/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11631473
>shadow vs reflection of a shadow

Now can you say something of use?

>>11359590
>we might as well throw out everything to do with infinity too
Infinity is not a number, it is greater than assignable quantity. It cannot be quantified and has no standard of measure. So yes, there must also be a "greater language" to discuss than the one used specifically for quantifying. The alternative is to continue quantifying that which is not a quantity, which is fruitless. Use "0" as a placeholder if you must, but don't call it a number. It can't even do what number does; count things. It "non-counts what isn't there", which is the most rubbish, useless, illogical thing you could ever use.

>>11359599
>infinity is what proves there is no zero value, something that is infinite cannot have a zero value

Something that is infinite cannot have value whatsoever for it is not number. It is unquantifiable and has no bound to be limited by "A number" for it cannot end. There is no proof in the first place for zero having a value other than it being defined here and there, warped around meanings to what classifies as a number. Which is fine given that numbers and math is imaginary in the first place, but the fact still remains that there's this giant elephant in the room that's being used solely as a placeholder and doesn't actually represent anything taking place in reality. There is no "0" of something. It "is" or "is not" and if it "is not" then don't define it *as* zero, let alone define it at all. It's that simple.

>>11359605
It's the "what-is-a-black hole-to-physicists" equivalent. Out of the woodwork they will all come, all insisting that we talking about nothing.