Terrence Howard on Reality

[Nemra]

@Salvijus 

But you were talking about x^0 = 1 not making sense to you.

 

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

@Salvijus 

But you were talking about x^0 = 1 not making sense to you.

 

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. 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[zurew]

@Leo GuraSo in other words, from system's inability to prove its own consistency doesn't necessarily follow, that that system is actually inconsistent ( at least thats my understanding).

5 hours ago, zurew said:

  Quote

https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/goedel-incompleteness/

First incompleteness theorem
Any consistent formal system F𝐹 within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F𝐹 which can neither be proved nor disproved in F𝐹.

Second incompleteness theorem
For any consistent system F𝐹 within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, the consistency of F𝐹 cannot be proved in F𝐹 itself.

Or if you prefer wikipedia:

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

"Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories."

"The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

"Peano arithmetic is provably consistent from ZFC, but not from within itself. "<--- this is a specific example where just because you cannot prove the consistency of a system within itself, doesn't mean that it is inconsistent

 

Leo, Im sorry but the truth is that you either have a wrong understanding of this specific subject (based on what I have read on this, feel free to prove me wrong) or you are using very imprecise language (claiming that something is inconsistent is substantively different from the claim that a system cannot prove its own consistency within itself - thats extremely imprecise language and thats being charitable towards you, because if any other person would make this big of a miscommunication, my assumption wouldn't be miscommunication, but my assumption would be that the other person lacks the understanding and thats why hes/she made a demonstrably false statement).

Now, its obviously possible that I lack some contextual understanding on this, so feel free to prove my interpretation of the above texts wrong or feel free to point out how it ought to be interpreted and why.

Edited June 18 by zurew

[Nemra]

34 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's like I take 100 apples. Make a statement that they got multiplied not a single time. And get 1 magically.

Well, math doesn't make sense if you don't understand how the operations work. Someone who doesn't know how it works will find it nonsense.

If you want to change how you represent some things, then understand that you're also going to change the operations.

I even created new math based on your input with AI, and it transformed into something you didn't expect.

[Salvijus]

15 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Well, math doesn't make sense if you don't understand how the operations work. Someone who doesn't know how it works will find it nonsense.

If you want to change how you represent some things, then understand that you're also going to change the operations.

I even created new math based on your input with AI, and it transformed into something you didn't expect.

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? 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

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. 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

17 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Operation called. "not a single time they got multiplied"

Because when you write 0, it means to divide to itself.

Why can you makes sense x/x = 1 and not x^0 = 1?

Also, when x^n is already as x*x*...*x (n times),

Then

x^n = x*x^(n-1),

x^(n-1) = x^n/x

If n = 1, then

x^0 = x^1/x = x/x = 1

If n = 0, then

x^(-1) = x^0/x = 1/x = 1/(x^1)

If n = -1, then

x^(-2) = x^(-1)/x = (1/x)/x = 1/(x^2)

Edited June 18 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Because when you write 0, it means to divide to itself.

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

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

It sounds illogical to you because it was defined for multiplication in the first place. If you change the representation, then you will always get things that sound illogical to you.

Please enlighten me on how division was invented.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

It sounds illogical to you because it was defined for multiplication in the first place. If you change the representation, then you will always get things that sound illogical to you.

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. 

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

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. 

No, I literally showed you how to discover it. You are the one who is changing the representation without knowing that it'll affect the operations.

Edited June 18 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

No, I literally showed you how to discover it. You are the one who is changing the representation without knowing that it'll affect the operations. 

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? 

[Salvijus]

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. 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

39 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

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. 

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? 

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

What is the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0?

Does that make sense?

[Salvijus]

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Salvijus

What is the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0?

Does that make sense?

Mmmmm no

[Salvijus]

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

 

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

When you approach 0 using the negative numbers, it's -infinity.

When you approach 0 using the positive numbers, it's +infinity.

 

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Salvijus

When you approach 0 using the negative numbers, it's -infinity.

When you approach 0 using the positive numbers, it's +infinity.

 

What does it mean to approach zero? 

[Salvijus]

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