Salvijus

I'm cool with that I've had enough math for a lifetime now

Amen.

1 = b^0 b^0 = _______ That which never happened technically can be called as 1. ______ = 1 1 = b^0

Yes!!!!!!! this is a very similar example I was shown before. See the line. b^m = b^m+0 = b^m * b^0 b^m = b^m * b^0 Then b^0 must be equal to 1 Then I asked him. Why b^0 must be equal to 1. Why can't we say b^0 is _______ blank. Because that would work also. And it would be in alignment with words being used. It would look like. b^m = b^m * _____ blank = b^m = b^m But apparently he said there is a rule in math that you can't leave a blank like that. If one element is undefined then the whole formula is undefined. So answer "1" was the only option mathematicians could go with. Do you see? I thought that was both fucked up but also interesting to see how mathematicians think. They define that which never happened as 1. How crazy is that.

Like you can call nothingness zero. Or you can call nothingness 1. And you will be logically correct both ways.

I was told the explanation once that x^0 translated would mean (there are no numbers that multiply with each other) so the answer would have to be _____ blank x^0=_____ would have to be a proper answer. However there is a rule in math that you can't leave something undefined. If there is at least one element undefined, then the whole formula is undefined. So mathematicians had to fill the blank with something. So how do you define something that never happened. You can either call it 0 or you can call it 1. And for math to be consistent, 1 was the right answer. That was an explanation I was told long ago.

Mmm, yea. I'm able to see why mathematicians defined x^0 as 1 aswell actually. In order to have a well defined mathematical universe/system. There is certain different kind of logic to it. Sneaky logic I would call it, haha. So... That's cool.

Can't there be made a math model where everything would make sense in written form aswell?

That's all I wanted to hear 🤧

Aaaaah. I'm down to accepting contradictions. That is a different talk now.

If x^2 in translation means ( there are two identical numbers that multiply among each other) x^0 in translation means (there are not a single identical number at play that would multiply with each other) and the answer 1 is totally random. I don’t think any mathematical gymnastics is going to convince that the above statement is not illogical. Maybe this is a good place to end it. Because we won't get anywhere if we didn't already lol.

I don't think advanced mathematics is necessary here. It's just a question of how do you translate the x^0=1 statement in a way that makes logical sense. Somehow everyone is dodging this simple problem.

Zero can't be reached with any numbers if you ask me lol

What does it mean to approach zero?

So am I right that x^0= 1 can't be translated into words or no?

Mmmmm no

Why is it that every mathematical writing can be translated into words. But if I ask x^0=1 to be translated into words nobody has an answer?

Shouldn't the definition of 0 and its function be consistent throughout all math? Like everywhere zero means just zero. But ^0 suddenly means to divide a number by itself. Seems like totally random and out of nowhere to me.

Okay, I had no energy to look at the proof tbh. By why would 0 mean devision. And then in the rest of the math 0 means value? Isn't that an inconsistency?

But you're are the one who is changing the representation by saying that 0 means division. 0 means a particular value in the rest of the math.

So 0 means to divide? Are you aware how illogical that sounds? Numbers indicate the size of the impact. Not the form of impact. If 0 means to divide then by your logic. 10 0 = 10/10 = 1

Translate this statement x^0=1 into words so that it would be logical and I will accept my defeat. Like for example 2*2 = 4. A translation would be. (2 was doubled in size) 2+2 =4 (two things were added onto other two things) Similary translate the statement x^0=1 into words so that it would be logical. Let me see it.

I understand how operation works. If i make an operation on 100 apples. Operation called. "not a single time they got multiplied" and end up with the answer 1. How is that logical?

Really? I lost track what we are talking about then lol. But yea. I would say it doesn't make sense. All these symbols ( * / - + ^) indicate a specific impact. And numbers indicate the size of that impact. The symbol "^" in particular shows how many identical numbers are being multiplied among each other. So x^2 for example would translate into words as. Two x's are being multiplied with each other. (x*x). Okay that's cool. However x^0 in translation means not a single x is being multiplied among each other other. And yet the answer magically appears as 1. That indeed doesn't make sense imo. It's like I take 100 apples. Make a statement that they got multiplied not a single time. And get 1 magically.

This formula is true only in the old paradigm. In the new model you'd have to remake all the formulas. Of course the new model is not going to fit in the old formulas. There's only one thing worth contemplating. Is there a way to make alternative math consistent? And if yes. Then there should be a way to make my model legit.