Mathematical question to religious folk

[Jayhawker Soule]

Conclusion: There is no falsifiable evidence for a god.

Absolutely brilliant. By the way, what is the falsifiable evidence of String Theory?

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

Inrelevant

 

[Infinitum]

Okay, I think I'm done with this guy.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nature fills the same space as God fills for theists, therefore Nature is God. There is nothing supernatural about it. It's based on reverence, awe, love and respect.

Hey! I think you think like me! *Thumbs up*

And I see you have a swedish quote there too. I'm from Sweden, but move to the states in the 90's. Nice to meet you.

 

[Ouroboros]

I thought division by zero was always undefined, even in the case of 0/0.

Yes and no.

In calculus things get a little murkier. LOL.

Unfortunately, I forgotten too much to explain it right now. The answer lies in limit functions and L'hospital's rule (if I recall correctly).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I thought division by zero was always undefined, even in the case of 0/0.

Yes and no.

In calculus things get a little murkier. LOL.

Someone is pretending. See here

 

[Ouroboros]

Someone is pretending. See here

Ah. You're right. I've forgotten the details.

But pretending? No. Just don't remember. Sorry to get such harsh words from you for something I pointed out with "if I recall correctly." So what is it that I'm pretending to do or be exactly?

The only thing I remember is that it was very tricky sometimes to figure out the limits and if they were divergent or convergent.

--- edit

I looked up some of calculus, and here's what I was thinking of:

limit of x/x when x->0 = 1.

See "indeterminate form of 0/0" on Wikipedia. (I can't post links yet).

What you are talking about are other specific cases. There are many different cases when it comes to 0/0 functions in limits. That's why it's murky.

(Maybe I'm not the one pretending?)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ah. You're right. I've forgotten the details.

But pretending? No. Just don't remember. Sorry to get such harsh words from you for something I pointed out with "if I recall correctly." So what is it that I'm pretending to do or be exactly?

The only thing I remember is that it was very tricky sometimes to figure out the limits and if they were divergent or convergent.

Limits don't really converge. You are thinking of sequences, I believe, in which any given sequence is said to "converge" to some "point" iff (if and only if) that point is a limit.

I looked up some of calculus, and here's what I was thinking of:

limit of x/x when x->0 = 1.

See "indeterminate form of 0/0" on Wikipedia. (I can't post links yet).

In general, division by zero is not defined simply for convenience. The properties of zero make it difficult for operations to hold if you use zero. Sometimes this means a rather ad hoc definition (such as in the case of a number with zero as an exponent), or simply demanding that zero be undefined. Division is an inverse of multiplication, and as any number multiplied by zero is zero, there is no multiplicative inverse such that zero divided by some number will equal one, nor is there any unique number x which satisfies the equation 0x=y. For all numbers x, y will be zero.

However, one could just as well defined division by zero to be equal to zero, and make the multiplicative inverse of zero be zero rather than 1. However, as this doesn't in general do anything to help, it's easier just to say "division by zero is undefined". That said, there may be some instances in which this operation has meaning: "On Cantorian spacetime over number systems with division by zero"

 

[Ouroboros]

Limits don't really converge. You are thinking of sequences, I believe, in which any given sequence is said to "converge" to some "point" iff (if and only if) that point is a limit.

Yeah. I think you're right. I'm old and memory is good but very short.

In general, division by zero is not defined simply for convenience. The properties of zero make it difficult for operations to hold if you use zero. Sometimes this means a rather ad hoc definition (such as in the case of a number with zero as an exponent), or simply demanding that zero be undefined. Division is an inverse of multiplication, and as any number multiplied by zero is zero, there is no multiplicative inverse such that zero divided by some number will equal one, nor is there any unique number x which satisfies the equation 0x=y. For all numbers x, y will be zero.

However, one could just as well defined division by zero to be equal to zero, and make the multiplicative inverse of zero be zero rather than 1. However, as this doesn't in general do anything to help, it's easier just to say "division by zero is undefined". That said, there may be some instances in which this operation has meaning: "

Well. Limit of x/x when x->0 is defined as 1. Limit of x^2/x when x->0 is 1. And many others. Sure. It's not defined just for 0/0. I know. But with limits, the zero can take many forms in the function, so sometimes the limit does exist. Lim sin(x)/x (x->0) = 1, if I remember it right.

Sheesh though. You guys are a tough crowd to someone who didn't come in to argue against anything but just fill in some fun facts. What's next? Tar and feathers?
:sad:

 

[Ouroboros]

I just reached 25 posts. Let's see if I can link some URLs myself now.

Division by zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although division by zero cannot be sensibly defined with real numbers and integers, it is possible to consistently define it, or similar operations, in other mathematical structures.

or this one (sorry that's from Wiki again) See (1) graph and form:
Indeterminate form - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well. Limit of x/x when x->0 is defined as 1.

This is true. And the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is equal to zero. However, if you recall, the definition of limits is designed so that the actual value the limit is equal to need not be defined (if it is, we start getting into continuity and then into topology). In other words, limits allow us to say things about "points" of functions even when that point is not in the domain of the function. Thus it is quite different to say that for some function f the limit of f as f approaches 0 is equal to a, and something else entirely to say that the expression(s) used to define that function (e.g., x/x) is/are defined when x (or whatever symbol is used to indicate the function's argument(s)) is/are equal to zero.

Basically, a major goal of calculus is to say something about the behavior of functions where they are not actually defined. In single variable calculus (and actually for pretty much all analysis), the easiest way to think about this is simply that locally all curves are linear, providing that by locally we mean an infinitesimally small area, interval, or point.

Sheesh though. You guys are a tough crowd to someone who didn't come in to argue against anything but just fill in some fun facts.

I can't speak for others, but I simply like math and I also tutor/teach math (among other things) on the side. So it's a habit. Don't think of it as criticism, or at least know that I don't intend it to be so.

What's next? Tar and feathers?

No, we only do that if you try to treat categorical data as continuous while assuming a normal distribution just so that you can use multiple regression. We had someone start writing up the punishments for mathematical violations, but he accidently said that matrix multiplication was commutative in general, so we had him killed.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is true. And the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is equal to zero. However, if you recall, the definition of limits is designed so that the actual value the limit is equal to need not be defined (if it is, we start getting into continuity and then into topology). In other words, limits allow us to say things about "points" of functions even when that point is not in the domain of the function. Thus it is quite different to say that for some function f the limit of f as f approaches 0 is equal to a, and something else entirely to say that the expression(s) used to define that function (e.g., x/x) is/are defined when x (or whatever symbol is used to indicate the function's argument(s)) is/are equal to zero.

Quite true. My point wasn't to say that 0/0 is defined, but rather that there are situations when 0/0 (like in limits) can produce actual results.

I can't speak for others, but I simply like math and I also tutor/teach math (among other things) on the side. So it's a habit. Don't think of it as criticism, or at least know that I don't intend it to be so.

Much appreciated. It was the "someone is pretending" comment I got earlier that was a bit hurtful. Well, every website has its village a-h. I'm sure I already met one (and I don't mean you, of course).

No, we only do that if you try to treat categorical data as continuous while assuming a normal distribution just so that you can use multiple regression. We had someone start writing up the punishments for mathematical violations, but he accidently said that matrix multiplication was commutative in general, so we had him killed.

Ouch. Like I said, tough community. Please don't matrix multiply my bones. I'm quite fond of them, and I'm quite determinant to keep them.

It wasn't extremely long ago I read calculus, but there are too many other important things in life, and new thoughts and ideas tend to push out the old (and unused) ones. Heh.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Much appreciated. It was the "someone is pretending" comment I got earlier that was a bit hurtful. Well, every website has its village a-h.

Understandable. But the comment was made by someone who has probably more patience than I in many ways, but has been here far longer and, being extremely well-informed himself, can be a bit curt at times. I won't make apologies, as it isn't my right and I don't think it would be appreciated, but I myself have been on the receiving end here as well. I was lucky enough to have had some experience here at the time (and I was sober), so I didn't take it personally. We all have our buttons, and sometimes something said at the wrong time or in just the right "wrong" way can illicit an...enthusiastic response. You have to understand that a lot of (now banned) members don't come here to learn, but to preach or with a specific agenda. Look at the originator of this thread. For me personally, even though I have not been here that long, I have already seen the same misinformed statements repeated ad nauseum concerning topics like the mind, brain, free will, historical Jesus, etc. And too often, those that make such statements refuse to budge no matter how much evidence is placed before them.

This is not what you did, so I wouldn't worry. Most members here are far more polite, patient, and helpful than I am, but again everyone has buttons. I don't think you'll find the crowd to be that all that tough at all. Just remember the most important rules: never get involved in a land war in asia, and never go in against a sicilian when death is on the line (paraphrase from The Princess Bride).

Ouch. Like I said, tough community. Please don't matrix multiply my bones. I'm quite fond of them, and I'm quite determinant to keep them.

Don't worry. The last sentence quoted above ensures you have the right basis to keep your bones from any transformation.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't worry. The last sentence quoted above ensures you have the right basis to keep your bones from any transformation.

Yes. My bones are in integral part of me. And I promise, no wars in Asia. And the Sicilians are safe from me.

So back to the topic Mathematical questions for religious folks...