove parallel lines. Based on the fact that the distance between parallel lines in finite, therefor in relation to infinity that distance is negligible. I believe the subject is not merely a matter of semantics, and I would be interested in any of your ideas for or against the concept.
Thank you. I hope this sparks at least some sort of discussion.
One cannot prove or disprove parallel lines, since they are not a proposition of any sort, and, therefore, cannot be true or false. If you intend to prove that parallel lines meet, which is a proposition, you will fail. I may be wrong, but you appear to be just another person who is making assertions about math/science without first becoming familar with it.
Some thoughts I have had reading this thread...
3/3 = 1
My favorite number is Mcgentrix
By definition, parallel lines are parallel.
Hey, McG, we agree. It is by definition, parallel lines are parallel.
To me, if some force will happen to come along in infinite time to impinge on and actually cause deformation in one of those lines, then it's over, then they are nearly or not so nearly parallel for at least some extent and there goes the game. Well, hell, they veer.
Uh oh, that brings up something craven and others talked about before, that is descriptions that are not modifiable.
Thanks farmerman. I used the concept well, I believe.
I used the simple equations, if a/b=c then a/c=b.
If in fact 1/0=an infinite amount, then one divided by an infinite amount can in fact be zero. Then I just used a relation between the length of the lines and the distance between them. For example, two inch lines that are one inch apart, the relation would be 1/2. They are half as far apart as they are long. That holds true no matter how high you go to express the relation. So the relation at infinite length is 1/infinite, and therefor zero. The concept is easy to conceptualize without numbers. I think our system for numbers, or at least the symbols we use to express values are faulty when it comes to measuring infinity. Since number are not only precisely, but exactly measured, and infinity cannot be exactly measured or expressed, or it becomes finite. I'm not sure if there are exceptions to that, but it is generally true. Anyway, even if I'm wrong, it is convincing enough in the paper.
