Salvijus

The main questions are. 1. Is it possible to have an alternative math system and make it consistent? 2. Is the current math system the most accurate representation of reality? You guys can debunk me all you want. But if the answer to the first question is yes. Then in theory my model should be able to make consistent aswell. Then you could make bunch of alternative models and debate which ones are more accurate to represent reality.

In terms of x^-3 you can make a new rule/consensus that "-" indicates division, not multiplication. So x^-3 = x/x/x. I mean you can start making whatever new rules you want as long as you make it consistent.

I accepted your demonstrations as valid btw. And I thank you for your time. I was just suggesting an idea that it's possible to use the an alternative model and make it consistent aswell. It doesn't even have to be mine. Just alternative.

Mmm. I got confused

x^1 = x^-1 is a new model. Of course it won't fit into the old paradigm. For a new model to work. All of mathematics, rules, axioms need to be adjusted.

No matter what definition you give x^0=1 doesn't exist in reality.

My goal was to demonstrate that the already defined rules are not in alignment with reality.

According to what definition? Because look at my definition. 2^3 = 2*2*2 (there are three 2's that multiply with each other) 2^2 = 2*2 (there are two 2's that multiple with each other) 2^1 = 2 (there is one 2) 2^0 = _____ ( there are no 2's at all) 2^-1= 2 (there is one 2) 2^-2 = 2/2 ( there are two 2's in division with each other) 2^-3 = 2/2/2 (there are three 2's that are in division with each other) Now show your definition of how you got 2^(-1) = 1/2. By what definition you got there?

I told you that's not what I'm pointing at Sigh....

It should look like this. 2^3 = 2*2*2 2^2 = 2*2 2^1 = 2 2^0 = _____ 2^-1= 2 2^-2 = 2/2 2^-3 = 2/2/2 Notice how diferenet that is from textbook version

2^2 = 4 ( two 2's in multiplication) 2^1 = 2 2^ 0 = _____ blank. There are no 2's that multiple among each other But instead they write 1. And there is good reason for it actually. Because they have to.

You want my definition? My definition would be: the number of times the base is being repeated in multiplication So 2^5 means there are five 2's that are in multiplication with each other. (2*2*2*2*2)

If I said to you guys. I'm going to have zero impact on these 200 apples. How much is there going to be left afterwards? 1?

Then your definitions are not consistent. Just look carefully at the words you're using. "Rise by the power of zero" means to have an impact of zero value. How can you have an impact of zero value and end up with totally different result?

1 But that's not what I'm pointing at.

Another way of saying. If you have 100 apples. And you make an impact on them which is of zero value. Where did all those apples disappear and became one only?

Well then it's another logical flaw. If you say I'm going to rise 100 apples by the non existent value 0. How did those apples all disappeared and became only one?

I also had similar thoughts. Because no language can encapsulate the whole of reality. Because there are elements in reality which are beyond all definition and description. Where no language can touch. And so every system is going to fail somewhere. Probably. I'm just guessing here.

The answer must be 1 otherwise math won't be consistent. That's the justification.

If you have two apples and rise them by the power of 2 you get 2^2=4 apples (makes sense) If you have two apples and rise them by the power of 1 you get 2^1 = 2 apples (makes sense) If you have 2 apples and rise them by the power of 0 you get 1 apple. (That never happens in real life.)

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent.

Physics from math? Rather math in alignment with physics. Why not?

Bingo. Mmmmm... There is one place in mathematics where when something is undefined, instead of writing 0 or leaving a blank, they write 1. To make math consistent. Maybe the mathematician here could tell you more about it. When I've talked before with a mathematician, he was able to show me how mathematicians invent the number 1 out of completely nowhere. Just to make math consistent. It's debetable that was the only way to solve the inconsistency problem imo. But debetable doesn't mean I'm right. It just means maybe there's a better model out there.

So if a new math can be made consistent. Then why my model can't be made consistent? Just because it doesn't fit into a current system doesn't mean anything. Of course it won't fit. Because everything would have to be readjusted.

Okay it's official. The world is going mad.