0 The Empty Number; its purpose is to set bases

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Zero is the name for no quantity. Its only real use is to set bases.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Markus Klyver]

Den torsdag 21 september 2017 kl. 22:52:05 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> Zero is the name for no quantity. Its only real use is to set bases.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

What do you mean by this, exactly? What do you mean by "set bases"?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

You cannot see that decimal requires 0 after 9.., to make 10?

[Markus Klyver]

I don't even know what you mean by that statement. What do you mean by "make 10"? Please clarify.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

count from 9 to 10... you must set up the base by the 0 to go from
9 to 10. The end quantity number is 9 then a zero is required to
to the next represented quantity. In this case the base is decimal.

There is a problem if you cannot see this.

[FromTheRafters]

mitchr...@gmail.com formulated on Thursday :

Place is important.

[Conway]

>
> Place is important.

I agree...."Place" is important....Place is a matter of space....zero is place...zero is space...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 5:22:04 PM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
> mitch:

It is only what base that makes this difference.
You can count to nine but the next number requires a zero.
This is first decimal place.

Mitchell Raemsch

[FromTheRafters]

Conway brought next idea :

>>
>> Place is important.
>
> I agree...."Place" is important....Place is a matter of space....zero is
> place...zero is space...

Important for representations only, not for the number in mind.
Mathematics is filled with abstractions, a 'number' can be expressed in
many ways. You seem to want to imbue numbers with two attributes each
and "do math" with them while avoiding a perceived problem with zero as
it stands.

To me, zero is not a problem and limits are just another representation
of a number, not only a representation of (a method for) an
approximation of a number.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[FromTheRafters]

The base only really matters to the desired representation. If one
doesn't like the representation he or she can change it by changing the
base. Don't like repeating decimal expansions, change base (probably
won't help with transcendentals) or use continued fractional expansion,
or any of many other ways to manipulate or study numbers.

Numbers have an existence in the mind but sometimes these outer
representations (especially CFE) yield insight unimagined by those
stuck in 'place based' numeral system representations.

[John Gabriel]

On Thursday, 21 September 2017 16:52:05 UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Zero is the name for no quantity. Its only real use is to set bases.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Zero is merely a place-holder and not required at all in any mathematics. Its use is purely for human consumption.

If one carried around a template, there would be no need for zero at all. Its purpose is to remove ambiguity in bases.

For example, in our template:

... 1000 100 10 1 . 1/10 1/100 1/1000

OR

... Thousands Hundreds Tens Units . tenths hundredths thousandths ...

OR

... M C X I . ...


we could write:

... 1000 100 10 1 . 1/10 1/100 1/1000

1

and know that it means one hundred. But without the template there is ambiguity.

Zero is a convenient place-holder. Nothing else. It is not a fantastic discovery or genius on the part of the Indians or Arabs. In reality, it is not required at all in mathematics, but communicating without it would be tedious.

[Conway]

Mmmh....I suppose I can agree with you here....actually I have talked to many Phd's in this matter.....they have said about as much.....I however do believe that it's broke....

[conway]

> Zero is the name for no quantity. Its only real use
> is to set bases.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

ANYTHING that is empty...still contains space. You can have "no quantities" of ANYTHING....that does not mean you have no quantities of space. There is always space.....you can NOT have NOTHING.....zero is a empty quantity of space....not an empty quantity of nothing.

Zero's real use is as a "point of reference" on a number line.......to "set" bases.....here I agree....

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:38:15 PM UTC-4, John Gabriel wrote:

>
> Zero is merely a place-holder and not required at all in any mathematics.

Another idiocy for the ages!

Not being bound by any axioms or rules of logic, Troll Boy here is free to improvise bullshit statements like this. They may sound cool to his fellow morons (maybe), but they utterly useless for actually doing any mathematics. He is unable, for example, to derive even the most elementary results of basic arithmetic in his goofy number system, not even 2+2=4.

0 is actually the first natural number. 1 is the second natural number and so on.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Space time is made of infinitely small points extending to the unified field.
There is no way to take away more space than is originally there.
This is why the left side of the quantity line doesn't exist.
The only way to have negativity is to subtract... from an equal
or greater absolute value.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Dan Christensen]

Yes, all those cars exploding, planes crashing and boats sinking because scientists and engineers simply don't understand that "0(as space) = 1 (as space)."

[Conway]

Mich...

Postulates.....

0 as space, is infinite small.....if value is "shrank" infinite small...it will find an infinite amount of space of which to "extend" unified fields.....thus there is not a "left" side of the quantity line.....there is only the infinite in (both) directions on the number line.....zero....dictates what "you" call the numbers "surrounding" the spot on the number line that you are observing...change your zero(reference point)... change your ""extended" unified field.....such as black wholes.....

[Conway]

Dan...

There was a time we thought the world was flat....boats did not sink....cars did not explode(horse carriages)...lol.....but the knowledge still proved useful....case in point if division by zero is allowed the following "semantical" mathematical sentence make sense....


I have 1 dollar...I divide it by 0 dollars...I still have one dollar......not an undefined....among other benefits....

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:12:05 AM UTC-4, Conway wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:48:42 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 10:01:10 PM UTC-4, Conway wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:03:00 PM UTC-5, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > Conway brought next idea :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Place is important.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree...."Place" is important....Place is a matter of space....zero is
> > > > > place...zero is space...
> > > >
> > > > Important for representations only, not for the number in mind.
> > > > Mathematics is filled with abstractions, a 'number' can be expressed in
> > > > many ways. You seem to want to imbue numbers with two attributes each
> > > > and "do math" with them while avoiding a perceived problem with zero as
> > > > it stands.
> > > >
> > > > To me, zero is not a problem and limits are just another representation
> > > > of a number, not only a representation of (a method for) an
> > > > approximation of a number.
> > > >
> > > > If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> > >
> > > Mmmh....I suppose I can agree with you here....actually I have talked to many Phd's in this matter.....they have said about as much.....I however do believe that it's broke....
> >
> >
> > Yes, all those cars exploding, planes crashing and boats sinking because scientists and engineers simply don't understand that "0(as space) = 1 (as space)."
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
> > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
>
> Dan...
>
> There was a time we thought the world was flat....boats did not sink....cars did not explode(horse carriages)...

Scientists and engineers today do build cars, planes and ships based on mathematics. You are suggesting that mathematics is somehow "broken." Why? Because you want solutions to 0x=1? Nobody else does. Certainly not scientists and engineers. They all agree that 0x=0 for any number x.

> lol.....but the knowledge still proved useful....case in point if division by zero is allowed the following "semantical" mathematical sentence make sense....
>
>
> I have 1 dollar...I divide it by 0 dollars...I still have one dollar......not an undefined....among other benefits....

So now 1/0 = 1??? Ah, then multiplying both sides by 0, you obtain 1=0???

You are talking nonsense. Stick to bar-stool philosophy -- counting angels on the heads of pins, the meaning of life and all that. You will have much more fun. And it won't matter if you are right or wrong. This obsession of yours for division by zero can only lead to despair.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-7, Conway wrote:

> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-5, mitch wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 7:20:13 PM UTC-7, conway wrote:
> > > > Zero is the name for no quantity. Its only real use
> > > > is to set bases.
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > >
> > >
> > > ANYTHING that is empty...still contains space. You can have "no quantities" of ANYTHING....that does not mean you have no quantities of space. There is always space.....you can NOT have NOTHING.....zero is a empty quantity of space....not an empty quantity of nothing.
> > >
> > > Zero's real use is as a "point of reference" on a number line.......to "set" bases.....here I agree....
> >
> > Space time is made of infinitely small points extending to the unified field.
> > There is no way to take away more space than is originally there.
> > This is why the left side of the quantity line doesn't exist.
> > The only way to have negativity is to subtract... from an equal
> > or greater absolute value.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
> Mich...
>
> Postulates.....
>
> 0 as space, is infinite small.....if value is "shrank" infinite small...it will find an infinite amount of space of which to "extend" unified

No. The closed universe is not infinite.
The Continuum Hypothesis is why the extension by the infinitely small is correct
and zero is no quantity of space extending; 0 is 0 extension...

fields.....thus there is not a "left" side of the quantity line.....there is only the infinite in (both) directions on the number line.....zero....dictates what "you" call the numbers "surrounding" the spot on the number line that you are observing...change your zero(reference point)... change your ""extended" unified field.....such as black wholes.....

Points of dimension are infinitely small. This extension is the field concept.
0 won't extend but it does mean something. It is the Eternal God creating
gravity field always.

Negative quantities can only be subtractions. The quantity line does
not go to the left of zero...

Mitchell Raemsch

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

There is nothing to divide by. Quantity can't be divided by its absence.
0 does no have the purpose of division. Only to set bases.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Conway]

Lol....actually I'm having a lot of fun here. I finally joined the google group and will start posting from here....I can pose multiplicative inverses for both zero and for 1 using the ideas I've previously discussed...you apparently "missed" that part and "division by zero"....in any case quit bringing me up in this thread...its not fair to the original poster....talk to them and about their ideas....talk to me in my thread....

[Conway]

I was agreeing with you here....the closed universe is not infinite....but the "ultra universe" is. 0 sets your bases...0 tells your what "universe" you are living in. 0 is your point of reference for your universe and for your number line. If 0 is space, then I always have a quantity of something...therefore there is always something to divide and multiple.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

There is only one universe.

0 is your point of reference

It is the center of a reference frame that counts
That center is still infinitely small point.

>for your universe and for your number line. If 0 is space, then I always have a quantity of something...therefore there is always something to divide and multiple.

Zero is defined as No quantity. In that case you would be wrong.

Space is nonmaterial it is not 0. Zero would be God's thought...
Infinite, Infinite, Infinite at 0,0,0

God creates gravity and sustains the rest of the universe at 0
on and ongoing basis.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Bill]

Conway wrote:
> ....the closed universe is not infinite....but the "ultra universe" is. 0 sets your bases...0 tells your what "universe" you are living in. 0 is your point of reference for your universe and for your number line. If 0 is space, then I always have a quantity of something...therefore there is always something to divide and multiple.

I'm sure that's pretty useful. What topology is your space endowed with?

[Conway]

I know you are trolling here but.....topology is relative to your universe..."my" topology is endowed with limits "relative" to this space and time....this universe....I can not fathom another's without first changing perspective and 0.....im not going into a black whole so as to answer you....

[Markus Klyver]

What I *think* you are saying is that we use 0 to distinguish 5 from 50 in our radix system. This is true, but I don't see how this is related to bases of vector spaces.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Yeah you have no clue what you are talking about

[Markus Klyver]

You are not making sense. 0 is not space or physical point. It's not a part of a physical field and talking about 0 as a reference point makes absolutely no sense. Reference point for what?

[Markus Klyver]

This is meaningless combinations of words. Sounds a bit like something Spirit Science would say.

[FromTheRafters]

Conway presented the following explanation :

Little did they suspect that they were correct -- the Earth is flat but
the 'space' it occupies is curved, distorted by the presence of its
great mass. An object in a perfect Earth orbit is traveling in a
'straight' line through 'space' and forever parallel to 'straight'
lines the Earth's surface.

--
For large enough (or non Euclidean) values of 'straight' :)

[FromTheRafters]

on 9/22/2017, Conway supposed :

Money for nothing, and chicks for free. Your mathematics is in dire
straights my friend. :)

[FromTheRafters]

After serious thinking conway wrote :

I disagree. Zero's real role is additive identity. One's real role is
multiplicative identity.

Going out on a limb...

Two is the first number. There is no need to count one thing, but when
you have 'another thing' you have what we now call two and sort of
'back define' one as how many you used to have. Seemingly a
mathematician would also have the concept of ratio (I have two times as
many as before) and the concept of addition (I have one more than
before) follow naturally. The concepts of 'another another thing' and
another 'nuther 'nuther thing and so on follows and one can use as many
symbols as we want to represent the new inductively discovered (or
created) numbers.

With the concept of ratio (I have twice as many as before) and the
addition notion, the inverses are desired, so we create (or discover)
the integers for addition and subtraction and the rationals for
multiplication and division.

Enter the reals:

After seemingly filling the whole number line (or space) they discover
(or invent) the 'number' squareroot of two. It's not on the line
anywhere, there must be spaces (holes) in our number line. To fill
these holes we define them as the spaces strictly between the rationals
and call the reals complete and continuous.

Additive exponentiation becomes deprecated due to multiplication, but
multiplicative exponentiation still means 'how many' elements are being
composited rather than 'how much' of some effect to apply. Geometry and
algebra conspire to create (or discover) a polar notation way to
describe newly discovered (or invented) complex numbers making use of
imaginary numbers and a 'how much' interpretation of exponentials.

The reals get named as such to distinguish them from the imaginary
numbers used in the complex plane.

Zero and one are fundamental building blocks, and there is no 'problem'
concerning them. There is a perceived problem though when students
think that Calculus only approximates answers due to the problem with
zero appearing as a denominator in a 'ratio' that need not ever be
calculated at all.

Good luck to you in your endeavor, and thanks for dumping that horrible
math forum in favor of Google Groups -- even though GG sucks compared
to a real NNTP client.

[Conway]

What?...are you saying value is separate from space?

[Conway]

Thanks for your time and replies.

[Peter Percival]

Conway wrote:

> Lol....actually I'm having a lot of fun here. I finally joined the
> google group and will start posting from here....I can pose
> multiplicative inverses for both zero and for 1 using the ideas I've
> previously discussed...you apparently "missed" that part and
> "division by zero"

Wheels are the place to divide by zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

> ....in any case quit bringing me up in this
> thread...its not fair to the original poster....talk to them and
> about their ideas....talk to me in my thread....
>

--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan

[Peter Percival]

Conway wrote:
> What?...are you saying value is separate from space?
>

Who knows? You haven't given a coherent account of either value of space.

[Peter Percival]

Conway wrote:

> I have 1 dollar...I divide it by 0 dollars...I still have one
> dollar......not an undefined....among other benefits....

How do you divide 1 dollar by any number of dollars (zero or not)? And
if it can be done, the answer should be dimensionless or a bare number.
(I'm using the word "dimension" is the sense of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis.)

[Dan Christensen]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:58:59 AM UTC-4, Conway wrote:

> > >
> > > I have 1 dollar...I divide it by 0 dollars...I still have one dollar......not an undefined....among other benefits....
> >
> >
> > So now 1/0 = 1??? Ah, then multiplying both sides by 0, you obtain 1=0???
> >
> > You are talking nonsense. Stick to bar-stool philosophy -- counting angels on the heads of pins, the meaning of life and all that. You will have much more fun. And it won't matter if you are right or wrong. This obsession of yours for division by zero can only lead to despair.
> >
>

> Lol....actually I'm having a lot of fun here.

You do seem to enjoy getting your butt kicked.

>I finally joined the google group and will start posting from here....I can pose multiplicative inverses for both zero

There is no solution to 0x=1. Your ignorance is showing.


> and for 1

1*1=1. OK.

> using the ideas I've previously discussed...you apparently "missed" that part and "division by zero"....in any case quit bringing me up in this thread

When you make idiotic comments like "mathematics is broken" or 1/0 = 1, you should expect to be vigorously challenged here EVERY time here, no matter how often you repeat them. Just ask JG, AP and WM. Do you really want to go down in the history of the internet as part that fraternity of washed-up losers? They have been trolling here and other math forums for decades now and have gotten nowhere.

[FromTheRafters]

Conway brought next idea :

> What?...are you saying value is separate from space?

Yes, a value is a mental construct distinct from anything 'real' which
may or may not possess that value. Numbers are in the mind whether
gleaned from outside relations (discovered) or simply 'made up' to help
us calculate results (invented). There are two schools of thought just
about equally spread throughout the minds of mathematicians. The
question which best describes this notion is "Is mathematics invented,
or discovered?" very respected mathematicians can be found ascribing to
each of these notions.

IMO it is best to divorce oneself from the notion that reality has
anything to do with mathematics aside from the obvious fact that the
current model seems to describe reality quite accurately.

[Conway]

Lol...i was being sarcastic....ive been in favor of space and value separate for many posts now....you can not claim a divorce of math and reality and then claim one describes the other

[Conway]

Lol...obviousley i don't care what fraternity you regulate me to...ive all Ready regulated you to troll....

Tip of the hat Dan

[Peter Percival]

FromTheRafters wrote:

> Enter the reals:
>
> After seemingly filling the whole number line (or space) they
> discover (or invent) the 'number' squareroot of two. It's not on the
> line anywhere, there must be spaces (holes) in our number line. To
> fill these holes we define them as the spaces strictly between the
> rationals and call the reals complete and continuous.

Really?

[John Gabriel]

For the first time I agree with you. Chuckle. But you are still a moron in my estimation. You just got lucky!

[FromTheRafters]

Conway expressed precisely :

> Lol...i was being sarcastic....ive been in favor of space and value separate
> for many posts now....you can not claim a divorce of math and reality and
> then claim one describes the other

Sure I can, and I just did. A description of the Mona Lisa is not the
Mona Lisa.

[FredJeffries]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 7:55:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Percival wrote:

> Wheels are the place to divide by zero.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

Or meadows
https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0823

[Conway]

Lol..you make my point...clearly a painting of the mona lisa...is not the description of it...but the description....DOES describe it....the description has everything to do with the painting.....unless you say the description is divorced from the painting which makes no sense.

[Markus Klyver]

Den fredag 22 september 2017 kl. 18:00:05 UTC+2 skrev Conway:
> Lol...i was being sarcastic....ive been in favor of space and value separate for many posts now....you can not claim a divorce of math and reality and then claim one describes the other

You have yet to tell us how 0 is a dimension. And please define the terms "value" and "dimension" in a rigorous and sensible sense.

[FromTheRafters]

Conway used his keyboard to write :

By divorce I meant that there can be things without existing
decriptions of them, and descriptions of things which don't exist. They
(place and value in this case) don't *have* to be together. Value has
an existence separate from space, that is, a number has a value despite
any inability to express it as an expanding decimal or some other
favorite representation, and they don't take up any room.

[Conway]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-5, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Conway used his keyboard to write :
> > Lol..you make my point...clearly a painting of the mona lisa...is not the
> > description of it...but the description....DOES describe it....the
> > description has everything to do with the painting.....unless you say the
> > description is divorced from the painting which makes no sense.
>
> By divorce I meant that there can be things without existing

> descriptions of them, and descriptions of things which don't exist. They

> (place and value in this case) don't *have* to be together. Value has
> an existence separate from space, that is, a number has a value despite
> any inability to express it as an expanding decimal or some other
> favorite representation, and they don't take up any room.

Well said!!!!!!!!! I agree in all regards here........so then 0 can be represented as just space......so then 0 can be represented as just value......and so to can all numbers.....That is exactly what ALLREADY happens in multiplication and division (except) regarding zero.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Zero is a name for No Quantity. Space would have no extension.
This is your absurdity... you make zero into a space quantity.
That belongs to the infinitely small. By the Continuum Hypothesis
based on the infinitely small can space extend.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Peter Percival]

Thank you for drawing my attention to that.

[Markus Klyver]

What do you mean by this, honestly? How is the continuum hypothesis related to physical space?