B Is 1*0 Truly Equal to 0 in Physical Reality?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Laca
  • Start date Start date
Laca
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Could someone give an example where this axiom 1*0=0 is absolutely true?

About Nothing(0):

The null hypothesis is that nothing, zero is a physical reality based mathematical conception which we can perceive as an energy, matter, information, space, time free state. Revealing as our common physical, mathematical, philosophical origin, a physical reality based mathematical reference point. I state that in proportion to this physical reality based sense(conception) everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. Space, time, information, energy, matter.

The hypothesis is based on the fact that space expands and time evolves which points out that our current moment is bigger than the moment before. Following this path backward on the timeline of the physical reality we arrive to the lowest possible physical state, which I perceive as a space(time), energy, matter, information-free state. 0. In proportion to this state, everything has value. Everything has mathematically expressible value. Space, time, energy, matter and information.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Laca said:
Could someone give an example where this axiom 1*0=0 is absolutely true?
What are ##1## and ##0##, i.e. about which mathematical sets do we speak here?
They are usually the neutral elements of a multiplicative (1), resp. additive group (0). As long as there is more than one group and one written multiplicatively and the other additively, they are distinct per definition. So yes, absolutely true per construction.
About Nothing(0):

The null hypothesis is that nothing, zero is a physical reality based mathematical conception which we can perceive as an energy, matter, information, space, time free state. Revealing as our common physical, mathematical, philosophical origin, a physical reality based mathematical reference point. I state that in proportion to this physical reality based sense(conception) everything has some kind of mathematically expressible value. Space, time, information, energy, matter.
We do not debate philosophical questions here - at least not anymore. You can find a lot of existing threads to those keywords, so if you are interested I recommend to do a forum search. The term reality has a clear definition for us: Real is what is measurable. Mathematical terms cannot be measured, they are a tool for description and prediction.
The hypothesis is based on the fact that space expands and time evolves which points out that our current moment is bigger than the moment before. Following this path backward on the timeline of the physical reality we arrive to the lowest possible physical state, which I perceive as a space(time), energy, matter, information-free state. 0. In proportion to this state, everything has value. Everything has mathematically expressible value. Space, time, energy, matter and information.
I'm not quite sure what you want to say, and even less, what this has to do with mathematics.

As I mentioned above, since we do not discuss philosophical aspects of reality and existence, this thread is closed.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top