I would really like once a reasonable explanation (except that the zero for the production of a coordinate just very convenient), which is why mathematicians treat zero as a number, but not infinite.
Zero is yes, as infinitely small, only the equivalent of, the reciprocal of infinity, so infinite. So to speak, one (divided by infinity or whatever rational or irrational, finite real number) through infinity.
Or believes there but one that the nothing really there?
Why is infinitely little, so to speak worth more than an infinite amount?
Alone the fact that one should not divide by zero, can, may, shows that this number has a unique position (and if you just yet, verstohlenermaßen, virtually dividing by zero, one is aided by itself with the Limes, which tends to infinity . GOES!)
That's love mathematician, from the perspective of the philologist, just not honest. Why can not I multiply with nothing, so nothing comes out, but the inverse statement, namely the division, then do not perform?
Is 5 x 0 = 0, we would have to 0: 0 = 5 result. Or any other real number which has been previously multiplied by zero. Here's something wrong in the sense of the word definitely. That may work quite well in recent mathematics, but also be the reason why we (especially the mighty different infinities) have captured the essence of infinity so inadequate.
Who has not captured the essence of a number by it in such a way to have surrounded the only, the calculation rules-breaking, says with a outrageous dizziness, while he argues at infinity so that, so that one could not expect so, it has probably not understood for all . Most likely, in any case very limited.
Of course I got said many times, it is only logical that one five times with nothing still have nothing, nothing Add in one to five, still only have five, just like when you subtract nothing from the five.
Why now, however, the above reasoning to 5 x 0, this shows yes, there are several powerful infinities (the infinite set of natural numbers is considered less powerful infinite amount because as those of rational, there already 1-2 infinity are many rational numbers ), but not different zeros and nothings powerful, infinite small wholes?
Explain to me the last time a way that it understands itself a philologist?
- Ads -
Tags: zero and infinity
I'm no mathematician, but it would certainly be helpful, not to treat the zero as a number. Zero means nothing and simply NOT infinitely small.
If my wife is gone, because I've already forgotten the wedding day, then I have zero wives and not an infinitesimal wife.
But as I said, I'm not a mathematician and my wife is still there. I might still lack certain experiences in order to have a say.
Hello magnifikanter Magnus!
Explanation: Actually, mathematicians know NOTHING! You can only support their physics colleagues observe, not explain.
In view of global-time-short "observation" of a Humanuiden that there is a difference between light and dark, ON-OFF, 0-1 there, it would hardly surprise anyone that the paradox described by you is existent and also inexplicably still with (male)-logical laws.
It is in my opinion very beautiful here, how much THE true manipulative and imprisons us in such contracts, or what "knowledge" society, lim => + repeated infinitely-gekäut is. It is placed under brutal punishment if someone could prove that 1 is not equal to 1 (even though it's by zooming into the + or - is proven)!
Ok, there are +. So it must (we live (yet) in 3 dimensions) the opposite - and some (thirdly) give between -> 0!
More is non-existent at the present (official) existence. What it is "calculated" is for me nothing more than theory, sound and Rau (s) and ch (sorry for bad words!) "Hirnfickerei"!
Just as each individual perceives and ALL, it's is also individually real! Inferred (male) logically, this means:
Humanity is in self-conflict. She feels individual compliance: "We are all well connected to everything, and alone!"
The solution can only be released by interests not less, powerful. Only one (s) r is individually capable of both his creative and ingenious universal-deity, but to also be the resultant "responsibility" inflation aware and live it.
Regards,
3B (BarneyBarefootBear, from Indo-Westphalia)
In La'k'esch!
@ Rolf mueller
Supply you the wife away, so of course you had no more, so "zero" (as a synonym for pure spachliches none) wives. But that it would not be nothing, but just not there anymore.
And even if to leave this somewhat macabre example, let me entliefe my hamster (I have not), I would not suddenly not a hamster, hamster instead of nothing. It denies not that something, a certain thing, just can not be on the table.
Or: One gives me nothing. I then nothing?
The negation of the present existence of a thing does not mean that I therefore postulated a non-thing.
The nothing - zero - even if only as an imaginary thing to describe, namely a number, - in contradistinction to infinity - realistic mathematical operator, and remains absurd for me. In any case, until one shows me that I am wrong in it.
@ 3B
You go - I certainly welcome - something radical off than I in the above article.
In fact, man is no negative woman, or vice versa. Nor, as arbitrary as the negative pole of a magnet is called a positive, one has multiplied by -1. An electron positron times also is not -1.
It is in all of this, as I said above already, just that you can specify using the reflection at the zero, negative numbers, in the area four quadrants, in room eight.
There is no negative hamster, just as there is not a hamster.
I'm curious if a mathematician is yet to come, dare, here something to say, in the positive. (The old joke is appropriate here again: If minus four people sitting in a car and it still consist of four pure, no more sitting in it.)
I die, and remains by me (except the molecules) nothing (which is unlikely to exist for many, at least some thought-provoking statements made by me), I have not gone to nothing, but simply gone.
Whether this is a specifically male thinking that this tragicomic zero (but only partly) allocable to the number set as monuments, Infinity banishing than non-number, was first to be seen, although some may speak for this thesis.
On the other hand, I know no woman says anything against it, but on top of Rolf, You, I, probably three men, already Nietzsche put to the ax, said (I already attached here anderwo, but it fits again here) that mathematics with their Rechnerei be useful, but already with 1 +1 = 2 aufsitze a fundamental error, since there is no two things in the universe.
So the women do not help us finally from that crap out, we will men have to do it well themselves.
D'accord! => So, how's about logic with estrogenic aftertaste? , Apart from the fact that-as it is-could be useful for y Cromosom-controlled can conclude from the last two conversations:
"The / the existing logic / system performs the moment, radical force-paradoxical ad absurdum" :-)
But who wants to apply leisure and intuition, may in the known (including me), guess old traditions (Sümerer, "sans script"), where it will go long, or how it came to be!
Unofficially of course, quite possible otherwise come more in's brooding and who wants that then still get under control? Because that is so important because in addition to collective guilt (been told by the victors from the years '39-'45, they have almost perfectly the fascist surveillance, normalization, Manipultionsmaschinerie taken) and exponential profits from the business with the collective fear, can man (not woman) make it elitist to abuse the consumption of livestock keeping (sorry for bad words) to his own ass on the poop. Of course, for future generations. For we must grow yes!
Must stop short,
In La'k'esch
In La'k'esch inclined words Followers! Sorry, more pressing as a critique of the NWO have had a little more time than expected pass!
Red thread? Oh, GROW.
"Sure, we need hammwa yes imma soo done! "Or?:
ERROR!! "Unfortunately, not paying attention, put 6"; 3B: "Show me something that achievement-oriented, ruthless, infinitely grows without pass by and I paint DIIR EXACT a 0 as a Second!",> "1 +1 = 2 "nunmal is really in genuine, consistently ahead of I + I = II, so I exact equal to I, otherwise I claimed 3B + I = 0 is true to say, that is a matter of definition of boundaries and thus," Prepare yourself, the subject earth ..., ... since fruitful and multiply "!! Marie Curie: "Come OTTO, let's try the atom to split, then krisse also widda 's Annual bang!" Universal genius, Albert Einstein: "We just need to warp space, then we can make everything undone, because we then overtake itself, so shoot faster than our shadows! "
Well,
(Sorry for bad word) SCHEISSPLA (E) N (E)
Hupp, verkligggt!
Now
xx-Cromosom without support - and I mean nothing by heart-learned, the x-times-repeated and frequent-swinging-nachgebrabbeltes - we rotate powerful, all divisive in the 13th (!) Dimension.
And,
be-my, 3B, (logic) circuit that what we were:
Stardust, pure energy, light!
If not for "Planet X", "Nibiru", a brown dwarf. Since 2003 in our solar system (re) present.
Something which is known as law of resonance.
And,
LOVE
because the IS.
"Oh, you heard?", "How, watts, then?", "Yes, you will not believe it:
The apocalypse is canceled! "" No, iss so hard to believe! "," I Say yes! "
Everything is good, because otherwise would be bad! And if not good, then it's not finished yet and only YOU are ready when you're done!
Until recently,
In La'k'esch,
Lots of light and love,
3B
@ 3B
All very funny. Original ideas here. But you could also, not inappropriately, get to the point more directly again.
My article above is not designed to undo a libero uniform Blödel blame. Slightly more intelligibility and intelligible connection to the theme, therefore harmed, rather 3B, no.
@ All X / 0 = X ^ infinity!
http://dudeweblog.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/das-nichts-als-immaginares-gedankliches-abstraktum/
@ 3B
Yeah, so like I always say this! Welcome to the club! :-)
But it is said by the way not Sanskript, although the wording is of course awesome, which also applies to your language! Bekackter scheisserchen times are fucking their brains and hearts a little effort, gelll ;-)
The 13th Psalm Dimension and Nibiru but I'd forgotten. The stuff was deliberately scattered to convey the fear ... You know why this is so important ...
Pps. I like you!
@ Magnus
Read again ... yes, it is more accurately written a bit mixed, but still has tremendous depth!
@ Magnus
Strong strand by the way, thank you!
Slowly we come to the understanding of the holistic nihilism in God consciousness closer ;-)
@ MW Goeller:
So, so funny. Hmm, ok'm a little abgeschwiffen, but I want to be (once as each (yard) fool) taken seriously before, to provoke, to provide impetus to think freely (s).
So again (seriously):
I, who is now writing 3B, say: I + I = 0 = true.
Not true? Why not you? Because you, Magnus, you Ralf and I only know one another, have gotten so learned it from those in whose interest it was (is) to count properly, à la heraklophilen "After" to Arestoteles thinkers, Plato, Euclid .
And this is soooooo old, abgenudelt, round ground that it contradicts itself!
So I'm back in the hierarchy of zeros. Is it a arnachistisch to say that I and I refuse to be 0, because they are an I to be on their individual right to health reasons I and I can not record 0, they are equal?
No, of you, dear Magnus, finally in the "public" dagestellte paradox is logical sequences that what it is paradoxical. It is therefore a solution-from-my feeling out only by consistent changes of the reference system (or the paradigm) is possible!
Ask times "your" 0, if they want to be like "my" 0 With near certainty they insist on their right to free development. Already it's back-schizophrenic paradox in the next round.
But probably. -Even with these, my thought differently this time around.
How do you want? Just looking at the next supermarket shopping, instead of left-right side out and walk watch what happens then pull its "conclusions" that is interpreted, preferably with an alien. Because the need no longer go, sorry, running.
And, else? Yes, you have, in greater detail!
Bye,
3B
@ 3B & Dude
I have not forgotten that you, 3B, did not just something einherfabuliert, and that, dude like you, also speaks of this.
But since I quite seriously meant a scientific question of my opinion raised here not less importance even as those whose raising already, not a few as nonsensical, at least may seem oblique, I asked up to objectification, those who already my approach to absurd hold, would rather not deal with it like, every opportunity that moved into the area of the ridiculous, does not concern values to see, are happy to take, not to abet it.
During the notice that we are here in a one-sided male-limited thinking caught the meaning and purpose of this exercise might well still be useful, namely, precisely the to get even closer to this question, I saw that those I consciously here demand (of course also other thinkers, philosophers, logicians in general), namely mathematicians, then, just shaking his head to leave the aphoristic, playful, allusive, a light output would be offered the field.
I not only want to play with the above post, some argued, should be the subject of jokes only speculative.
I mean, as it stands, very seriously.
I wanted a scientific and logical refutation or confirmation of my thesis that is applied.
Of course, I welcome it if - is not only deadly serious debate - even on this topic.
For once, I think this time but also very urgent to those readers whose little jokunden contradiction or less analogous encouragement I challenge.