Does zero exist?
V.Gopal
pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers
we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that
is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of
sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS
A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the
elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number
however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the
quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind.
The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same
number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on
a number line. That in the scale below:
-N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4,
5--------------
if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions!
This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
alex@
Bob Pease
"alex@" <alexand...@polytechnique.org> wrote in message
news:amqudq$gg1$1...@polynews.polytechnique.fr...
> smoking no good for ya
Smokin' usually produces insight into these things.
In some cases, the insights to pursue a topic that has been beat to death.
RJ P
Fred Galvin
> Existence requires proof.
Prove it.
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of
>pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers
>we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that
>is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of
>sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS
>A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the
>elements of our thought. Therefore if we divide a number by any number
>however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero. The identity or the
>quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind.
>The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same
>number. I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on
>a number line.
If you want to say there's no way we can prove that anything
exists go ahead and say that - people may or may not be interested,
but nobody's going to be able to prove you wrong (at least not
if you simply decide that they and their proof don't exist.)
But suggesting that the existence of zero is somehow more problematic
than the existence of 1 is just silly.
>That in the scale below:
> -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4,
>5--------------
>if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions!
What does it mean to extrude a fraction, and why do we have to
extrude them all if zero exists?
>This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
Fabulous. For a second I worried that there would be consequences
for both theoretical physics _and_ QM. But if the consequences
are unimaginable then according to the above they do not exist;
that's a relief.
David C. Ullrich
Bob Pease
attention. My comments are interspersed
"V.Gopal" <vgop...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:38af3945.0209...@posting.google.com...
> Existence requires proof.
We have here a fundamental difference of belief.
> There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of
> pure mathematics exist.
Don't need proof. they are mental constructs and they exist by fiat.
>Even without the proof of existence of numbers
> we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing,
Not by any agreement except among the most naive
>that
> is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal - is out of
> sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore ZERO IS
> A CONCLUSION
Or, rather , a Mental idea.
>and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the
> elements of our thought.
Maybe of YOUR thought, but you don't have the right to dictate this as a
universal.
> Therefore if we divide a number by any number
> however large it may be, we cannot arrive at zero.
This is a non sequitur, but it is true for other reasons
>The identity or the
> quality of the the thing the number represents, remains in our mind.
Maybe, maybe not, but how are these words of "identity" and "Qua;ity"
somehow identical.?
> The only way we can GET ZERO is by subtracting a number from the same
> number.
This is ONE way, but not the ONLY way.
>I am not sure whether we can justify the appearence of zero on
> a number line. That in the scale below:
> -N, -N+1, -N+2,--------(-3), (-2), (-1), 0, +1, +2, 3, 4,
> 5--------------
So give the place occupied by it a different name..
It's still there.
> if zero is a conclusion then we we have to extrude all fractions!
Even with a clear definition of "Conclusion" I don't see how this that
fractions need to be "Extruded"
Please define "extrude" in this context.
> This fact have unimaginable effect on theoretical physics and QM.
You are correct here..I can't imagine any effect!!
You certainly have a right to examine and question concepts.
It seems that you have a corresponding duty to obtain some amount of
background in what others are doing.
It's not enough just to get a basic familiarity , then dole out a string of
stuff using some world-view that is unique to yourself.
Bob Pease
Mike H
One of the formulations of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (on which all of
mathematics is based) treats the empty set, 0, as an undefined term. When we
play the game of "math," we make this object exist by default -- there is no
need to prove its existence.
Doug Norris
>Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of
>pure mathematics exist.
A good effort, but you forgot to cross-post it to twelve unrelated
newsgroups.
Overall Troll Score: 3 (out of 10).
Doug
George Johnson
Ahem, does WHAT exist?
The Z-E-R-O word you post is alien and unfamiliar.
Please explain what you are contemplating...
This is all GREEK to me.
(Ends sarcasm play game with history lesson link)
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Zero.html
Franz Fritsche
wrote:
>
> Existence requires proof.
>
Well... What's the status of this sentence/assertion? Is it an axiom,
part of an ideology or a believe?
>
> There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of pure mathematics exist.
>
Yes. But now... (Serious question) ... How SHOULD such a proof look
like?
I mean... numbers obviously are no _physical_ objects... so it's hard
to point at them...
>
> Even without the proof of existence of numbers
> we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist.
>
Exactly!
>
> But zero is nothing, that is, AFTER everything - even the idea of infinitesimal
> - is out of sight and out mind, the idea of zero COMES to mind. Therefore
> ZERO IS A CONCLUSION and cannot be one of the parameters or one of the
> elements of our thought.
>
I see what you are after... But you are wrong. Let me tell you why...:
Numbers can be introduced (and are introduced) in math as SETS. With
other words: any number is (defined as) a set.
Now we can actually "imagine" (think of) a set that does not contain
any element. (Think of a bag that is empty! That does NOT mean that
there is no bag!!!) And we just define zero to be this set!
---> 0 := { }.
...where { } is the symbol that denotes the so called empty set.
F.
Doug Magnoli
yourself at the grocery store with empty pockets, how much money do you
have? How much stuff can you buy? How many puppies are in your car
right now?
A conclusion? Looks like a fact to me.
-Doug Magnoli
[Delete the two and the three for email.]
Bill Taylor
It just IS.
, . ,
._/), .(\/),
ii// )/) ,-=-. ,-=-. ,-=-. ,-=-. (\/|/)
,^=-9 ,//) )=-="' '"=-="' '"=-="' '"=-="' '"=-="/ }/)
""_,),,/ " ,-=-. ,-=-. ,-=-. ,-=-. ,/`~
""" )))\))=-="' '"=-="' '"=-="' '"=-="' '"=-="
<< << << <<
((( >((( > ((( > ((( >
David C. Ullrich
wrote:
>Bushwah. How many apples do you have in your desk drawer?
I haven't looked, but there must be at least one - I can't
imagine any alternative.
>When you find
>yourself at the grocery store with empty pockets,
And I _certainly_ can't imagine going to the grocery store
with no money in my pockets. I mean really, you should think
these things out before posting them...
David C. Ullrich
Garry Denke
Franz Fritsche
> Nothing exists.
Agree. Not even _this_ post.
Bob Pease
"Garry Denke" <Garry...@USA.Net> wrote in message
news:5f354c9a.02092...@posting.google.com...
> Nothing exists.
If "Nothing" exists, then the class of things that exist contains at least
one member.
rj p
V.Gopal
> On 25 Sep 2002 05:10:59 -0700, Garry...@USA.Net (Garry Denke) wrote:
>
> > Nothing exists.
>
> Agree. Not even _this_ post.
the other to denote the 'level' of a quality or level of an activity.
A number by itself (in pure mathematics) cannot reveal in what context
that particular number is used. Therefore all numbers in pure
mathematics denote 'quantity'. Now the qquestion is: Is the number
that we get by dividing one quantity by another quantity, again a
'quantity' OR the level of a quality/activity?
The number that represents the level of a quality is an ordinal
number.
Can we place an ordinal number on a line that shows 'quantity'?
How much space or time does an ordinal number occupy on a line that
shows
'quantity'? It seems that cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers are
perpendicular
to each other.
I believe that 'level' means "zero quantity" or dL/dT.
Zero can 'EXIST' only as an ordinal number or the first derivative of
a 'quantity'. 'Zero' quantity (X-X=0) cannot bring anything sensible
to our mind; we can remove it from any expression or formula, any time
we want.
G Willy
Yes Bobby Dude. And that "Nothing" is Zero (the *one member*),
therefore "0" exists. So let us, without the use of calculators (for
all calculators have been determined to be irrelevent here in
sci.math), try to prove that -1 multiplied by -1 does not equal -1,
because (-1)^2 + (+1) = 0 [unless you, or anyone else, can prove
otherwise (without the use of calculators, which was the purpose of my
previous lengthy exercises here in sci.math)].
Good luck Bobby!
G Willy
V.Gopal
environment canot change number of units.There is only one type of
number: the integers or number of quanta. A continuous 'quantity' like
energy at constant level (level means frequency or temperature) has to
be measured in terms of number of quanta. 1/2 is a quantum. 1/3 is
another quantum. To add 1/2 and 1/3 we must find a common quantum that
can be used to specify both 1/2 and 1/3 in terms of integral number of
quanta - in this case 1/6. We have to convert every thing into number
of quanta for the purpose of calculation. Therefore we arrive at zero
only by one method: X-X=0. We cannot use an ordinal number or
frequency in any calculation because ordinal numbers are the first
derivative of a unit or zeroes (0) of different sizes or a point on a
logarithmic scale.
Bob Pease
"G Willy" <Garry...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e62c9adb.02092...@posting.google.com...
But in proving that nothing exists, you have proved that Something exists.
So according to this scheme, then nothing is something, and something is
nothing. which leads us to the conclusion that everything is everything else
or nothing else, since yes is no and up is down. And Humpty Dumpy IS the
river run and the frogs of Nirvana and it's Turtkes all the way down!!!
Isn't this all made clear on page one of Finnegans Wake??
RJ P
Bob Pease
Wow!!
And all the time I thought it was the hypercosine of a lateral phase.
The Borel inclusion set parameter is not Applicable here, since the
Weierstrauss exclusion principle prevents an open covering of a disjoint
union of closed subcoverings and if Mount Everest doesn't move I am certain
that it will prove that the MON, piaba, and de WOman, piaba, and de tan
tan cole pakka lemon grass. And de lily root gully root belly root . YAH!!
( and de Famous Cranny Scratch Scratch!)
somehow I get the idea that The Borg have sent some of the used units to
troll city!!
Please post to alt.phantasmagoria
RJ Pease
Bill Taylor
------ WHO SAYS SO ?!
------ ===========
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W \ :: / W
W \ ______________ / W
W \ _____/ ____________ \_____ / W
W \ __/ _____/ :: \_____ \__ / W
W __/ __/ :: \__ \__ W
W _/ __/ ,--. :: ,----- _ \__ \_ W
W _/ _/ \ ( ) :: (_) ( ) / \_ \_ W
W _/ _/ \ o) (_ :: ----' / \_ \_ W
W / _/ \ :: / \_ \ W
W / / \ ____________ / \ \ W
W / / ._._._ \ ____/ :: \____ / .___, \ \ W
W / / | | | ) _/ :: \_ | | \ \ W
W / / | | |/ _/ \ :: / \_ _|_|_ \ \ W
W | | | _/ \ :: / \_ | | W
W | | / \ :: / \ _ _ | | W
W / / __ / \ 00000000 / \ \ / \ \ W
W | | ._( )_, | 000########000 | X | | W
W | | ------ | 00##############00 | (_) | | W
W | | | 0##################0 | | | W
W:| |::::::::::|:::::::::0##################0:::::::::|::::::::::| |:::::::::W
W | | | 0##################0 | _ _ | | W
W | | _,_, | 00##############00 | \ / | | W
W \ \ | | | \ /000########000\ / | / / W
W | | | | |/ \ / 00000000 \ / | | | W
W | | \_ / :: .. \ _/ __________ W
W \ \ __, \_ / :: \\_) \ _/ \________/ W
W \ \ ,'| \_ :: \\_ _/ |-o o-|| W
W \ \ o' / \____ :: \ `-._ ) j ( | _ W
W \ \ ' / \__________/ `. `-.__.----||=|| `--'/-, W
W \ \_ / :: `. \---|||||-----' /-. W
W \_ \_ / _____ :: _ `._ ) .: O-:._,|._( `. W
W \_ \_ / | _,-' :: \_/_\___/ `----/ || || `|' _\-, ) W
W \_ \__ (__) :: \_/ \___/ ___| || || _|3=.___,' W
W \__ \__ :: __/ __| || || `-' | W
W / \__ \_____ :: _____/ __/ | || || | W
W / \_____ \__________/ _____/ | || || | W
W / \____________/ | || || | W
W / :: | || || | W
W / :: | || || | W
W / :: | || || | W
W / :: | || || | W
W / :: | || || | W
W / :: | || || | W
W / _____________________________ || | W
W / _______,--------------'%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%`--------------.__W
W ,--'%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%W
W.'%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%W
W%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%W
W W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Chas Brown
Bill Taylor wrote:
>
> |> Nothing exists.
>
> ------ WHO SAYS SO ?!
> ------ ===========
>
<snip mandela>
This made me think of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon, where there's a
festival parade of magnificently apparaled preists carrying ornate icons
shaped like zero's. As they go by, a bystander turns and asks his
neighbor, "Is nothing sacred?"
Cheers - Chas
Nico Benschop
>
> Nothing exists.
No thing exists, only ideas (about things) exist ;-)
Does that smell right?-) Descartes: I think, hence I am.
NB: I smell, hence I'm out...
1=AHA (One is Always Halfway Anyway) -- Halfway in One's Context
0000000000000000000000000000000NB0000000000000000000000000000000
V.Gopal
X is a variable and no body can deny that all the time, in all
environments and at all values of X, X/X=1. Suppose L is a finite
length. It is constituted of infinite number of infinitely small units
- limit L->0. Here unit of length or 1-->0. When the variable length X
is(0) zero, number of units of length 1->0 within X is zero but 1-->0
is a constant. When X, the length, increases, X the number of points
in X, also increases but the relation: total length/number of units of
length in it is the unit - the constant 1-->0. Here X is both the
length as well as number of units of length in X. That is X/X=1--->0.
Therefore 0.........111111111111111111111111111-----------infinity
Herethe variable is X something continuous which cannot be quantified
by any number unless we standardize the quantum called unit or 1.
Where is 0 in this scheme?
Matthias Plaue
wrote:
You're a troll.
I hope that nobody will response to your posts again.
This is bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------
Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero
and call it their point of view
- David Hilbert
Bill Taylor
|> festival parade of magnificently apparaled preists carrying ornate icons
|> shaped like zero's. As they go by, a bystander turns and asks his
|> neighbor, "Is nothing sacred?"
Very good!
Another one was a western anthropologist visiting India, and wondering -
"Is EVERYTHING sacred?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Urgently needed: An antidote for the cancerous meme of religious belief
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nico Benschop
>
> Nico Benschop <n.ben...@chello.nl> wrote in message news:<3D92D663...@chello.nl>...
> > Garry Denke wrote:
> > >
> > > Nothing exists.
> >
> > No thing exists, only ideas (about things) exist ;-)
> >
> > Does that smell right?-) Descartes: I think, hence I am.
> > NB: I smell, hence I'm out...
> >
> > 1=AHA (One is Always Halfway Anyway) -- Halfway in One's Context
> >
> > 0000000000000000000000000000000NB0000000000000000000000000000000
>
> No that is wrong.
Which of my several statements is wrong?
> X is a variable and no body can deny that all the time, in all
> environments and at all values of X, X/X=1. Suppose L is a finite
> length. It is constituted of infinite number of infinitely small
> units - limit L->0. Here unit of length or 1-->0. When the variable
> length X is(0) zero, number of units of length 1->0 within X is zero
> but 1-->0 is a constant. When X, the length, increases, X the number
> of points in X, also increases but the relation: total length/number
> of units of length in it is the unit - the constant 1-->0.
> Here X is both the length as well as number of units of length in X. > That is X/X=1--->0.
> Therefore 0.........111111111111111111111111111-----------infinity
> Herethe variable is X something continuous which cannot be
> quantified by any number unless we standardize the quantum
> called unit or 1. Where is 0 in this scheme? ..[*]
Sorry, but I can't follow. I guess we're from different planets;-)
Re[*]: If you don't see '0' in one scheme, this does not mean
it does not exist. It may indeed not be a useful concept in
*your* scheme (which I gather has to do with continuous math -
although also there, as a limit, it *is* essential;-)
but in many schemes, certainly in discrete math, 0 is useful
in many ways: say in arithmetic, binary logic, lattices, etc.
Just ponder the depth of this quote (for your antipode,
someone who claimed continuous and discrete is all the same;-):
"In Theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
... but in Practice there is."
Bob Pease
Denke vs. Gopal
The blind leadeth the blind.
They both liveth in Plonk Cit7y..
Ed Conrad and Ed Croteau, co-Mayors.
RJ P
"Nico Benschop" <n.ben...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:3D940D5E...@chello.nl...
V.Gopal
time. Then at the end of decay we have mass-->0 and number of
particles-->0. At the beginning of decay mass is 1 and number of
particles is infinite. Therefore zero becomes 1 and infinity at the
same time. Probably we can express the process of creation of
'something out of nothing' by 1=(dm)^T, where T or the exponent of dm
decreases from 1 to 0. (We calculate square root of square root of dm
infinite times.) We can never know how and when 'dm' becomes a finite
mass. The process of creation of 'something out of nothing must be
smooth. Smooth does not mean slow it simply means straight and
continuous or a continuous curve without sudden change in direction.
Any quantity of finite mass is 1 and 1 is increasing continuously by
0*infinity=1.
Duran Castore
ROTFLMAO!!!
--
---------------------------------------
Duran Castore (duran_...@yahoo.com)
Duran Castore
news:38af3945.0209...@posting.google.com:
> Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of
> pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers
> we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that
<snip>
Zero exists. Please see the Peano axioms for the natural numbers.
Judging by your previous posts in this thread and others, you don't even
follow the reasoning of the other posters, instead simply spew your
ideas, regardless of adequacy to the context of the discussion.
So, I say, suggesting that everyone do it as well:
*PLONK*
Bob Pease
"Duran Castore" <duran_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9296D1952E358du...@130.133.1.4...
Thank you.
Actually , part credit has to be given to Harry Belafonte.
"I been ovah land and ovah sea
tryin' to find the answer to the Birds and Bee.
But now dot I am ninety-three,
I don't give a Damn, you see!! "
Dr Sidethink is not always sure that the least upper bound of the
cardinality of the set of his readers is greater than one. ( himself)
RJ Pease
Chris Thompson
Chas Brown <cbr...@cbrownsystems.com> wrote:
[...]
>festival parade of magnificently apparaled preists carrying ornate icons
Presumably followed by the scruffily dressed postists.
And carried at the end of the procession, the Eternal Spelling Flame ...
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk
V.Gopal
> vgop...@rediffmail.com (V.Gopal) wrote in
> news:38af3945.0209...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Existence requires proof. There is no proof that NUMBERS used in of
> > pure mathematics exist. Even without the proof of existence of numbers
> > we CAN and we do imagine that numbers exist. But zero is nothing, that
> <snip>
>
> Zero exists. Please see the Peano axioms for the natural numbers.
>
> Judging by your previous posts in this thread and others, you don't even
> follow the reasoning of the other posters, instead simply spew your
> ideas, regardless of adequacy to the context of the discussion.
>
> So, I say, suggesting that everyone do it as well:
>
> *PLONK*
answered if we can find the answer to my question. I you still believe
that my questions are irrevelent then I am sorry.