Salvijus

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.

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?