Terrence Howard on Reality

[zurew]

Lol this thread has become a high school (and at certain periods an elementary school) math boot camp.

@Nemra I don't know how you have this much patience - hats off to you.

Edited June 18 by zurew

[Nemra]

@zurew 😁

People don't know that hell is waiting for them when they get introduced to what a matrix is and how it works. 🥲

Edited June 18 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

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. 

[Salvijus]

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. 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

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. 

For 0, make it logically sound to you, and you'll see the effects. No one is telling you not to do it. Logically unsound things will always pop up.

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I don’t think any mathematical gymnastics is going to convince that the above statement is not illogical.

The problem is that you want to avoid contradiction by making everything sound logical to you.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

The problem is that you want to avoid contradiction by making everything sound logical to you.

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

[Salvijus]

4 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Logically unsound things will always pop up.

That's all I wanted to hear 🤧

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

That's all I wanted to hear 🤧

It won't make sense when you only focus on how things are written.

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

It won't make sense when you only focus on how things are written.

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

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

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

I don't know.

I think it'll make sense when you accept all of the contradictions.

[Salvijus]

14 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I don't know.

I think it'll make sense when you accept all of the contradictions.

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. 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

They didn't define for that case.

They defined x^n for n>0, n ∈ N, N - set of natural numbers, at first.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Salvijus

They didn't define for that case.

They defined x^n for n>0, n ∈ N, N - set of natural numbers, at first.

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. 

[Salvijus]

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

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation

Read the sections "Zero rule" and "Negative exponents".

I understand that you want to find it at 0 without using known operations and thinking of it as meaning nothing.

Edited June 18 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

42 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Salvijus

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation

Read the sections "Zero rule" and "Negative exponents".

I understand that you want to find it at 0 without using known operations and thinking of it as meaning nothing.

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. 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

b^m = b^m * b^0 

b^m = b^m * b^0,

b^m/b^m = b^0,

1 = b^0,

You can always multiply a number by 1 because it can't change the values of two sides of the equation.

The number 1 is omitted because, when multiplied by some x, the x stays x. You can have an infinite number of x^0 on both sides of the equation, as they result in 1. You can make x^0 as much as complicated.

Edited June 18 by Nemra

[Salvijus]

11 minutes ago, Nemra said:

b^m = b^m * b^0,

b^m/b^m = b^0,

1 = b^0,

You can always multiply a number by 1 because it can't change the values of two sides of the equation.

1 = b^0

b^0 = _______ 

That which never happened technically can be called as 1. 

______ = 1 

1 = b^0

 

Edited June 18 by Salvijus

[Nemra]

@Salvijus

1 = b^0 ≡ b^0 = 1