Printable View
okay...you geniuses here have probably seen this before, but i'd like to see your thoughts on it...
as integers increase, their reciprocals get closer to zero.
ie:
1 5 25 125 ...
1 1/5 1/25 1/125 ...
...these numbers keep increasing to infinity, which, in theory, doesn't exist. so what is the reciprocal of infinity? :rolleyes:
infinity itself isn't a value. so you can't reciprocate it
Infinity is an idea, a concept, not an actual number.
That's why certain equations which would have an infinite, or several infinites... yield impossible results.
like
the whole .9999... = 1
.999... doesn't really exist, it's just an idea.
Zero. Where is the problem?Quote:
Originally posted by dolor
so what is the reciprocal of infinity?
So is everything else.Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
.999... doesn't really exist, it's just an idea.
so only natural numbers exist?Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
.999... doesn't really exist, it's just an idea.
Numbers do not exist. It is a mathematical concept, which we perceive. Get it?Quote:
Originally posted by dolor
so only natural numbers exist?
aah.. successfully turned it into a philosophical debate :)
So you think. Who's to say that mathematics and philosophy aren't interrelated?Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
aah.. successfully turned it into a philosophical debate :)
:D
Zero does not exist. Zero is inifinity. I have zero "insert something I do not have here". I could say this for infinite objects
Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
So you think. Who's to say that mathematics and philosophy aren't interrelated?
theoretically...everything is related. theoretically, i'm kicking all of you in the face right now.
If you are kicking us in the face, and no one is around to hear it, do we say ouch?Quote:
Originally posted by dolor
theoretically...everything is related. theoretically, i'm kicking all of you in the face right now.
I don't see what the problem is here, besides the definition of existence. Who's to say that ideas and concepts don't exist? Infinity exists and so does zero. The only thing you can say about infinity is that it isn't a number, and cannot be reciprocated, as bugz said. The only thing that you can say about both infinity and zero is that they are confusing us all.
Zero doesn't exist. The very definition of it is non existant.
you guys saying that nothing exists?
<opens new can of worms>
Time is another theoretical concept. It doesn't truly exist. I heard some one describe time as "an invention of man to prevent everything from happening all at once." -- Makes sense to me.....
Quote:
Originally posted by techgnome
<opens new can of worms>
Time is another theoretical concept. It doesn't truly exist. I heard some one describe time as "an invention of man to prevent everything from happening all at once." -- Makes sense to me.....
i like it
well mendhak, you might be right, but you couldn't stop it from happening :D
Time coexists with space. We are all too familiar with the three dimensional universe, but it is to be noted that we exist in a three dimensional universe in which time coexists with every aspect. The fact that it has only become a reference for us does not mean it is an invention. It merely means it is not understood well enough.Quote:
Originally posted by techgnome
<opens new can of worms>
Time is another theoretical concept. It doesn't truly exist. I heard some one describe time as "an invention of man to prevent everything from happening all at once." -- Makes sense to me.....
Intangibly, anything can exist.Quote:
Originally posted by dolor
you guys saying that nothing exists?
But 0 is denoting that a nonexistant is existing in that expression...Quote:
Originally posted by blindlizard
Zero doesn't exist. The very definition of it is non existant.
Time is simply something we've defined. It is man's invention. It's based on planetary rotation. Time does not exist. Change exists, we measure that change, that's all time is.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
Time coexists with space. We are all too familiar with the three dimensional universe, but it is to be noted that we exist in a three dimensional universe in which time coexists with every aspect. The fact that it has only become a reference for us does not mean it is an invention. It merely means it is not understood well enough.
Intangibly, anything can exist.
It would depend on the usage. 0 could simply be a measure. That's all math really is, manipulation of magnitude. 0 would simply be a non-existent magnitude.Quote:
Originally posted by nahya^^
But 0 is denoting that a nonexistant is existing in that expression...
I have zero dollars. Magnitudes are concepts we have defined.
It's like any other idea, language is full of intangible ideas.
If you're taking about physical tangibility then no numbers exist. Language would also not exist. It doesn't become existing until it's transcribed to a physical plane. Whether it be pencil and paper, or spoken word.
I disagree with that. Ever heard of space-time curvature? Time isn't based upon planetary rotation (where did you get that idea from?) I can understand where you get the notion of us inventing the concept, but if it were merely an invented concept, then we wouldn't move. We'd be stuck in a single frame of motion forever.Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Time is simply something we've defined. It is man's invention. It's based on planetary rotation. Time does not exist. Change exists, we measure that change, that's all time is.
Time does exist, but apparently not by your definition.
I have to correct myself here. We'd be stuck in a single frame of motion. Period. I believe I contradicted myself somewhat there (unknowingly, before you jump all over that post.)Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
We'd be stuck in a single frame of motion forever.
Zero has a definition...
...ze·ro
n. pl. ze·ros or ze·roes
The numerical symbol 0; a cipher.
Mathematics
The identity element for addition.
A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration.
An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin.
An argument at which the value of a function vanishes.
The temperature indicated by the numeral 0 on a thermometer.
A sight setting that enables a firearm to shoot on target.
Informal One having no influence or importance; a nonentity: a manager who was a total zero.
The lowest point: His prospects were approaching zero.
A zero-coupon bond.
Informal Nothing; nil: Today I accomplished zero.
adj.
Of, relating to, or being zero.
Having no measurable or otherwise determinable value.
Informal Absent, inoperative, or irrelevant in specified circumstances: "The town has . . . practically no opportunities for amusement, zero culture" (Robert M. Adams).
Meteorology
Designating a ceiling not more than 16 meters (52 feet) high.
Limited in horizontal visibility to no more than 55 meters (180 feet).
Linguistics Of or relating to a morpheme that is expected by an established, regular paradigm but has no spoken or written form. Moose has a zero plural; that is, its plural is moose.
tr.v. ze·roed, ze·ro·ing, ze·roes
To adjust (an instrument or a device) to zero value.
Phrasal Verbs:
zero in
To aim or concentrate firepower on an exact target location.
To adjust the aim or sight of by repeated firings.
To converge intently; close in: The children zeroed in on the display of toys in the store window.
zero out
To eliminate (a budget or budget item) by cutting off funding.
To reduce to zero.
I don't understand why most of you seem to think that abstract concepts can't exist.
All concepts are abstract and therefore don't exist.
Even whole numbers do not exist. They are just ideals, concepts. Generalisations that are consistant with an infinite number of finite instances.
I think you all need to get out more. :rolleyes:
You're an idiot.Quote:
Originally posted by mendhak
I disagree with that. Ever heard of space-time curvature? Time isn't based upon planetary rotation (where did you get that idea from?) I can understand where you get the notion of us inventing the concept, but if it were merely an invented concept, then we wouldn't move. We'd be stuck in a single frame of motion forever.
Time does exist, but apparently not by your definition.
1 year is one planetary revolution around the sun.
months are that period *12
days *30.4375
hours *24
minutes *60
seconds *60
How is time NOT based on planetary movement? There is no law that would support time is anything more than a constant that we've defined. Not one.
true year is a measurement of time, but year is not time. humans invented year, based on the revolution of earth around the sun. just like even though a foot or a meter is a measurement of distance, distance is not just feet or meters. humans invented these units to measure distance
if numbers and all this crap is just ideas as some of you say, why is there even a "maths" forum...math shouldn't even exist if what you say is true...it should all be philosophy then
Like bugz said, you confusing time with measurements of time, like asying distance doesn't exist because we invented the meter, or inch.
Oh, and astronauts going up *above the earth come back slightly younger (or was it older?) and with all their clocks off by a slight amount, a few seconds I believe.
it was older...and by the way, it's called "lack of gravity." look it up and see what it does.Quote:
Originally posted by alkatran
oh, and astronauts going up *above the earth come back slightly younger (or was it older?) and with all their clocks off by a slight amount, a few seconds I believe.
So you're all saying that anything invented by humans does not exist. For example, time, numbers, and other abstract concepts; but also computers, microwaves, houses, etc. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Kalkewl8ter
An instance of a house can exist but could you point to anyone house and declare that it encapsulates the entire concept of what it is to be a house? My house is probably very different from yours. There is a concept of "House" that encapsulates an infinite possibility of structures and is not defined by any singular instance.Quote:
So you're all saying that anything invented by humans does not exist. For example, time, numbers, and other abstract concepts; but also computers, microwaves, houses, etc. This makes no sense whatsoever.
The same applies to whole numbers except they are even more abstract. Point to a "1"...You can't do it. You could point to one orange or one apple but all you are doing is pointing to an orange or an apple respectively. The piece of fruit itself does not convey the number one any more than it conveys the english word "fruit".
These are labels, categories, ideas and concepts that have no physical existance. Or, more precisely, there is no physical object that is the sum of the whole concept. The concept is always (infinitely) greater than the physical instance.
time DOES exist... we just named it time... I agree with Mendhak on this one... if man was never around time would still go on... we created units in which to MEASURE time... but if we didn't.. it would still progress. We just gave time (which is said to be infinite) units of measurement like minutes and hours...based on the earths rotation...Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
You're an idiot.
1 year is one planetary revolution around the sun.
months are that period *12
days *30.4375
hours *24
minutes *60
seconds *60
How is time NOT based on planetary movement? There is no law that would support time is anything more than a constant that we've defined. Not one.
if you really want to learn about this stuff read A Brief History of Time by Steve Hawking... it will make your head spin...
"These are labels, categories, ideas and concepts that have no physical existance. Or, more precisely, there is no physical object that is the sum of the whole concept. The concept is always (infinitely) greater than the physical instance."
your point being???
If anyone were to read your post, you'd be the VBFidiot. :)Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
You're an idiot.
1 year is one planetary revolution around the sun.
months are that period *12
days *30.4375
hours *24
minutes *60
seconds *60
How is time NOT based on planetary movement? There is no law that would support time is anything more than a constant that we've defined. Not one.
If time is based upon planetary movement, then WHICH planet? Are you aware how ridiculous your concept is?
Time is not at all based on planetary movement. What about the Sun? What about at quasars and black holes? If the rotation of earth were to slow down, would that slow down time all over the universe?
If you've read enough, then you'll know about the effects of travelling at high speeds upon time. In one example, three synchronized atomic clocks were put to an experiment. One was left stationary on earth, and the other two were placed in two separate airplanes which flew around the earth in opposite directions at the same speed. After flying around, they were compared and they were all asynchronous.
The reason is speed. As speed of an object increases, relative time slows down and the ageing process of the object is inhibited. (Dolor: you need to recheck your facts). An astronaut returning from an orbit of earth will return younger as compared to us, even if it is by a few seconds. An object travelling at sublight speeds may experience a few seconds of time, while it may be thousands of years for us.
I couldn't have reccommended a better book :DQuote:
Originally posted by kleinma
if you really want to learn about this stuff read A Brief History of Time by Steve Hawking... it will make your head spin...