- #1
Count Iblis
- 1,863
- 8
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1090"
Last edited by a moderator:
Count Iblis said:http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1090"
DecayProduct said:Just what does it mean to be "greater than infinity"?
Hmm. I've never heard this kind of math before. Thanks for sharing with us, very interesting one.Moo Of Doom said:Because, in this paper, they define a new order relation (I'll write <<) such that 0 << 1 << 2 << 3 << ... << -3 << -2 << -1. In this way, for any negative a and positive b, we have b << a. If we were to add an element infinity to this, then we would have b << infinity << a for any negative a, positive b.
arildno said:It sounds like complete nonsense.
To begin with, the authors seems to confuse concepts like axioms and conditions.
CRGreathouse said:They're giving up transitivity, which is a pretty big blow. What does their system gain?
Office_Shredder said:I'm stuck on definition 2.1. How is that supposed to work for 0?
ZacharyFino said:it doesn't make sense simply because it is a different mathematical system than the one we've become accustomed to, you can't compare its results with traditional mathematical problems because the value of infinity is more "numerous" than a negative. its abstract in a way that makes less realistic sense but more ordering efficiency. just as imaginary numbers are used in situations when real numbers cannot provide a solution.
Where do the integers switch from positive to negative? In our accustomed number system, zero is basically the turning point, but for this system in my eyes it seems to be 1/0 which suggests there is no switch, but a grey fuzzy area of [tex]+\infty \rightarrow -\infty[/tex] ??a new method for ordering the integers, from which we get Z =
[0, 1, 2, ...,−2,−1]
Sure enough, it just seemed extremely amateurish at first glance not the least the initial discussion concerning the "correctness" of the 18th century view, which they seemed to espouse.Count Iblis said:What matters is if the results derived in the paper are useful. I mean, when Dirac wrote in his book: "principles of quantum mechanics" that the derivative of Log(x) should contain a term proportional to a so-called "delta function" that he had just invented out of thin air a few pages back, was complete nonsense too. The whole notion of a delta function in the way he explained it, was inconsistent in the first place.
arildno said:Sure enough, it just seemed extremely amateurish at first glance.
However, some properties of negative numbers had been remaining unclear for a long time, in particular, the order relation between positive and negative numbers.
”nothing”
Dragonfall said:Here are some telltale signs of crackpottery:
Negative numbers are numbers that are less than zero. They are represented by a minus sign (-) in front of the number.
Negative numbers are considered to be greater than infinity because they are infinitely far away from zero in the negative direction on the number line.
This definition allows for consistency in mathematical operations and helps to extend the number system to include values less than zero.
No, negative numbers cannot be equal to infinity. Infinity is a concept, not a specific number, and therefore cannot be equal to any other number, including negative numbers.
Negative numbers are used in real life to represent values that are less than zero, such as temperatures below freezing, debts, and elevations below sea level. They also play a role in mathematical concepts such as direction and distance.