Proving a Negative
Technically, it is impossible to prove anything; there is always the possibility that everything we know is wrong, or a lie, that we are part of a collective subconscious creating a reality alternate to that of the true universe, without the same rules and laws of physics; as long as there is still a shred of doubt that we don't possess all the knowledge in the universe, there is always the potential we are wrong. Even if we did hypothetically obtain all the knowledge in the universe, there would always be the question of how we knew, for certain, that we knew all the knowledge in the universe (all the knowledge in the universe could be knowing that we know, although this would still be impossible to prove). In essence, it is impossible to, with absolutely certainty, prove anything.
We can get within reasonable doubts, however. Negatives tend to be very difficult to prove; that is, the absence of something. While one could not for instance, prove the existence of the universe, one could not disprove it either. While it would be easy to provide evidence for it's existence, evidence for it's non-existence could perhaps be nothing, which would essentially provide no proof. It is true that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, evidence of absence is possible to provide. It is not true that negatives cannot be proven, nor is it true by the same token that a lack of evidence is proof of existence.
How would one prove a negative? To prove God doesn't exist, one would seemingly need to first obtain all the knowledge in the universe, rooting out the existence of God by proving that, in the body of evidence of everything, God was not there. As described above, since this is essentially impossible, it would be impossible to prove God didn't exist unless we had completely knowledge about the universe. However, proof God exists would not require proof of all of the universe; thus, the location, the actions, the current state of every atom, higgs boson, curve in spacetime is not necessary to prove the existence of God, while it is necessary to prove the lack of an existence of God. Some will fallaciously use this as an excuse to state why they cannot prove their point, or even worse suggest that the burden of proof lies on the one claiming the existence of God (although claiming the non-existence of God ironically also demands proof, no less so than claiming cats do not exist). The burden of proof rests on all of mankind; believing in no God without proof of a lack of existence, is just as illogical as believing in a God without the proof of existence. Without evidence, we can make no assumptions. It is incorrect, and illogical then to assume anything without proof, and given that the truth remains the truth regardless of human knowledge, the burden of proof is present on everyone, as no-one is abstained from the truth.
Still, what of Negatives? How would someone prove the lack of existence?
While this is more or less impossible, it is possible to prove within a reasonable shadow of a doubt that something does not exist. How would one for instance, prove something was not the color green? By virtue of it's exclusionary properties, we can conclude that something could not be two colors at the same time, I.E. red and green. Since something can only possess a single color, at least according to the electromagnetic spectrum, only possessing on wavelength and frequency, there is no possible way that something could in fact be green and red at the same time. If a factor excludes information, in that by virtue of being something, it cannot be something else, we can provide evidence for the existence of something, which by that nature invalidates the existence of something else. In physics for instance, two objects cannot take up the same space at the same time; as a result, by the presence of matter, we can prove that no other object could possibly there, thus proving a negative. We can disprove a wide range of qualities by innate truths pertaining to a subject. While this is still impossible to prove (since we cannot prove anything beyond 100% certainty, given that there will always be doubt), this evidence, is considered acceptable, in theory could disprove the existence of a particular attribute. This can be applied to many things; based on biology, a creature could not be both a cat and a dog at the same time. By proving it is a cat, we disprove that it is a dog; by proving for instance, Big foot was actually a man in a suit, or a bear, we prove that, in this particular case, Big foot does not exist. Thus while we can never truly prove any point, it is hypothetically possible without proving everything in the universe first that something does not exist.
Therefore it is within the realms of possibility to realistically prove or disprove a negative. It is hardly an excuse for the lack of evidence for your position, whatever it may be.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Negative Probability
Negative Probability
Negative probability seems impossible; while there can be a probability something will happen, and zero probability of something happening, negative probability doesn't necessarily imply anything. While quintessential to string theory, suggesting that there must be more dimensions since negative probability isn't possible, means that you could resolve a potentially very important aspect of string theory without needing extra dimensions.
But before determining if negative probability is even possible, we have to determine what probability is. Probability is the chance something will happen; if there are different 8 colors, say green, red, and so on, then the chance of it landing on green is 1/8. If there are two greens on another spinner toy, and we spin it around, and it randomly lands on a color, then there is a 2/8 chance of it landing on green, and so on. A chance of it not landing on green would be 7/8 or 6/8, respectively. Probability is more or less the chance something will happen.
According to wikipedia, "Probability is a measure or estimation of likelihood of occurrence of an event. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen). The higher the degree of probability, the more likely the event is to happen, or, in a longer series of samples, the greater the number of times such event is expected to happen."[1]
Probability, ultimately, is inconclusive, and not an exact science. The chance something will happen does not mean it will happen. Hypothetically, the chance you'll land on heads when flipping a coin is 50%. If you flip a coin 10 times, you may however, land on heads 10 times, or land on tails 10 times. The chance of this happening is remote, but still very possible. In the same way, you could flip a coin 10,000 times, and have it never land on tails, and so on. Probability is interesting in that it ,by itself, isn't really an explanation for an event, just it's likelihood. This makes mathematical probability somewhat paradoxical, as mathematics is meant to be empirical, or exactly concrete, while probability is still questionable.
This leads to numerous issues in mathematical calculations. In fact, mathematics, in human use, in it's own right, is imperfect at explaining the real world; as mathematics is nothing more than human input, and human input is likely never perfect, the outcome will always be a close estimation to the answer. When we do calculations, say in calculating trajectory, we typically come up with two answers; generally, a negative answer, and a positive one. Since the curved trajectory uses X^2, or X squared, it means that the number could be positive, or negative. The human application of mathematics tells us to throw out answers that seem erroneous, and thus that likely couldn't exist in real life; we take the fact that an upwards arcing trajectory is what we're looking for, instead of the bottom one, since we are trying to calculate for instance, the effect of gravity, which is always pushing down when on earth. In fact, this same type of principle is what makes a negative probability a factor to ignore in string theory.
But what if there was a negative probability; what if, probability, already in it's own right, isn't a mathematical concept. It is impossible to divide by zero within mathematics because zero is merely a concept; it would be like trying to divide 8 by apples, or gravy, it's fundamentally impossible. Or it might be like negative zero, which has no sign to begin with (as it's neither positive nor negative). But what if, then, we as humans are simply doing the calculation wrong; what if negative probability stands for an idea or concept we are simply glossing over?
What would negative probability then, be? The probability something can't happen, or probability something won't happen? So, the negative probability of something landing on green would be 7/8; since the probability something won't happen is the opposite of the probability something will happen, it could just be that negative probabilities are opposites of regular probabilities; since it can be represented in a positive way, probabilities of which are defined as a concept of a chance of something happening between 0-100, then it's still possible to represent this as something concrete.
Since positives and negatives are more or less inverses of each other, such as positive and negative magnetic poles, or positive and negative particles, the reality is that while we few negative and positive as plus or minus, addition and subtraction, the reality is that when multiplying with concepts we are merely inferring the opposite of what an ordinary symbol is. Thus, a negative probability is simply the opposite probability. What this is exactly I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that wavelength and frequency inversed, or perhaps where the wave meets is not impossible to get backwards. Thus, the way the string is vibrating does not necessarily imply more dimensions to vibrate in, but perhaps the opposite way it is vibrating. On the other hand, it may just imply negative mass or energy, which is capable of and likely existing in it's own right.
Negative probability seems impossible; while there can be a probability something will happen, and zero probability of something happening, negative probability doesn't necessarily imply anything. While quintessential to string theory, suggesting that there must be more dimensions since negative probability isn't possible, means that you could resolve a potentially very important aspect of string theory without needing extra dimensions.
But before determining if negative probability is even possible, we have to determine what probability is. Probability is the chance something will happen; if there are different 8 colors, say green, red, and so on, then the chance of it landing on green is 1/8. If there are two greens on another spinner toy, and we spin it around, and it randomly lands on a color, then there is a 2/8 chance of it landing on green, and so on. A chance of it not landing on green would be 7/8 or 6/8, respectively. Probability is more or less the chance something will happen.
According to wikipedia, "Probability is a measure or estimation of likelihood of occurrence of an event. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen). The higher the degree of probability, the more likely the event is to happen, or, in a longer series of samples, the greater the number of times such event is expected to happen."[1]
Probability, ultimately, is inconclusive, and not an exact science. The chance something will happen does not mean it will happen. Hypothetically, the chance you'll land on heads when flipping a coin is 50%. If you flip a coin 10 times, you may however, land on heads 10 times, or land on tails 10 times. The chance of this happening is remote, but still very possible. In the same way, you could flip a coin 10,000 times, and have it never land on tails, and so on. Probability is interesting in that it ,by itself, isn't really an explanation for an event, just it's likelihood. This makes mathematical probability somewhat paradoxical, as mathematics is meant to be empirical, or exactly concrete, while probability is still questionable.
This leads to numerous issues in mathematical calculations. In fact, mathematics, in human use, in it's own right, is imperfect at explaining the real world; as mathematics is nothing more than human input, and human input is likely never perfect, the outcome will always be a close estimation to the answer. When we do calculations, say in calculating trajectory, we typically come up with two answers; generally, a negative answer, and a positive one. Since the curved trajectory uses X^2, or X squared, it means that the number could be positive, or negative. The human application of mathematics tells us to throw out answers that seem erroneous, and thus that likely couldn't exist in real life; we take the fact that an upwards arcing trajectory is what we're looking for, instead of the bottom one, since we are trying to calculate for instance, the effect of gravity, which is always pushing down when on earth. In fact, this same type of principle is what makes a negative probability a factor to ignore in string theory.
But what if there was a negative probability; what if, probability, already in it's own right, isn't a mathematical concept. It is impossible to divide by zero within mathematics because zero is merely a concept; it would be like trying to divide 8 by apples, or gravy, it's fundamentally impossible. Or it might be like negative zero, which has no sign to begin with (as it's neither positive nor negative). But what if, then, we as humans are simply doing the calculation wrong; what if negative probability stands for an idea or concept we are simply glossing over?
What would negative probability then, be? The probability something can't happen, or probability something won't happen? So, the negative probability of something landing on green would be 7/8; since the probability something won't happen is the opposite of the probability something will happen, it could just be that negative probabilities are opposites of regular probabilities; since it can be represented in a positive way, probabilities of which are defined as a concept of a chance of something happening between 0-100, then it's still possible to represent this as something concrete.
Since positives and negatives are more or less inverses of each other, such as positive and negative magnetic poles, or positive and negative particles, the reality is that while we few negative and positive as plus or minus, addition and subtraction, the reality is that when multiplying with concepts we are merely inferring the opposite of what an ordinary symbol is. Thus, a negative probability is simply the opposite probability. What this is exactly I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that wavelength and frequency inversed, or perhaps where the wave meets is not impossible to get backwards. Thus, the way the string is vibrating does not necessarily imply more dimensions to vibrate in, but perhaps the opposite way it is vibrating. On the other hand, it may just imply negative mass or energy, which is capable of and likely existing in it's own right.
Questioning E=MC^2
Questioning E=MC^2
To be perfectly honest, E=MC^2 is entirely accurate; well,within it's specific parameters. Although the equation does not fully describe the phenomena, the basic principle of the total energy of the system being dependent on, or relative to, the speed of light, is entirely accurate. Massless particles for instance might have no mass, but this total energy level is more or less the same; determining the actual energy of the system is more complex, but it is still more or less E=MC^2. More importantly however is that it only applies to certain types of energy.
In matter anti-matter annihilation, they both release, more or less, about as much energy as is possible with matter. Thus, antimatter matter annihilation releases, more or less, almost E=MC^2; there is, energy equal to the object's mass traveling at the speed of light stored up within the materials. Thus one kilo reacting with another kilo of matter would produce, two kilos of mass worth of energy. However, what if the particles were traveling near the speed of light; perhaps, just 10% of the speed of light? While actually calculations would involve lorentz, suddenly, we have to consider, how is it possible that matter, which demonstrably already has E=MC^2 stored up inside of it, is traveling at any speed at all; let alone so close to the speed of light.
Hypothetically, it should be impossible for there to be more velocity, let alone something demonstrably close to the speed of light; obviously, matter couldn't possibly have more than E=MC^2; or could it? Within it's context, there is pent up, nuclear energy (and various other types) within the atom, that is released when the atom is annihilated. However, if it is also traveling at high velocity, doesn't that imply a large amount of kinetic energy, as well? The reality is that there are multiple forms of energy, that can be stored or be present, that do not directly interact with each other, at the time, that can exist, within the same amount of matter, at the same time.
But does this imply they can't happen at the same time? Or that something weird would should they collide? Something interesting to consider then would be if anti-matter collided with matter near the speed of light. Perhaps a few dozen particles or pieces of lead traveling in a large hadron collider. What if they did collide; the energy would be released, all at once, both forms, at the same time. Would it be possible then for more energy to be present, per unit of mass, than ordinarily possible; quite possibly, they could come to a stop completely during annihilation, of through changing forms lose momentum and thus stop moving this way; although we know that light does have a small amount of momentum.
Wouldn't this energy levels exceeding the speed of light cause infinite mass, or since neither particles have mass, would it mean that there isn't infinite mass? This would certainly conserve the aspect of mass and energy, and also verify the principle basis behind E = MC^2. Since the atom turns into radiation, it more or less loses mass (as it "changes" into energy), and thus impacting each other and possessing nuclear annihilation even when traveling near the speed of light means that more energy can be present, unit per unit (but perhaps not kilo per kilo, as the mass more or less disappears), but perhaps not in terms of mass. Which might be an interesting concept.
To be perfectly honest, E=MC^2 is entirely accurate; well,within it's specific parameters. Although the equation does not fully describe the phenomena, the basic principle of the total energy of the system being dependent on, or relative to, the speed of light, is entirely accurate. Massless particles for instance might have no mass, but this total energy level is more or less the same; determining the actual energy of the system is more complex, but it is still more or less E=MC^2. More importantly however is that it only applies to certain types of energy.
In matter anti-matter annihilation, they both release, more or less, about as much energy as is possible with matter. Thus, antimatter matter annihilation releases, more or less, almost E=MC^2; there is, energy equal to the object's mass traveling at the speed of light stored up within the materials. Thus one kilo reacting with another kilo of matter would produce, two kilos of mass worth of energy. However, what if the particles were traveling near the speed of light; perhaps, just 10% of the speed of light? While actually calculations would involve lorentz, suddenly, we have to consider, how is it possible that matter, which demonstrably already has E=MC^2 stored up inside of it, is traveling at any speed at all; let alone so close to the speed of light.
Hypothetically, it should be impossible for there to be more velocity, let alone something demonstrably close to the speed of light; obviously, matter couldn't possibly have more than E=MC^2; or could it? Within it's context, there is pent up, nuclear energy (and various other types) within the atom, that is released when the atom is annihilated. However, if it is also traveling at high velocity, doesn't that imply a large amount of kinetic energy, as well? The reality is that there are multiple forms of energy, that can be stored or be present, that do not directly interact with each other, at the time, that can exist, within the same amount of matter, at the same time.
But does this imply they can't happen at the same time? Or that something weird would should they collide? Something interesting to consider then would be if anti-matter collided with matter near the speed of light. Perhaps a few dozen particles or pieces of lead traveling in a large hadron collider. What if they did collide; the energy would be released, all at once, both forms, at the same time. Would it be possible then for more energy to be present, per unit of mass, than ordinarily possible; quite possibly, they could come to a stop completely during annihilation, of through changing forms lose momentum and thus stop moving this way; although we know that light does have a small amount of momentum.
Wouldn't this energy levels exceeding the speed of light cause infinite mass, or since neither particles have mass, would it mean that there isn't infinite mass? This would certainly conserve the aspect of mass and energy, and also verify the principle basis behind E = MC^2. Since the atom turns into radiation, it more or less loses mass (as it "changes" into energy), and thus impacting each other and possessing nuclear annihilation even when traveling near the speed of light means that more energy can be present, unit per unit (but perhaps not kilo per kilo, as the mass more or less disappears), but perhaps not in terms of mass. Which might be an interesting concept.
Friday, May 31, 2013
The meaning of life
The meaning of life
That somehow, through sheer will, humans have yielded consciousness, love, spirituality, a brain that seems to have no bounds in knowledge or creativity, that makes us want to live forever and in infinite bliss, to help each other, that consciousness itself is the constant defiance and attack against entropy... and the mechanistic clockwork doesn't care. It keeps ticking as we drive ourselves into oblivion, nearing the thermodynamic collapse of the universe, or the sun consuming the earth, or the rotation of the earth slowing down, or our atmosphere escaping, or a meteorite striking, or possibly even nuclear bombs of toxic chemicals wiping us out, if our own programmed death doesn't get to us first.
The cruel irony is that the sun breathes life into us, makes us care, and understand our position, want to live forever, scream to be alive, only to consume us; that our short, pitiful lives on this planet are meant to be nothing more than short blips, and that even if we survived, long enough to these points, there would still be an end no matter what we did.
And yet the human brain constantly seeks for a way around this; there must be a way, for our children to live forever, and us, with a good standard of living, to help everyone on the planet, and on other planets, and in the universe!
That there has to be a way, because we strive for a way, because we want a way, and that sheer consciousness will defy this silly entropy and thermodynamics and find a way around it, because it must be done. Is this possible?!
It wouldn't really matter if it was. If there is no true value in the universe, or even if there is, then what does it matter? It does not matter if it matters or not.
We, humans, create value, decide when things are important or not, what is and is not good or bad or considerable. That is the meaning of life; whatever we choose.
That somehow, through sheer will, humans have yielded consciousness, love, spirituality, a brain that seems to have no bounds in knowledge or creativity, that makes us want to live forever and in infinite bliss, to help each other, that consciousness itself is the constant defiance and attack against entropy... and the mechanistic clockwork doesn't care. It keeps ticking as we drive ourselves into oblivion, nearing the thermodynamic collapse of the universe, or the sun consuming the earth, or the rotation of the earth slowing down, or our atmosphere escaping, or a meteorite striking, or possibly even nuclear bombs of toxic chemicals wiping us out, if our own programmed death doesn't get to us first.
The cruel irony is that the sun breathes life into us, makes us care, and understand our position, want to live forever, scream to be alive, only to consume us; that our short, pitiful lives on this planet are meant to be nothing more than short blips, and that even if we survived, long enough to these points, there would still be an end no matter what we did.
And yet the human brain constantly seeks for a way around this; there must be a way, for our children to live forever, and us, with a good standard of living, to help everyone on the planet, and on other planets, and in the universe!
That there has to be a way, because we strive for a way, because we want a way, and that sheer consciousness will defy this silly entropy and thermodynamics and find a way around it, because it must be done. Is this possible?!
It wouldn't really matter if it was. If there is no true value in the universe, or even if there is, then what does it matter? It does not matter if it matters or not.
We, humans, create value, decide when things are important or not, what is and is not good or bad or considerable. That is the meaning of life; whatever we choose.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's cat talks of a magical cat in a magical box; presumably, the cat can live forever, unless the poison that's set on a random timer, with an infinite clock, is activated and kill is, which will happen literally instantaneously. Thus, unless we open the box, or find an alternative means to observe the creature, we could never really know if the cat was dead; we could of course guess, with a certain degree of intuition, but this would still be an observation. Thus the conclusion was that the cat was both alive and dead at the same time. A degree of quantum uncertainty given incredibly random variables.
But how is this possible? The paradox results from not knowing; the only logical conclusion is that it could be both. So how do we know without some form of observation?
Perhaps a more accurate idea however is the idea that the cat is dying. Of course, all cats are dying slowly, but this cat can only be killed by poison; thus, given time that passes, it is slowly dying. It is not known at what point it will die; but while it's alive, it is dying. Of course one could say it is not necessary dead at the moment.
But a cat destined to die is dying, and is essentially, already dead. Anything destined to die is dying, and is destined to be dead. Thus we know two things; it is destined to die, so it is dying, and it will inevitably die at some point. But we do not know how long it will live. Thus the conundrum is not the question of, is it alive or dead, but when will it die? Schrodinger's cat is more or less improperly phrased, since it's not exactly a paradox. A more appropriate response is "I don't know" or "it could be both", but if one asserted it was alive AND dead, how would we know?
We must consider the complexity of life. Is it alive; what is alive? What is dead? What is broken and fixed? Does mass converting to energy and vice versa really change it's form or is it one in the same, pure perception?
And the entire phenomena is based on perception and observation in the first place, does it matter if the cat is destined to die or not? Depending on the perspective, the cat may be alive, or it may be dead. Thus, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, and certainly is dying, regardless of the circumstances, since a different view could determine it and observation, which relies upon human perception, is the means in the first place. Thus not the physical objective view, but the subjective one in the mind, determines the quantum state of the cat as well.
But more importantly, if we want to become technical, on a quantum level, according to quantum mechanics, observation can change a system. Merely observing it can effect the outcome. Assuming this is a box in the real world, or real world physics apply, could it be that observation could influence the outcome? The objective is a hypothetical box with all the real world constraints tied to it.
Thus the cat is both alive and dead, moving and unmoving, until we observe it, not just due to a lack of information or a matter of perception, but quantum mechanics. Observing Schrodinger's cat determines it's fate in many ways, according to quantum mechanics. And thus in a way, if we understand how our observations impact the world, how it changes the outcome in the state of quantum uncertainty, we can know it's fate to a certain degree, at least to a certain probability.
Schrodinger's cat talks of a magical cat in a magical box; presumably, the cat can live forever, unless the poison that's set on a random timer, with an infinite clock, is activated and kill is, which will happen literally instantaneously. Thus, unless we open the box, or find an alternative means to observe the creature, we could never really know if the cat was dead; we could of course guess, with a certain degree of intuition, but this would still be an observation. Thus the conclusion was that the cat was both alive and dead at the same time. A degree of quantum uncertainty given incredibly random variables.
But how is this possible? The paradox results from not knowing; the only logical conclusion is that it could be both. So how do we know without some form of observation?
Perhaps a more accurate idea however is the idea that the cat is dying. Of course, all cats are dying slowly, but this cat can only be killed by poison; thus, given time that passes, it is slowly dying. It is not known at what point it will die; but while it's alive, it is dying. Of course one could say it is not necessary dead at the moment.
But a cat destined to die is dying, and is essentially, already dead. Anything destined to die is dying, and is destined to be dead. Thus we know two things; it is destined to die, so it is dying, and it will inevitably die at some point. But we do not know how long it will live. Thus the conundrum is not the question of, is it alive or dead, but when will it die? Schrodinger's cat is more or less improperly phrased, since it's not exactly a paradox. A more appropriate response is "I don't know" or "it could be both", but if one asserted it was alive AND dead, how would we know?
We must consider the complexity of life. Is it alive; what is alive? What is dead? What is broken and fixed? Does mass converting to energy and vice versa really change it's form or is it one in the same, pure perception?
And the entire phenomena is based on perception and observation in the first place, does it matter if the cat is destined to die or not? Depending on the perspective, the cat may be alive, or it may be dead. Thus, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, and certainly is dying, regardless of the circumstances, since a different view could determine it and observation, which relies upon human perception, is the means in the first place. Thus not the physical objective view, but the subjective one in the mind, determines the quantum state of the cat as well.
But more importantly, if we want to become technical, on a quantum level, according to quantum mechanics, observation can change a system. Merely observing it can effect the outcome. Assuming this is a box in the real world, or real world physics apply, could it be that observation could influence the outcome? The objective is a hypothetical box with all the real world constraints tied to it.
Thus the cat is both alive and dead, moving and unmoving, until we observe it, not just due to a lack of information or a matter of perception, but quantum mechanics. Observing Schrodinger's cat determines it's fate in many ways, according to quantum mechanics. And thus in a way, if we understand how our observations impact the world, how it changes the outcome in the state of quantum uncertainty, we can know it's fate to a certain degree, at least to a certain probability.
Now that we can divide by zero...
Now that we can divide by zero...
This opens up a wide variety of new things we can do. Mathematically, of course, which explains the real world. Thing of it as the square root of -1, or i; it's not really anything but a place holder, but entirely necessary for us getting from one point to another. What can we really do with this?
The possibilities might seem limitless at first, but we must remember, it is nothing.
This opens up a wide variety of new things we can do. Mathematically, of course, which explains the real world. Thing of it as the square root of -1, or i; it's not really anything but a place holder, but entirely necessary for us getting from one point to another. What can we really do with this?
The possibilities might seem limitless at first, but we must remember, it is nothing.
Dividing by Zero
Dividing by Zero
Dividing by zero has been tricky for mathematicians for many years. To this date, it's been deemed "unresolved", even by the best calculators. Many a mathematicians have tried to resolve this paradox, but all of them have failed for one reason; they tried to use math. The answer is ironically simplicity itself, but that is what you get when it comes to 0.
Many a people might first assume that 1/infinity is equal to zero. To some, this may seem valid; divided by enough, literally enough, infinity, and you will get nothing. Thus, 1/infinity = 0, thus, 1/0 = infinity. It must; when you divide by nothing, you can fit nothing into something an infinite amount of times! Except that, division isn't about fitting things into things; it's about coming out with equal portions. 10/8 is 1.25, and is in fact not 8, nor 10. It is not about fitting that number in there, but coming up with no spaces in between. Thus when you have an infinite amount of spaces in between, you do not have division. You have unresolved.
The reverse paradox of 1/infinity would appear to be zero; enough times, you get zero. But you do not; take a pie, for example. You cut it into 1 piece, you have one pie; two pieces, you have half a pie, four, you have four slices, 8, 16, etc. so on, you each have a piece of the pie. When dividing by infinity, no matter how small, you still in fact have a pie. That pie still exists. That 1, or that 85, divided by infinity, still equals a pie, at the end of the day. Thus, when dividing by infinity, you still end up with a slice of pie, no matter how small, since you are essentially, dividing a pie.
But what happens with zero? What happens when you take a pie and divide by zero? Do you get 1; that is, a pie? Do you have say, a single pie, thus anything divided by zero is one?! Sadly, no. A pie divided by 1, is one pie. Thus, when you divide by one, that is, make one slice, you still only have one pie, or 85 pies, depending on how many pies you started off with. So thus, dividing by zero is sadly not dividing by 1, and sadly, dividing by 0 does not mean just one pie. Thus any number, which is a place holder or that even has theoretical value, must always still have value.
But what do we do then?! What is anything divided by zero?! The answer is quite simple really; and equal to pie divided by zero; nothing. You literally get nothing. When you divide 1 pie by 1, you get one pie; when you don't slice a pie at all, you are ignoring it. You simply are not paying attention to it; there may even not be a pie to begin with. There simply is no pie. The answer, is nothing; you DO nothing. You simply have done nothing; and this, all you get is, nothing. Not a number, not a figure, but nothing. You do, nothing.
Now, luckily, there is a very convenient way to represent nothing in mathematics, which has transformed many a civilizations; zero. The simple zero is the place holder of nothing. Thus when you divide by zero, you get nothing, or zero. 85/0 is 0. You have done nothing. Now here's what will really bake your noodle.
The same is true for all other equations. 1+ 0 = no change. 1 - 0= no change. 1 x 0 = no change. What is so different about dividing? That it must fill the blanks? This is true, to some extent. But consider that zero is neutral; when you are multiplying by zero, what are you doing? This too should end up meaningless; 2 x 2 is not 3, just because it fits up to four, so, so too should 2 x 0 not make any sense. But the answer is not simply that you have no change; it's nothing. You literally get nothing.
Now, this should have been obvious to mathematicians everywhere! Consider that you already divide by zero already. What is 50/10? Ahh, 5 you say. But why?! You just divided 5/0! Think about it; in the algorithm, you get, say, 50, and you get 10.
50
10
The above is obvious; 0/0, makes sense. But what of 5/0? What do you get then? 0. Nothing. Not a real thing; because you did nothing. It's just a place holder; it literally has no value. It is neutral beyond just negatives and positives, but of all values! Thus in multiplication and division you get no change, but this is represented as nothing. As you complete the equation, 0 is divided by 1 and then 5 is divided by one; you then get 5, but the two zeroes do not stack, and simply are added as, 0, and the 5 does not move up a place. Thus, you have divided by zero; and gotten nothing. Not 5, not infinity, but nothing.
Thus, any figure divided by zero is nothing, and this was obvious the entire time. And since nothing happens to have an easy mathematical figure to represent it, 0, it could be postulated that dividing by zero, is zero, or at least nothing.
Thus the simplest way to explain dividing by zero.
More in depth stuff
The age old adage of multiplication the inverse of division; we cannot find the answer through this, it must already be known. But the concept of, what is 6/0 = ???. So say, now we get, ??? x 0 = 6? The answer is this is impossible. But it's not looking at it in the correct light. It postures, you cannot find anything multiplied by zero that would equal six (or any number number) so thus there must not be a solution.
Completely ignoring that the mathematical equation may be illogical itself. It's true, nothing multiplied by 0 will ever equal six. But, anything divided by zero is equal to zero. Thus, the answer is not, what multiplied by 0 is equal to 6, but that 6 divided by zero is zero, or 6/0 = 0. Thus you have a solution to this conundrum, but this conundrum cannot be used to find the solution. You must already know, the answer. It is something math nor logic can find.
Limits
In calculus, limits are a number a figure approaches, but never actually reaches. At first glance, one might say that 1/infinity is zero, since in calculus, summations find it to be zero; but this is false. Summations inherently approach figures but never reach them; limits are the figure it's always approaching but never reaching. This is somewhat intuitive, but there are advanced mathematical ways for confirming this.
Thus, in the same way, perhaps the limit of 1/0 is infinity, to some degree, but it's not. That's because you must find what it fits into, and it does not fit all the way; it is about leaving no gaps, as 10/8 = 1.25, but not 1, since one can fit, but does not fit completely. Thus division requires a complete fit; and 0 will never fit into one. Thus 1 seemingly cannot be divided by zero; on the other hand, it can not be multiplied by zero, since this would similarly imply no value. This is represented as zero however, just as it is in multiplication.
Dividing by zero has been tricky for mathematicians for many years. To this date, it's been deemed "unresolved", even by the best calculators. Many a mathematicians have tried to resolve this paradox, but all of them have failed for one reason; they tried to use math. The answer is ironically simplicity itself, but that is what you get when it comes to 0.
Many a people might first assume that 1/infinity is equal to zero. To some, this may seem valid; divided by enough, literally enough, infinity, and you will get nothing. Thus, 1/infinity = 0, thus, 1/0 = infinity. It must; when you divide by nothing, you can fit nothing into something an infinite amount of times! Except that, division isn't about fitting things into things; it's about coming out with equal portions. 10/8 is 1.25, and is in fact not 8, nor 10. It is not about fitting that number in there, but coming up with no spaces in between. Thus when you have an infinite amount of spaces in between, you do not have division. You have unresolved.
The reverse paradox of 1/infinity would appear to be zero; enough times, you get zero. But you do not; take a pie, for example. You cut it into 1 piece, you have one pie; two pieces, you have half a pie, four, you have four slices, 8, 16, etc. so on, you each have a piece of the pie. When dividing by infinity, no matter how small, you still in fact have a pie. That pie still exists. That 1, or that 85, divided by infinity, still equals a pie, at the end of the day. Thus, when dividing by infinity, you still end up with a slice of pie, no matter how small, since you are essentially, dividing a pie.
But what happens with zero? What happens when you take a pie and divide by zero? Do you get 1; that is, a pie? Do you have say, a single pie, thus anything divided by zero is one?! Sadly, no. A pie divided by 1, is one pie. Thus, when you divide by one, that is, make one slice, you still only have one pie, or 85 pies, depending on how many pies you started off with. So thus, dividing by zero is sadly not dividing by 1, and sadly, dividing by 0 does not mean just one pie. Thus any number, which is a place holder or that even has theoretical value, must always still have value.
But what do we do then?! What is anything divided by zero?! The answer is quite simple really; and equal to pie divided by zero; nothing. You literally get nothing. When you divide 1 pie by 1, you get one pie; when you don't slice a pie at all, you are ignoring it. You simply are not paying attention to it; there may even not be a pie to begin with. There simply is no pie. The answer, is nothing; you DO nothing. You simply have done nothing; and this, all you get is, nothing. Not a number, not a figure, but nothing. You do, nothing.
Now, luckily, there is a very convenient way to represent nothing in mathematics, which has transformed many a civilizations; zero. The simple zero is the place holder of nothing. Thus when you divide by zero, you get nothing, or zero. 85/0 is 0. You have done nothing. Now here's what will really bake your noodle.
The same is true for all other equations. 1+ 0 = no change. 1 - 0= no change. 1 x 0 = no change. What is so different about dividing? That it must fill the blanks? This is true, to some extent. But consider that zero is neutral; when you are multiplying by zero, what are you doing? This too should end up meaningless; 2 x 2 is not 3, just because it fits up to four, so, so too should 2 x 0 not make any sense. But the answer is not simply that you have no change; it's nothing. You literally get nothing.
Now, this should have been obvious to mathematicians everywhere! Consider that you already divide by zero already. What is 50/10? Ahh, 5 you say. But why?! You just divided 5/0! Think about it; in the algorithm, you get, say, 50, and you get 10.
50
10
The above is obvious; 0/0, makes sense. But what of 5/0? What do you get then? 0. Nothing. Not a real thing; because you did nothing. It's just a place holder; it literally has no value. It is neutral beyond just negatives and positives, but of all values! Thus in multiplication and division you get no change, but this is represented as nothing. As you complete the equation, 0 is divided by 1 and then 5 is divided by one; you then get 5, but the two zeroes do not stack, and simply are added as, 0, and the 5 does not move up a place. Thus, you have divided by zero; and gotten nothing. Not 5, not infinity, but nothing.
Thus, any figure divided by zero is nothing, and this was obvious the entire time. And since nothing happens to have an easy mathematical figure to represent it, 0, it could be postulated that dividing by zero, is zero, or at least nothing.
Thus the simplest way to explain dividing by zero.
More in depth stuff
The age old adage of multiplication the inverse of division; we cannot find the answer through this, it must already be known. But the concept of, what is 6/0 = ???. So say, now we get, ??? x 0 = 6? The answer is this is impossible. But it's not looking at it in the correct light. It postures, you cannot find anything multiplied by zero that would equal six (or any number number) so thus there must not be a solution.
Completely ignoring that the mathematical equation may be illogical itself. It's true, nothing multiplied by 0 will ever equal six. But, anything divided by zero is equal to zero. Thus, the answer is not, what multiplied by 0 is equal to 6, but that 6 divided by zero is zero, or 6/0 = 0. Thus you have a solution to this conundrum, but this conundrum cannot be used to find the solution. You must already know, the answer. It is something math nor logic can find.
Limits
In calculus, limits are a number a figure approaches, but never actually reaches. At first glance, one might say that 1/infinity is zero, since in calculus, summations find it to be zero; but this is false. Summations inherently approach figures but never reach them; limits are the figure it's always approaching but never reaching. This is somewhat intuitive, but there are advanced mathematical ways for confirming this.
Thus, in the same way, perhaps the limit of 1/0 is infinity, to some degree, but it's not. That's because you must find what it fits into, and it does not fit all the way; it is about leaving no gaps, as 10/8 = 1.25, but not 1, since one can fit, but does not fit completely. Thus division requires a complete fit; and 0 will never fit into one. Thus 1 seemingly cannot be divided by zero; on the other hand, it can not be multiplied by zero, since this would similarly imply no value. This is represented as zero however, just as it is in multiplication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)