The two types of Zero

[Revoltingest]

The OP is a long read.
A suggestion for 2 kinds of zero....
1) Zero as we know it.
2) Zero as a changing number that converges on zero.
(Think of limits & calculus.)

Is this useful to you, @Echogem222 ?

 

[Echogem222]

So? You could also say in the case where there are no apples that there are 1+1+1+0+0+0+0=3 oranges (no apples, no strawberries, no cantaloupes, etc).

If you do not know if there are no apples, strawberries, cantaloupes, etc. then you cannot say there are none. I believe you are getting things mixed up here, because saying there are no apples, strawberries, etc. and saying there are apples, strawberries, etc. would result in the same number of oranges (being 3).

If you have 3 oranges in a basket, but you don't know what else is in the basket, and you want to express that all in an equation, it would be like this: 1+1+1+(Zero undefined)=3 oranges. Zero still has the value of zero despite being undefined.

 

[Echogem222]

The OP is a long read.
A suggestion for 2 kinds of zero....
1) Zero as we know it.
2) Zero as a changing number that converges on zero.
(Think of limits & calculus.)

Is this useful to you, @Echogem222 ?

Yes, thank you.

 

[PureX]

I'm pleased that other people think about this stuff so I don't have to.

 

[Echogem222]

No, it would be a defined numerical value of 0 oranges.

So then, what happens when you divide that zero in half? What would it result in? Because if you divide 1 apple in half, you get two halves of an apple (which is zero oranges), but when you divide something you haven't defined in half- No, wait, how do you even divide something like that in half??... If you realize that you can't, since you haven't defined it enough, then you would be correct. Unless you're going to assume that you can divide anything in half, but in which case, what happens when you divide your existence in half? Do you become half of yourself? What does that mean?... So, unless you can prove why everything can be divided in half, you have to acknowledge Zero undefined as being real.

 

[Echogem222]

To clarify for those who read my OP before I made a second edit, the part about 0/0 I realized was incorrect, but the rest of it is still correct, though Zero Undefined is admittedly far more useful for philosophy than mathematics.

 

[Polymath257]

So then, what happens when you divide that zero in half? What would it result in? Because if you divide 1 apple in half, you get two halves of an apple (which is zero oranges), but when you divide something you haven't defined in half- No, wait, how do you even divide something like that in half??... If you realize that you can't, since you haven't defined it enough, then you would be correct. Unless you're going to assume that you can divide anything in half, but in which case, what happens when you divide your existence in half? Do you become half of yourself? What does that mean?... So, unless you can prove why everything can be divided in half, you have to acknowledge Zero undefined as being real.

When you divide 0 by 2 you get 0. Half of no apples is no apples.

 

[Polymath257]

If you do not know if there are no apples, strawberries, cantaloupes, etc. then you cannot say there are none. I believe you are getting things mixed up here, because saying there are no apples, strawberries, etc. and saying there are apples, strawberries, etc. would result in the same number of oranges (being 3).

Irrelevant. If there are no more oranges, there are 3 oranges. The number or precedence of non-oranges is irrelevant.

You appear to be making a distinction without a relevant difference.

If you have 3 oranges in a basket, but you don't know what else is in the basket, and you want to express that all in an equation, it would be like this: 1+1+1+(Zero undefined)=3 oranges. Zero still has the value of zero despite being undefined.

No, I would simply write the numerical value of 0. Perfectly well defined.

 

[Polymath257]

To clarify for those who read my OP before I made a second edit, the part about 0/0 I realized was incorrect, but the rest of it is still correct, though Zero Undefined is admittedly far more useful for philosophy than mathematics.

I fail to see how it is useful at all, even in the relatively useless field of philosophy.

 

[Echogem222]

I fail to see how it is useful at all, even in the relatively useless field of philosophy.

Given that you've clearly expressed you don't think much of philosophy, I don't think it would be worth my time to explain it to you.

 

[Polymath257]

Given that you've clearly expressed you don't think much of philosophy, I don't think it would be worth my time to explain it to you.

Oh, please try to show philosophy is useful and that this is even useful in philosophy.

BTW, I regularly discuss philosophy with philosophy PHDs. But it is best over drinks.

 

[Echogem222]

Oh, please try to show philosophy is useful and that this is even useful in philosophy.

BTW, I regularly discuss philosophy with philosophy PHDs. But it is best over drinks.

Fine, by understanding different aspects of the word nothing, it's possible to understand how death is never a true end for us. Divisible Zero, Zero Undefined, non-applicable existence, less than non-applicable existence, all of these words could be considered as the word nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Fine, by understanding different aspects of the word nothing, it's possible to understand how death is never a true end for us. Divisible Zero, Zero Undefined, non-applicable existence, less than non-applicable existence, all of these words could be considered as the word nothing.

OK, to *understand* the concept, or to *prove* that the concept is true? Those are very different things.

Next, why is your construction required for that understanding? It seems that you are claiming an existence, so zero is simply not relevant.

 

[Echogem222]

OK, to *understand* the concept, or to *prove* that the concept is true? Those are very different things.

Next, why is your construction required for that understanding? It seems that you are claiming an existence, so zero is simply not relevant.

To understand and prove. As for 'construction', I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you go into more detail?

 

[wellwisher]

Zero is nothing. As we increase from zero; nothing, something appears, often starting with a fraction of a whole; 1/2. As far as I know, you cannot do something, with nothing, except in an imaginary way. You can do something with a fraction; shot of whiskey from a liter bottle. Doing something with nothing would require everyone agree on an imaginary game, such as the emperor's new clothes game.

Some math assumptions are imaginary, but if we all play along like a game, it becomes part of the game play.

If I had zero axes, and needed to chop wood, how many I chords of wood per day can I chop. I know I can chop one cord in a day with my one ax. But say I left my ax at home, and I was in the woods and found some down and dried trees, how many chords can I chop with my zero axes? This is a trick question, since an imaginary ax cannot do anything in reality. I would be chopping the air with my hands and arms. However, I will not be able to divide even a single log into a single two foot piece of firewood. So the answer is zero in reality. However, in the game of math, it would be infinite cords, by the definition of the imaginary game; divide by or with 0.

In the miracle of Jesus, feeding the crowd; multitude of thousands, with only one fish and one loaf of bread, this can be done, mathematically, if Jesus divided the one fish and one loaf of bread by 1/2000. This would create 2000 fish and 2000 breads. There is math proof for that miracle, based on the rules of math. If it works for science stuff, why not for fish and bread?

Along this logic, if Jesus really wanted to be impressive, and instead of 1/2000 to have just enough to feed the multitude, if he had gone even smaller, all the way to zero, he could have made infinite fish and infinite bread. That would be a miracle of miracles, since that would be more organic material at the party, than in the entire solar system. So maybe there are limits to division by a fraction, before it becomes a miracle of miracles, that can even exceed conservation laws, unless we allow this assumption into the emperors new fish and bread game.

The question as what is the physical procedure, in tangible reality, used by Jesus to divide one fish by 1/2000 to get 2000 fish? How would you physically do this, not as a magic trick, or miracle, but as a repeatable process, that can be used to make more food from less to food to feed the poor of the world? Can this operation be done in physical reality?

We can infer the proper reality process for division by fractions and zero with a simple analysis.

If I divided one fish by 2 we get two halves. There is still one fish but in two halves. Conservation of fish is satisfied. If we divide a second similar fish by 1/2, do we also get 2 halves of fish for conservation, or do we get two fish units, for the math game play? Math was never designed to deal with division fractions but only with wholes. The math game allows for gaming the conservation principle, like infinite lives in video games, if we all agree this will make the game more fun.

In Einstein's Special Relativity, the operator will divide by fractions, if a reference is moving; multiplier miracle of Jesus; 1/(1-v/c). This will need an act of God, since the reality change may not be obvious due to conservation; same in all references. This strange lab proven effect; time dilation, appears to connect the math game to where space and time are not connected, where the limits of space-time, open up, with more options opening up to reality that were thought to be just a game. We had the math intuitions, long ago, but now we have the physical means; space-time and separated space and separated time.

The human imagination and consciousness makes use of separated space and separated time. Our imagination is not limited to the laws of physics that describe space-time. The reason is, our brain and minds, we are moving information via the laws of space-time, but the representation of this information; language organization and association, has endless combinations of physical events. I can rearrange the words of this sentence, until it makes no sense. This action does not violate the rules of space-time, even if the output of the nonsense sentence, does not represent anything in tangible reality. Or the sentence randomizer may morph into fiction; half real.

Separated space and separated time has more options than space-time, and has not only a connection to consciousness and information processing, but it also has a connection to the quantum world. Division by fractions and zero is an intuitive connection to the other side, where then math game becomes reality and even show up in reality; Special Relativity.

Special relativity is where an imaginary assumption of math, is also real. This due to interaction with separated space and time with space-time, via the areas of the quantum world that supports macro realty. Relativistic mass is not seem as real, by many Physicists, but it is part of separated space and time, that is foundational to mass and space-time; imaginary and yet real on a new/old level.

 

[Polymath257]

To understand and prove. As for 'construction', I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you go into more detail?

As I said, understanding isn’t too difficult. I’d like to see your claimed proof.

Your distinction doesn’t really seem to help from what I can see.

 

[Echogem222]

Zero is nothing. As we increase from zero; nothing, something appears, often starting with a fraction of a whole; 1/2. As far as I know, you cannot do something, with nothing, except in an imaginary way. You can do something with a fraction; shot of whiskey from a liter bottle. Doing something with nothing would require everyone agree on an imaginary game, such as the emperor's new clothes game.

Some math assumptions are imaginary, but if we all play along like a game, it becomes part of the game play.

If I had zero axes, and needed to chop wood, how many I chords of wood per day can I chop. I know I can chop one cord in a day with my one ax. But say I left my ax at home, and I was in the woods and found some down and dried trees, how many chords can I chop with my zero axes? This is a trick question, since an imaginary ax cannot do anything in reality. I would be chopping the air with my hands and arms. However, I will not be able to divide even a single log into a single two foot piece of firewood. So the answer is zero in reality. However, in the game of math, it would be infinite cords, by the definition of the imaginary game; divide by or with 0.

In the miracle of Jesus, feeding the crowd; multitude of thousands, with only one fish and one loaf of bread, this can be done, mathematically, if Jesus divided the one fish and one loaf of bread by 1/2000. This would create 2000 fish and 2000 breads. There is math proof for that miracle, based on the rules of math. If it works for science stuff, why not for fish and bread?

Along this logic, if Jesus really wanted to be impressive, and instead of 1/2000 to have just enough to feed the multitude, if he had gone even smaller, all the way to zero, he could have made infinite fish and infinite bread. That would be a miracle of miracles, since that would be more organic material at the party, than in the entire solar system. So maybe there are limits to division by a fraction, before it becomes a miracle of miracles, that can even exceed conservation laws, unless we allow this assumption into the emperors new fish and bread game.

The question as what is the physical procedure, in tangible reality, used by Jesus to divide one fish by 1/2000 to get 2000 fish? How would you physically do this, not as a magic trick, or miracle, but as a repeatable process, that can be used to make more food from less to food to feed the poor of the world? Can this operation be done in physical reality?

We can infer the proper reality process for division by fractions and zero with a simple analysis.

If I divided one fish by 2 we get two halves. There is still one fish but in two halves. Conservation of fish is satisfied. If we divide a second similar fish by 1/2, do we also get 2 halves of fish for conservation, or do we get two fish units, for the math game play? Math was never designed to deal with division fractions but only with wholes. The math game allows for gaming the conservation principle, like infinite lives in video games, if we all agree this will make the game more fun.

In Einstein's Special Relativity, the operator will divide by fractions, if a reference is moving; multiplier miracle of Jesus; 1/(1-v/c). This will need an act of God, since the reality change may not be obvious due to conservation; same in all references. This strange lab proven effect; time dilation, appears to connect the math game to where space and time are not connected, where the limits of space-time, open up, with more options opening up to reality that were thought to be just a game. We had the math intuitions, long ago, but now we have the physical means; space-time and separated space and separated time.

The human imagination and consciousness makes use of separated space and separated time. Our imagination is not limited to the laws of physics that describe space-time. The reason is, our brain and minds, we are moving information via the laws of space-time, but the representation of this information; language organization and association, has endless combinations of physical events. I can rearrange the words of this sentence, until it makes no sense. This action does not violate the rules of space-time, even if the output of the nonsense sentence, does not represent anything in tangible reality. Or the sentence randomizer may morph into fiction; half real.

Separated space and separated time has more options than space-time, and has not only a connection to consciousness and information processing, but it also has a connection to the quantum world. Division by fractions and zero is an intuitive connection to the other side, where then math game becomes reality and even show up in reality; Special Relativity.

Special relativity is where an imaginary assumption of math, is also real. This due to interaction with separated space and time with space-time, via the areas of the quantum world that supports macro realty. Relativistic mass is not seem as real, by many Physicists, but it is part of separated space and time, that is foundational to mass and space-time; imaginary and yet real on a new/old level.

Just to clarify, you do know that I realized I made an error about 0/0, right? Because I did make an edit explaining that. What I'm trying to now prove is not anything about 0/0, but about Zero Undefined actually existing, and being unable to be divided, which makes it a separate type of zero from divisible zero.

+++

"If I had zero axes, and needed to chop wood, how many I chords of wood per day can I chop. I know I can chop one cord in a day with my one ax. But say I left my ax at home, and I was in the woods and found some down and dried trees, how many chords can I chop with my zero axes? This is a trick question, since an imaginary ax cannot do anything in reality. I would be chopping the air with my hands and arms. However, I will not be able to divide even a single log into a single two foot piece of firewood. So the answer is zero in reality. However, in the game of math, it would be infinite cords, by the definition of the imaginary game; divide by or with 0."

The imaginary ax in this situation would be equal to a non-applicable existence, or a divisible zero since it's something which is not relevant to having a real axe, but the less than non-applicable existence or the zero undefined wouldn't apply due to the context. Zero undefined is a type of zero which can exist sometimes in word math problems in ways that most commonly wouldn't be thinking about unless they were diving into the philosophy of the math problem.

 

[Echogem222]

As I said, understanding isn’t too difficult. I’d like to see your claimed proof.

Your distinction doesn’t really seem to help from what I can see.

Exactly what would count as proof to you in this situation? Because I've already explained enough of it for anyone who understands philosophy to understand what the proof is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

B. Zero Undefined: This type of zero would represent a concept that is not just the absence of quantity, but an absence of definable or divisible substance. It's a conceptual placeholder for something that is fundamentally indeterminate or unquantifiable. In this context, dividing 'zero undefined' would not make sense, as it represents a state or condition that is beyond the scope of standard arithmetic operations.

The closest thing I can think of is 'Null' which is a concept in programming. Null is a flag which represents that there is no value present, not even a zero; and what it means is that any math operation is meaningless. (Some of the languages (such as Perl) are not strict about it and will allow programmers to choose whether Null can substitute as a zero/true/false etc.) Null is meaningless mathematically, however the null itself is a flag and is therefore not meaningless to the algorithm. Python implements this using the word 'None'.

Mathematically the Null does not do anything except prevent an operation, and this is only algorithmic. Its not as if you can multiply by it or add to it. You can replace it with a number though. It is an extreme example of "Not defined enough."

You could define a system of numbers in which numbers could be partially defined, and then you could have a limit beyond which you considered them to not be defined enough. This would not be true of the rational numbers or the reals, but you could define a system of numbers based upon them which had this kind of property. I think. Imaginary numbers are an example of a useful number system that is based upon the reals and which allows for unusual operations. If you did define a number system like this then it would not only be algorithmic, but there should be a point when adding features to a number system if you are going for applied maths. There should be some use for it. If its strictly for fun or for enjoyment or mental exercise then you can depart from applied maths, but you will have a much smaller group of interested people to help with it.

 

[Echogem222]

The closest thing I can think of is 'Null' which is a concept in programming. Null is a flag which represents that there is no value present, not even a zero; and what it means is that any math operation is meaningless. (Some of the languages (such as Perl) are not strict about it and will allow programmers to choose whether Null can substitute as a zero/true/false etc.) Null is meaningless mathematically, however the null itself is a flag and is therefore not meaningless to the algorithm. Python implements this using the word 'None'.

Mathematically the Null does not do anything except prevent an operation, and this is only algorithmic. Its not as if you can multiply by it or add to it. You can replace it with a number though. It is an extreme example of "Not defined enough."

You could define a system of numbers in which numbers could be partially defined, and then you could have a limit beyond which you considered them to not be defined enough. This would not be true of the rational numbers or the reals, but you could define a system of numbers based upon them which had this kind of property. I think. Imaginary numbers are an example of a useful number system that is based upon the reals and which allows for unusual operations. If you did define a number system like this then it would not only be algorithmic, but there should be a point when adding features to a number system if you are going for applied maths. There should be some use for it. If its strictly for fun or for enjoyment or mental exercise then you can depart from applied maths, but you will have a much smaller group of interested people to help with it.

I didn't know about 'Null', thank you. But I already have a use for Zero Undefined, and it's for understanding what the word 'nothing' means in more depth. I'm someone who has developed my own philosophy I use to understand life, and it's important for me to know exactly what nothing is in every context it's used. I guess you could say I'm like a programmer who needs to know what every value does, so I can write a program correctly (but switch out program for philosophy).