[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 236 KB, 528x438, 1646999302727.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20326604 No.20326604[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

If you divide a number by zero, you get zero. Any given number can be accurately characterizes as "not-nothing", and zero is nothing. Therefore, in theory, there is no nothing in not-nothing, otherwise not-nothing would be nothing and not not-nothing. There is no nothing in something (not-nothing), merely the absence of something (or some given thing) in something that could more accurately be characterized as the nothing of that thing, since it's not there to be (something, that is). Further, when you really think about it, as a nothing of that thing, that nothing is arbitrarily attached to the thing in our particular case, so you can't responsibly ascribe the nothing to that particular something, as it's simply nothing, not some thing to be referenced, a not-nothing. Since nothing has no recognized bounds, limitations, or units of measurement, it is infinite, thus there are infinite nothings in all instantiations of somethings or not-nothings, infinite somethings really (including somethings that are presently nothings to accommodate the future or past tenses). As there are infinite nothings in infinite finite somethings, and nothing, again, is characterized by the infinite continuation of the absence of something (alternatively, just not-nothing), all somethings are in actuality, by definition, nothings, so there is no defensible differentiation that can drawn between nothing and something. They are one and the same. Existence is a parodoxical entity.

>> No.20326628

>frog poster
Didn’t read
*closes thread*

>> No.20326639
File: 77 KB, 702x619, 1649541843860.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20326639

>>20326628
There is nothing to close, you will always be in this thread, whether you like it or not. Being is an ephemeral illusion. Don't you see?

>> No.20326739

>>20326604
>If you divide a number by zero, you get zero
dumbass nigga

>> No.20326787

>>20326604
No, you are wrong.
Nothing is the absence of something.

>> No.20326804

>>20326604
>If you divide a number by zero, you get zero
stopped reading there you stupid fucking retarded frogposter

>> No.20327084

If a/ 0 = 0 for any real number a where a!=0
this would imply 0*0 = a
which is not possible since 0*b (where b is any real number) = 0 (via the multiplicative property of zero)
Thus a contradiction is reached implying a/0 = 0 is false.

>> No.20327111

>>20327084
Metaphysics is superior to math bugman.Logic has not place here only intuitions of pure being. Go back to /sci/ where you belong

>> No.20327123

>>20326604
>>>/sci/

>> No.20327129
File: 31 KB, 600x548, 1639900446953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20327129

>>20326739
>>20326804
I'm using a new methodology I invented, not the arbitrary, hopelessly abstract constraints of formal mathematics. You can call it Epistemic Mathematics if you like. Do you disagree that a given thing has no nothing contained within it. by nature of being something in the first place? If not how would you define it? Being and non-being are twin faces of the same coin.

>>20326787
I don't see how that assertion conflicts with any of the premises of my argument above.

>>20327084
This is an excellent example of the fallacies contained within mathematical systems. By the constraints of their system, a/0 = 0 should be equivalent to 0*0 = a, when in the real world, that logic does not apply. It only makes sense within the artificial constructs of self-limiting parameters.