[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 7 KB, 252x288, zero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1934881 No.1934881 [Reply] [Original]

Why math cannot be perfect?

>> No.1934894

>implying 0/=perfection

>> No.1934900

I'd say math is perfect, but cannot be complete. Check out this Wikipedia article for the reasons why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel%27s_incompleteness_theorem

>> No.1934905

>>1934900

thank you, that was just what I was looking for

>> No.1934911

>>1934900
The only thing that can be complete is something thats infinite and finite at the same time i.e. zero.

>> No.1934917

Math cannot be perfected because humans look at it backwards. Science is fallacious reasoning and your basic assumptions for numbers are incorrect.

>> No.1934932

>>1934911
> implying zero is infinite

>> No.1934934

Math is perfect you just have to play by the rules

>> No.1934940

>>1934932
>implying you understand the concept of zero

>> No.1934941

math is just a game; quit looking to it for answers

>> No.1934942

>>1934932
0, is not nothing, it is something. The fact that you observe nothing in your hand after subtracting an object does not, in fact, mean you are holding nothing. Quantum wells should be more than enough proof that nothing is everything.

>> No.1934946

http://xkcd.com/435/

>> No.1934964

>>1934932
0=whatever there was 'before' the big bang. Hint: it's not really nothing.

>> No.1934978

0=undivided

>> No.1934997

Ah this little circle shaped bastard...

>> No.1935019

Why should it be perfect? Math is just a tool.

>> No.1935035

>>1935019
Math is a discovery of logic around you -- not necessarily logic itself.

>> No.1935045
File: 11 KB, 300x306, ouroboros.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1935045

>> No.1935079

It's not that math is not perfect, it's that perfection is not math...

>> No.1935139

People generally believe that 0+0=0. How can they prove this? There's no way to test it using the scientific method. It's an assumption.

>> No.1935157 [DELETED] 

>>1935139
0 is the identity element for +, so 0 + x = 0 for all x, including 0 itself.

>> No.1935161

>>1935139
0 is the identity element for +, so 0 + x = x for all x, including 0 itself.

>> No.1935171

Lets say that zero is a certain area of space where nothing exsists, if I take that empty area and add another empty area to it, I have twice as much zero.

>> No.1935175

>>1935171
Mathfags=told

>> No.1935176

>>1935139
>math
>scientific method.

wat
>>1935161
This guy has it, 0 is the additive identity.

>> No.1935177

math contains 0
0 represents nothing
nothing is perfect
math contains perfection
math is perfect

>> No.1935182

>>1935171
how will you add it? by measuring nothing and putting nothing beside it?

>> No.1935191

>>1935182
No, you could measure the space inbetween things i.e. nothing and add that space to another area of space. Simple.

>> No.1935202

>>1935191
but zero was a certain space, how is that certain space gonna add up?
by exactly copying nothing or by naming the second nothing also nothing?

>> No.1935205

"Why something rather than nothing?" This is a fundamental philosophical question.

Point 0 is a state of non-existence.

>> No.1935208

But that point 0, is something, it is everything.

>> No.1935217

>>1935191
Yea just enlarge the universe a little by adding a little bit of nothing!

>> No.1935220

>>1935202
In that case 0=1. Unless there are other realities with other zeros which can be added toghether in the reality they create by the fact that there are multiple instances of them, creating multiple zeros.

>> No.1935238

>>1935177

Sure is equivocation in here.

>> No.1935239

0 = 1?
1 = 1
2 = 1 + 1
3 = 1 + 1 + 1
4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
0 = 0

>> No.1935253

>>1935202
You see, 1=0 unless it has another "1" to be compared to to confirm it's 1. 1=0. 2=1+1. 0+0=1. Reality exsists because at least two nothings came together to make something.

>> No.1935268

>>1935239
Thats wrong, 1=0. 2=1+1, but one by itself = zero.

>> No.1935270

>>1935253
you again? so god is zero? or at least two gods? wtf are you trying to say??

>> No.1935273

>>1935268
1 doesn't exist.

>> No.1935284

>>1935268
so 0.5 does not exist?

>> No.1935293

Every statement in math requires proof (if you want it to be true) or is required to be accepted as an axiom.
These posts I reject as axioms, and so require proof:
>>1934911
>>1934917
>>1934934
>>1934942
>>1934964
>>1934978
>>1935177
>>1935205
>>1935208
>>1935239
>>1935253
Also, there are a lot of people trying to apply philosophy to math. It doesn't quite work like that.
Math plays by its own rules, and if you aren't playing by those rules, you aren't doing math.

>> No.1935298

>>1935293
>>1935293
this times a million

>> No.1935300

>>1935284
1 = 8
0.75 is 6
0.5 is 4.
0.25 is 2
0 = 0

I may be wrong, I still have to research this.

>> No.1935333

>>1935270
Use you're brain. If there was just one of something how would you confirm it's one without having a second one to compare it to? Think of it like this. If the whole universe was one voxel in size and it was occupied by an entity that was also one voxel in size, how could you say it exsisted? There would need to at least be one voxel of 'nothing' and one voxel of 'something' for it to exsist. You see what I mean? You can't have on without off.

>> No.1935335

>>1935300

So, so flawed.

>> No.1935339

>>1935171
>Lets say that zero is a certain area of space where nothing exsists, if I take that empty area and add another empty area to it, I have twice as much zero.

You're placing a finite value on your number 0, said area. Doubling the area would double the finite value of your number 0, but not the actual understood value of nothing, aka 0. You can't have "more nothing" you either have nothing or something. Think binary.

>> No.1935348

>>1935333
>Use you're brain. If there was just one of something how would you confirm it's one without having a second one to compare it to? Think of it like this. If the whole universe was one voxel in size and it was occupied by an entity that was also one voxel in size, how could you say it exsisted? There would need to at least be one voxel of 'nothing' and one voxel of 'something' for it to exsist. You see what I mean? You can't have on without off.

Most people understand that two objects can not occupy the same space. Therefore an object of voxel size must be independent of an object also of voxel size.

>> No.1935367

>>1935335
I'm a Cubician, however, how is it flawed?

>> No.1935368

>>1935284
Really, when you get right down to it, no. 0.5 is just another way of say 1, you're just breaking the 1's down into smaller 1's.

>> No.1935386

Again, you are all backwards. Infinity exists inbetween the cardinal numbers. 0 and 1 are infinismall larger than infinity.

>> No.1935395

>>1935348
because i'm bored, I'm going to refute your intuition, at least within mathematics.
Q and R-Q are both dense sets, both are contained in R and are unique. The dense property is the interesting one, because you have two sets, in the same place, which cover the space (there is one arbitrarily close to any point), that are entirely independent (share no elements).

An example I don't understand as well is the splitting ball problem, based on the axiom of choice. you can cut a sphere into 5 pieces, rearrange the pieces into two separate whole spheres. So you can overlay two spheres, once cut into pieces, to take up the same space, without overlap.

captcha: nation psyince

>> No.1935403

>>1935348
What you just said is true AND it doesn't disagree with my post, it just assumes that a voxel of nothing is actually something.

>> No.1935405

>>1934934
If there are rules then it is not perfect.

>> No.1935414

>>1935368
yes, but you first recognize something as 1, then you can split it
by your reasoning you could also recognize 2 as 1

>> No.1935416

Depends on if you see math as existing independently of what we observe...if you see an asian girl getting DP'd, are the two penises you see different from the concept we represent in writing as the numeral 2...being able to abstract everyday concepts is a key human skill, but is it like connected to reality and just mimics the causality reconfiguration and joining together we see in the everyday world...like in a gangbang an asian girl has a dick in her ass and pussy and mouth simultaneously but does the gangbang as an idea germinate from some inner knowledge about space and time and discrete and continuous objects and exist seprarately from, say, some proto-man, accidentally fingering his mate in the butt one day.

>> No.1935435

Why you guys do single-mathematics for when you're intelligent enough to compute cubic-mathematics?

>> No.1935462

>>1935339
See this post >>1935333
1 in binary is only something if you have something to compare it to. An empty voxel is no more something by itself than a full voxel is.

>> No.1935469

>>1935171
that's prolly the reason why they say 0 isn't nothing.

>> No.1935472

>>1935414
0sub1 = 0sub2 = 1
0sub1+0sub2+0sub3=2
0sub1+0sub2 = 1

One infinity divided in half is "Two Infinity".
As you continue the process you will see that the original infinity gets smaller compared to all of the other equal sized infinities. They are set apart by literally 'nothing', because "Nothing is greater than Infinity".

As you see, this logical revelation automatically has the properties of relativity.

>> No.1935488

>>1935414
Circular logic, recognising 0.5 as half of 1 is no different than recognising 2 as 1.

>> No.1935505

>>1935293
Fucking this. Also, you need to define everything you use if you want to prove something. "Math is perfect" has no sense whatsoever unless you define "perfect".

>> No.1935537

>>1935488
not really, once 1 has been established, you'll have 2 when it's copied

>> No.1935561

>>1935505
Yeah and the fact that you need to define zero proves that zero is something. Zero is one zero, one is one one, but only when accompanied by one zero. Zero by itself doesn't exsist and neither does one by itself. True nothing can't exsist, thats a logical fallacy.

>> No.1935574
File: 7 KB, 300x300, 31K2EHzGdsL._SL500_AA300_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1935574

OP, if you're interested in a more serious answer than what /sci/ can give you, I suggest reading "The Philosophy of Mathematics" by Auguste Comte, translated by W.M. Gillespie.

It explains a lot of issues you are asking questions about.

Pic related

>> No.1935587

>>1935561
0 is the name given to the identity element in groups. Nothing more.

>> No.1935595

>>1935537
When you say "not really", do you mean in reality or in the make believe world of incorrect mathmatics? In reality you can't actually have 0.5 of a whole thing otherwise it wouldn't be a whole thing in the first place. The smallest division in reality is between 1 and 0.

>> No.1935598

Perfection's quanta is one's-self.

>> No.1935601

>>1935587
<span class="math">0 \cdot 3 = 3[/spoiler]?

>> No.1935607

>>1935595
I don't think I need to explain it to you

>> No.1935611

>>1935601
I meant the additive identity. And yes, 0+3=3.

>> No.1935641

>>1935587
So you're admitting that in reality 0 is a thing, but for the purposes of an equation it's easier just to think of it as "not a thing" because trying to think of nothing as the absence of something is less of a mindfuck than it being the exsistence of a unit of nothing? btw I think "absence of something" is much more confusing.

>> No.1935653

>>1935607
uh huh

>> No.1935681

Wait a minute, I see what's going on here guys. Those Indians really fucked up when they invented the concept of zero because to say zero exsists is obviously a logical fallacy, we would be much better of sticking with -1.

>> No.1935684

>>1935641
You need to stick to the definition instead of adopting a point of view coming from common philosophical interpretations. Otherwise you won't be able to do anything.

>> No.1935686

>>1935681
Indians = Aztecs

>> No.1935718
File: 231 KB, 640x480, 1226576872197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1935718

lol @ bad mathfags.

The "regular" mathematics we use that define 0 + x = x
(proof follows form the axiom (a+b)+c = a+(b+c),
0 + x = 7 - 7 + x etc )

it is really no problem to construct an "alternate" reality, where 0 + x = 0 or something like that.
but you need to start from the bottom and work out theorems for what that actually means.

The axioms we use in math today are the ones that give us numbers that correspond to (most) cases in the real world, and give as few singular / worthless results.

also: just because alot of mathematicians have been philosophers as well doesnt mean math = philosophy.

Just means people have had a knack for thinking principles. Dont mix philosophy into it, math is its own philosophy.

>wat does multiplication by zero mean?
> multiplication by zero. QED

>> No.1935725

>>1935684
For the purposes of an equation they'd both come up with the same answer. It's how you interpret the answer to the equation that's important, because if it doesn't correspond with reality then what's the point?

>> No.1935726

Math is a creation by the human mind using human logic.
There is no perfect human being, therefore Math cannot be perfect.

>> No.1935737

>mfw the universe doesn't conform to logic

>> No.1935752

>>1935737
Math=irrelevant

>> No.1935794

OP's original question was "Why math cannot be perfect?". The answer is, it can. It just has to have a factual base in reality, which it doesn't at the moment.

>> No.1935824

first define perfect, before you use it ?

>> No.1935864

to define perfect, you must first invent the universe

>> No.1935919

>>1935824
Something that's perfect is a version of something that can't be improved upon. Seeing as math doesn't mirror reality exactly, it can be improved and isn't perfect. Because 0 is the concept of the exsistance of nothing(which is impossible) and not the absence of something(-1), math is imperfect. To make math perfect just replace 0 with -1.

>> No.1935949
File: 51 KB, 730x411, 1287761337515.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1935949

>>1935919

>> No.1935974

>>1935919
Also, you can't have fractions as they are nonsensical.

>> No.1936032

>>1935919
1-1=-1, it's sooo fucking obvious.

>> No.1936088

And the reason 1-2 wouldn't work is because it doesn't work in reality. If Jimmy has 1 apple, you can't take 2 apples off him because that's retarded.

>> No.1936112
File: 111 KB, 639x800, 1283307081526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1936112

Lawl at scientists trying to work out a "theory of everything" using a system of mathmatics that doesn't even mirror reality.

>> No.1936126

>>1934881

why do you care

>> No.1936137

>>1936126
I think the question should be more, if you don't care why are you even in this thread?

>> No.1936143

>>1934881
>>1934881
>>1934881

math is just the way humans try to interpret the universe. the real question is then whether the universe is perfect.

>> No.1936155

0/Infismall = .00...1
Infismall/0 = .999...
0/0 = 1
0/1 = 2

>> No.1936167

>>1936143
Obviously it is until we have another universe to compare it to, or a concept of another universe that's superior to our own(note: this would require a "theory of everything", how can we begin to contemplate whether the universe is perfect unless we understand it completely?).

>> No.1936199

>>1936143
Math needs to "perfectly" mirror reality before we can start to decide if reality is perfect.

>> No.1936386

The fact that math can never be complete is a GOOD thing for its application.

>> No.1936439

>>1936155
>0/Infismall = .00...1
for any x except x=0 0/x = 0
>Infismall/0 = .999...
where did you get this one? you can not get a specific number when you divide by 0, because 0*x must be 0
>>0/0 = 1
even if the last one even was true, google limit
>>0/1 = 2
see first one
this topic reeks of misinformation and rule breaking

>> No.1936440

>>1934900
Godel was a great; as was his modal proof of God.

>> No.1936449

>>1936199
reality = the greatest RNG in existence.
i propose the deeper we try to understand reality, the closer we are to that wall of the random and unpredictable

>> No.1937366

>>1936449
Your're not getting what I'm saying. See these posts.>>1935794
>>1935919
>>1935974
>>1936032
>>1936088
>>1936112
>>1936167
>>1936199
The bits of math that don't conform to reality are the concept of 0, fractions and subtracting an amount that's > a number from that number to get a negative number. Negative numbers can only be achieved like this 1-1=-1, 2-2=-2, 3-3=-3 (this is instead of 0)etc. The concepts of 0, fractions and subtracting 2 from 1 are nonsensical i.e. they don't mirror reality so are of no use and only end up confusing things. For fractions look at it like this. In reality if you were to take half an apple and you added another half an apple to it you'd have a whole apple, but you haven't defined where each half comes from, do they come from 2 seperate apples? It might not sound important but it is, if the 2 halves are from 2 seperate apples, in reality you still have 2 apple halves floating around being ignorned making any kind of all-encompassing equation you want to make incorrect.

>> No.1937395

>>1937366
i.e. you can't say what is a fraction and what isn't until you define reality completely, either you find the smallest whole, which would be 1 and all other numbers multiples of it, or no such thing as a smallest whole exsists and all numbers are fractions. You can find whether a smallest whole exsists by working backwards from the assupmtion that it does, but not from the assumption that it doesn't as you wouldn't be open to the possibility. You can assume something does exsist and find out it doesn't, but if you assume something doesn't exsist you'll never realise if it does or not.

>> No.1937420

The concept of 0 doesn't exsist, it implies the exsistence of nothing(impossible). A more acurrate term would be the absence of something(-1). Modern mathmatics is based on faulty reasoning and can never explain reality because it tries to incorporate concepts that are foriegn to reality.

>> No.1937433

>>1937420
what's defines "reality"

>> No.1937470

For example if you took the code that controls the universe and replaced all the instasnces of -x with 0, every time something moved from one location to another it would create paradox causing the universe to contradict itself and implode or something, logic would fly out the window, there would be no distinction between nothing and something as they would both exsist in the same place and be the same thing, there would be no reality.

>> No.1937504

>>1937433
At least 2 things existing together, each being able to be compared to the other and each being proof of the others existence. Nothing by it's very definition can't exist, whenever there isn't something it's exactly that, the concept of minus something not the existence of nothing. For nothing to exsit would automatically make it a something. Nothing can't exist as a concept, the absence of something can exist just fine as long as something exists along side it to compare it to. In reality 0=-1.

>> No.1937558

Math that doesn't mirror and isn't used to explain reality serves no purpose. Whether mathfags like it or not, philosophy is integral to math. If math is a tool to understand reailty, then it needs conform to reality. It's like trying to use a phillips-head screwdriver an a slotted screw.

>> No.1937575

Until mathematicians deny the existance of 0, they're no better than christians claiming evolution is false because the bible says so.

>> No.1937599

>>1937575
I define 0 to be the element of a field which has the property: 0+x=x ∀x

>> No.1937614

>placeholder

>> No.1937633
File: 7 KB, 252x240, 1283871134254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1937633

>>1937599
If you are trying to claim your 0 has a meaning other than the concept 0, why even use 0 at all?

When you ask someone to think of nothing they get confused. Nothing doesn't exist and you certainly can't think about it. What they really mean is the absence of thought which is not thinking about something, not, thinking of nothing.

>> No.1937692

>>1937633
0 has no meaning other than a number in a set, which can be operated on. For the normal field, in R, 0 has two simple properties. 0*a=0 ∀a and 0+x=x ∀x. Any application or connection you make between this 0 and your concept of nothing is your won.

>> No.1937722

>>1937692
So then why confusingly name something something that it isn't? The word zero (0) already exists, it's used (whether people realise it or not) to describe a paradoxical situation. 0 has it's own definition. Any application or connection YOU make between actual 0 and your concept of 0 is YOUR own.

>> No.1937732

>>1937722
by your logic, why does the word "nothing" exist?

>> No.1937742

105 replies arguing about the number zero which OP obviously posted to create shitstorm.

You guys are idiots, all hope in this board is lost

>> No.1937756

>>1937732
No, the word nothing exists to describe a paradox. Paradoxes don't exist in reality and the only reason words exist to describe them is because people are fond of flawed, nonsensical ways of thinking.

>> No.1937765

>>1937742
Just because OP is an idiot doesn't mean we shouldn't use this opportunity to have an interesting discussion.

>> No.1937823

tl;dr - 1 is just a symbol holding no meaning outside of mathematics until a unit is assigned to it such as 1 apple. or 1 bushel of zebolbroxi

to long stopped reading after about 10 minutes.

I think it is interesting that many people are comparing apples and oranges.
1=1
how ever 1 apple != 1 orange.

many of the posts are trying to assign a unit to 0 or to 1 in order to conceptualize it however from the perspective of math these are just symbols in a set with rules for manipulating them... 0 is the additive identity and 1 is the multiplicative identity (aka unity)

I suppose you could call 1 an axiom in and of it self if you decided that even the numbers and sets of symbols used by mathematics are not truly unit-less but rather bear the unit of 1.
as in 3 means three ones.
5 means five ones.
much in the same why you can have 1 apple. or 1 "something" or 1 voxel

0, and 1 in mathematics are symbols that denote the previously stated concepts, and do not themselves exist in the 'real' world. you can never have a 1 in your hand; you would have 1 of something in your hand.

>> No.1937875
File: 28 KB, 499x376, 1284246996290.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1937875

>>1934911

>> No.1937904

>>1937823
Pro tip: read the whole thread