/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10948723
What we're really talking about is whether or not a number has a multiplicative inverse. The multiplicative inverse for a number of a given set is the number which yields the multiplicative identity when multiplied by the first number.
The multiplicative identity for a given set is the number for which other numbers can be multiplied with and return themselves as an answer.
For the set of reals, 1 is the multiplicative identity (1*1=1, 2*1=2, etc.). The multiplicative inverse is 1/x for those numbers that have a multiplicative inverse in this set, and as you already know, 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse in this set i.e. there is no such number which can be multiplied by 0 to yield the multiplicative identity of 1.
For the set of clock hours, the multiplicative identity is also 1 (1*1=1, 2*1=2, etc.). The multiplicative inverse works a little differently with this set compared to the reals in contrast.
Going back to basics, we remember that multiplication is defined in terms of iterated addition. So with the reals 5*5=25 because 5+5=10, 10+5=15, 15+5=20, and 20+5=25.
But with clock hours, 5*5=1 because 5:00+5 hours=10:00, 10:00+5 hours=3:00, 3:00+5 hours=8:00, and 8:00+5 hours=1:00.
Given these starting premises, you'll find not only do numbers other than 0 not have multiplicative inverses in this set, but in fact there are exactly twice as many numbers in this set that don't have a multiplicative inverse (2,3,4,6,8,9,10, and 12) vs. the quantity of numbers that do have one (1,5,7,11). No matter how many hours you clock-multiply 2,3,4,6,8,9,10, or 12 by, you will never get to 1:00 e.g. 2 clock-multiplied can only ever yield 2,4,6,8,10, or 12 and 3 clock-multiplied can only ever yield 3,6, 9, or 12.
tl;dr Having numbers without multiplicative inverses (i.e. you can't make the answer 1 no matter what you multiply them by) is perfectly valid, and 0 happens to be that sort of case for the reals.

>>10947109
>risperidone
Enjoy your breast milk hormone producing brain tumors.
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/533771

>>10898831
>It's also correlated with a low IQ, too, so indulging in it actually makes you dumb.
That's not how correlation works.
Your chance of having sickle cell anemia and your chance of being arrested for a violent crime are both higher if you're black, which in turn means a high propensity for violent crime is correlated with sickle cell anemia. That doesn't mean you become less prone to violence if you get your sickle cell disease cured through a bone marrow transplant.

>>10874034
>what everyone already knows
You clearly don't know it because you keep on going back to saying shit like
>No fatty is benefiting
Or
>you are retarded as the day is long if you're going to act like that's all there is to it
Every fatty who learns to accept it's calories and not the other delusional exceptions they want to distract themselves with does benefit. You only don't benefit when you keep on dismissing calories and focusing on the +-100 calorie metabolism variance like what's already been covered here:
>>10870372
>So congratulations, you've raised awareness of how bones aren't fat and there's around one half of one percent of a chance your metabolism is so low and someone else's is so high that the difference between the two of you is one and a half of pic related.

>>10735170
>chess isn't complex

>>10648571 #
>They are just metabolized, or exxreted through urine and sweat.
>This is why calories are unimportant and insufficient to describe the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet.
>Literally claiming you can eat at a 3,000 calorie surplus and gain zero weight.

>>9101502
>>9101613
The standard cosmology model (Lambda-CDM) assumes the Copernican Principle. We're not special faggot, give it up and accept aliens are real.

>>8436622