No...absolute one is not 'complete' its infinite. And infinite is neither complete, nor incomplete. Thats right...we pretty much evolve for infinity...if we happen to explode...we are all just hydrogen again...and it starts all over...forever, and ever. Amen.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
i saw an equation in my dreams lastnight! opinions?
- Thread starter ladybug77
- Start date
No...absolute one is not 'complete' its infinite. And infinite is neither complete, nor incomplete. Thats right...we pretty much evolve for infinity...if we happen to explode...we are all just hydrogen again...and it starts all over...forever, and ever. Amen.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but you are unnecessarily bringing two different fields together.
Never post on elementary math at 1 in the morning.
Let's try again, shall we? This is interesting and is a lesson in operations and representation (and paying attention to what one is doing especially when the problem is too trivial). FYI- those who, like me, constantly make errors in simple arithmetic can run into trouble in subjects where the only difficult part is conceptual and the computations involve a lot of adding and subtracting. Nothing is more frustrating (or more embarrassing if one is teaching others) than trying to impart some concept and getting lost in your own computations, particularly if they involve nothing more than adding and subtract a lot of single digit numbers as in e.g., elementary linear algebra.
3*1/3 and 3 * .33333 are not the same statements. Representing a number as a fraction means that one is actually multiplying whole units. 3*1/3 ensures that we multiply the number 3 by the quantity we'd get by dividing 1/3. 3*.3333 means multiplying 3 by infinitely many decimal places all with 3's in them. How we represent the numbers (decimals as placeholders, the division operator as a representational schema for the rationals, etc.) changes how we carry out the specified operation. We can still represent a number as a fraction multiplied by an infinite decimal but we need to change something such as making the left side an infinite decimal as well. It's a neat way to think about being cautious with placeholders and representations.
3/3 = 1 * .333333333.../333333333...
Let's try again, shall we? This is interesting and is a lesson in operations and representation (and paying attention to what one is doing especially when the problem is too trivial). FYI- those who, like me, constantly make errors in simple arithmetic can run into trouble in subjects where the only difficult part is conceptual and the computations involve a lot of adding and subtracting. Nothing is more frustrating (or more embarrassing if one is teaching others) than trying to impart some concept and getting lost in your own computations, particularly if they involve nothing more than adding and subtract a lot of single digit numbers as in e.g., elementary linear algebra.
3*1/3 and 3 * .33333 are not the same statements. Representing a number as a fraction means that one is actually multiplying whole units. 3*1/3 ensures that we multiply the number 3 by the quantity we'd get by dividing 1/3. 3*.3333 means multiplying 3 by infinitely many decimal places all with 3's in them. How we represent the numbers (decimals as placeholders, the division operator as a representational schema for the rationals, etc.) changes how we carry out the specified operation. We can still represent a number as a fraction multiplied by an infinite decimal but we need to change something such as making the left side an infinite decimal as well. It's a neat way to think about being cautious with placeholders and representations.
3/3 = 1 * .333333333.../333333333...
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
I am not sure if you are just joking around. This would be the appropriate thread to say untrue math equalities.
3/1 * 1/3 = 1
We can write 1/3 as a decimal, but this is not an exact number. The vinculum bar denotes infinite repetition. Thus .3 with a vinculum bar over the three multiplied by 3 will indeed yield .9 with a vinculum bar over the 9. but saying this is equal is a different proof. That proof needs calculus. Such that lim 1= 1 with infinite progression in whatever equation which = lim 1. I enjoy this concept because it illustrates the infinite within the finite.
once we establish that then we can recognize that .9 with a vinculum bar over the 9 has lim 1. Which we can then say = 1.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3572853 said:
Math and science work together bro. The only atom/element modern day science cant split??
HYDROGEN. atomic #1.
Hydrogen is infinite, and omnipresent. Its 99.9!% of the intire universe bro. Hydrogen is God.
Hydrogen means: 'with water'
Whats water? One part hydrogen. 2 parts oxygen.
O.O the dot is hydrogen. The Os are Oxygens. The expression O.O is an illustration!!!
Whats the freezing point of water in celcius?? 0.0
If that dot is absolute 1, and those alphabetic 'O's are zeros...and zero is a representation of a 1. What should our number line look like???
And by the way...this is also an expression of hydrogen (+-) hello!! Its one proton, and one nuetron!!
Science and math go together!!!! Yippie!!!
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
Thats absurb?? Its logic!!!
Because '2' ='1' and another '1'
So 1 and 1 and 1 are 1s!!! But how do we express the quantity of one?? There is an ABSOLUTE ONE (sigular) ...with and infinite quantity of oneS ..(PLURAL)that come from it.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Says the person who thinks a neutron is a negative charge and continues to exclaim Hydrogen having both a positive charge and a "negative neutron"....tsk tsk.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
Although I suppose there is another algebraic proof
.99999....=x
9.99999....=10x
9.999....-x=10x-x
9=9x
1=x=.9999....
since .9999... Represents an incomplete calculation, subtracting x violates order of operations. so, technically this proof too is not valid as is. However both the .9999.... And the 3*1/3 proofs are sufficient enough to illustrate the principle, they just fall short of valid proofs.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
It's not logic, and, you are misusing the word in your application, context-wise.
And, any "logic" that states that 2=1 is not mathematically sound. If that was the case, I would have been interchangeably using the two since days of young.
More importantly, I find your futile attempts at tying all of this charade back to religion or your form of pseudo-spirituality quite transgressive.
Please, for the love of the 0, digress...why do you continue to embarrass yourself?
Curious George
Veteran Member
You just wrote 2=1+1
That is very different than 1=1+1 which is the absurdity that results from your system.
Lets try again. 1+1=2. OMG!! I DID ONE RIGHT!!!
Cough** now whats 2?? Just all by itself....the#2. What is it. 1+1.
So 1+1=1+1 yay!! I did it again!
But whats in the middle of 2?? Is it a decimal? A fraction? So whats in the middle of two ones? Must be zero right?? NOPE
whats in the middle of one?? A half right?? .50
What about in the middle of .50? .25
I have a dollar (one) in quarters. I have * * * * (illustration)
I have a dollar in pennies *******************etc.
I chop the penny down into tiny tiny even smaller and smaller pieces. Its a speck of dust...that i cant see with my own human eye!! Heck...its a atom i cant see, a molecular cell. I cant see it!! Its nothing now!!! But its still something isnt it??
One created all other ones.
One bee created all bees.
One ant created all ants.
One atom created all Adams.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Again 1+1=1+1 is still very different than 1+1=1. The former is true the latter is absurd.
Curious George
Veteran Member
you do realize that one is a concept as well. One by itself means nothing. So suggesting that 2 is a concept meaning 1+1 is true but it is equally true that 2 is a concept meaning 8/4 or 7-5. We can label all of these concepts however we choose but deleting 0 and putting nothing in its stead is ironically absurd.
I dunno, man...she' s starting to convince me. I think 1+1=1+1 really IS true.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3572894 said:
Its been a while...im starting to remember. Give me a break. K?
But even so. Then that means negatives dont exist physically in the universe. So i cant have a -1 on ANY number line, that corresponds with science then. So our number line of math is still wrong.
Curious George
Veteran Member
That one is okay. It is the other about which you have to worry.
I'm being optimistic. Three posts ago I thought she was 100% wrong, and last post I thought she was 50% right. Something positive must be going on!
Ok. Its the equals sign then. Maybe we have the wrong concept?? What if its weight?? If everything came from ONE . Then 2 ONES = or weighs the original absolute ONE.
So 1=3.
Therefore 1=50.
And of this ONE GOD IS PHYSICAL, AND VERY VERY TINY also...but he is everywhere all at once...then his original weight has dispersed. He expanded. He grew. And isnt the universe ever expanding?? But it still weighs the same. It all weighs 1.
So 1=3.
Therefore 1=50.
And of this ONE GOD IS PHYSICAL, AND VERY VERY TINY also...but he is everywhere all at once...then his original weight has dispersed. He expanded. He grew. And isnt the universe ever expanding?? But it still weighs the same. It all weighs 1.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Are you clinically insane?