/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7578367]

0 = nothing
1 = something
0 + 0 = 0
nothing + nothing = nothing
1 + 1 = 1 and 1
something + something = something and something

all other numbers are irrelevant, and only create by humans to make math easy

[Anonymous No.7578370]

what about subtraction, division, and multiplication?

[Anonymous No.7578381]

>>7578370

1 - 1 = 0 or 1..
something - something = nothing or either part of something, with is still something

1 x 1 = something
same as
1 and 1 and 1 and 1 x 1 and 1 and 1 = something, something, something....

1/1 = 0 or 1, nothing or part of something, which is still something

[Anonymous No.7578386]

>>7578381
how do we know something is different than nothing?

how do we know when we have something, but it might be nothing, or visa versa?

[Anonymous No.7578392]

>>7578386
"something" will always be "nothing", but in order to create "something" we have to give specific value to "nothing" in order to differentiate it from "nothing", thus creating the false seance of "something" where that "something" is only relevant to what value we give it

[Anonymous No.7578399]

>>7578392
but with that logic than
0 = 0
and 1 = 0
than why cant 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 exist if its just multiples of nothing that

[Anonymous No.7578413]

>>7578399
because we use 1 to identify difference from things that are the same but need to be identified differently in order to achieve a goal, thus giving a specific form of nothing value, creating the illusion of something
but 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 are just multiples of the object we give value

is something different than something, something, something, and something?

is 9 different than 1? or is 9 just 8 more 1s?

[Anonymous No.7578423]

>>7578392
>>7578413
but wouldn't that mean 9 would have more value than 1 since it has multiple 1s in it?

does everything have equal value by this logic?

[Anonymous No.7578429]

>>7578423
if something has more value than it inherently had, than is it a whole new value, the the same value but with multiples of it?

[Anonymous No.7578439]

>1 poster

Anon, go to bed.

[OHP No.7578444]

I'm surprised at how wise of a shitposter you are, OP. Lawvere formalized some of Hegel's ontological work using the idempotent monad constant on the point (out of some suitable category of spaces). Basically, iterating the process of becoming yields becoming again. It formalizes the notion of "the quality of being combined with itself is just once again the quality of being."

http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Dasein

[Anonymous No.7578449]

>>7578439
:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

[Anonymous No.7578455]

>>7578439
haha holy fuck

[Anonymous No.7578465]

>>7578444
thanks, i was thinking about this and how humans use numbers to identify the programming of the universe, like how everything has to abide by the laws of physics

it just amazes me how we as human beings can identify this programmed universe we live in so accurately, and shit, 50 years form now it will be X more accurate than how well we can identify it now.

now what im thinking is ho did the big bang occur if everything ultimately equates to nothing, which might mean if you have nothing for googolplexs beyond googolpexs og millennials

does that nothing create something?
or is something an illusion of nothing?