Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The revised infinity theory.

  1. May 19, 2005 #1
    For those who were on the last thread concerning this, I have started a new one over since the last one is dead. I have thought on the rules for a while, and now have made a few new rules and changed the otherones.

    For those who have not read the last thread, what I am trying to do is create a system so that [tex] \frac {a} {x} \cdot \frac {x} {1} = \frac {a} {1} [/tex] even if [tex] x = 0 [/tex]

    It is finished.

    First the order of operations must be revised.
    The order will go
    1)All workable exponents
    2)All workable parentesis
    3)Multiply and Divide with zeros
    4)Solve for any [tex] \infty ^ 1 [/tex]
    5)Normal multiplication and division
    6)Normal addition and subtraction
    7)Solve for any [tex] \infty ^ 0 [/tex]

    Second the comunive property cannot be used until step 4 is applied.

    Third [tex] a \infty ^ 1 = a [/tex] and [tex] a \infty ^ 0 = 0 [/tex] and to avoid complication [tex] 0 \neq 0 \infty ^ 0 [/tex]. This does allow [tex] a \cdot 0 = 0 [/tex]

    Fourth comes the basic rules I started with [tex] \frac {a \infty ^ {x}} {0} = a \infty ^ {x + 1} [/tex]
    and [tex] a \infty ^ x \cdot 0 = a \infty ^ {x-1} [/tex]

    These are the basic rules.
    Now for the other rules.

    First, how to squareroot a [tex] \infty [/tex] number.
    [tex] \sqrt {4} = 2 [/tex] need someone to show me how to do +/- sign.
    so [tex] \sqrt {4 \infty ^ 1} = 2 \infty ^ 1 [/tex]
    which is done by saying that [tex] \sqrt {a \infty ^ x} = \sqrt {a} \infty ^ {\sqrt{x}} [/tex]

    Second of infinity numbers with different infinity powers. The rule goes [tex] a \infty ^ x \cdot b \infty ^y = a b \infty ^ {xy} [/tex]. This does work if [tex] x = y [/tex]

    Third is addition and subtraction of numbers with different powers. The rule goes [tex] a \infty ^ x + b \infty ^ y = a \infty ^ x + b \infty ^ y [/tex].
    Now if [tex] x = y [/tex] then [tex] a \infty ^ x + b \infty ^y = \left( a + b \right) \infty ^ x [/tex]
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. May 19, 2005 #2
    Ok i think the rules are finished. If you want to know how i came up with any rule, please ask.
  4. May 19, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First off, "order of operations" is a notational convenience... NOT part of an algebra.

    Secondly, parentheses are not operations -- they're a necessary part of notation to indicate the operands of applying a function.

    Have you played much with your algebraic operations? You also seem to be missing 0/0.

    But! We can figure it out: for any a, we have:

    0/0 = (a ∞0) / 0 = a ∞1

    So, we've run into a problem: a ∞1 = b ∞1 for all a and b.
  5. May 19, 2005 #4
    so you go from [tex] \frac {0} {0} [/tex] to [tex] \frac {a \cdot 0} {0} [/tex]

    but you only multiplied one side by a, it should be [tex] \frac {a \cdot 0} {0} = a [/tex]
    which would work out to
    [tex] \frac {a \infty ^ 0} {0} = a [/tex]
    [tex] a \infty ^ 1 = a [/tex]
    [tex] a = a [/tex]

    I have seen many people times one side by a but not the other, why.
  6. May 19, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    [tex]\pm[/tex] (click on the symbol to get the code)

    I see you found about \neq already. Just download the two pdf files chroot's first post tells you to download in the Latex Tysetting post. It's all in there.
  7. May 19, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But the thing is if you multiply any finite number by 0 it is equal to 0. Or more simply 0 + 0 = 0, hence:

    [tex]1 = \infty^1 \cdot 0 = \infty^1 \cdot (0 + 0) = \infty^1 \cdot 0 + \infty^1 \cdot 0 = 1 + 1 = 2[/tex]
  8. May 20, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I didn't do any multiplying -- I only applied your identities.

    0/0 = (a ∞0) / 0 is true because of the identitiy a ∞0 = 0.

    (a ∞0) / 0 = a ∞1 is true because of the identity (a ∞x) / 0 = a ∞x+1.

    Therefore, 0/0 = a ∞1 is true.

    Also, when one writes 0/0 = (a*0)/0, they are not multiplying by a -- they're applying the identity 0 = a*0 to replace one of the 0's with a*0.
    Last edited: May 20, 2005
  9. May 20, 2005 #8
    ill take care of this one first. I have the rule [tex] 0 \neq \infty ^0 [/tex]

    also, changing a [tex] a \infty ^ 0 = 0 [/tex] is done last. it is the same with
    [tex] 2 \cdot 2 + 1 [/tex]
    they can be done without order of ops.
    [tex] 4 + 1 = 5 [/tex] or [tex] 2 \cdot 3 = 6 [/tex]

    must go
  10. May 20, 2005 #9

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That makes no sense.

    If [tex] a \infty ^ 0 = 0 [/tex] , then dividing by a and usign the rules of arithmetic that surely we want to keep if must follow that [tex]\infty^0=0[/tex], which you claim is false.
  11. May 20, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In arithmetic there is no rules that things must be carried out in a certain order, that would make no sense, I think you are confusing up the generalization of binary operations on real numbers.

    With a binary operations like * (multiply) and + (add) you can only perform these operations with 2 numbers, like so: 2 + 3 = 5 and 2*3=6. However, because we often need to use many of these operations at once we generalize and say things like 2+3*4=14, what we actually mean is: 2 + (3*4) = 14, it could just as easily be standard notation that it 2+3*4=20 as in: (2+3)*4=20. But that's all it is, standard notation, we need to choose one so we can use less brackets, it's not actually some law of numbers.
  12. May 20, 2005 #11
    so [tex] 14 = 2 + 3 \cdot 4 = 20 [/tex]
    put [tex] 2 + 3 \cdot 4 = x [/tex]
    so that [tex] 14 = x = 20 [/tex]
    flip the postions of x and 20 [tex] 14 = 20 = x [/tex]
    so we have [tex] 14 = 20 [/tex]
    which does not work.
  13. May 20, 2005 #12
    maybe i should clear up. I was saying that [tex] 0 \neq 0 \infty ^ 0 [/tex]
    because that would equal [tex] \infty ^ {-1} [/tex] and that can be applied. I will cange it. Any ways, you should only go form [tex] \infty ^ 0 [/tex] to zero, when there is nothing else to be done.
  14. May 20, 2005 #13

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    So, that's another rule, actually several, then that makes the symbol \infty different from all real numbers then. How on earth can that be said to be a good thing, given your premise.
  15. May 20, 2005 #14
    i meant that [tex] 0 \neq 0 \infty ^ 0 [/tex]
  16. May 20, 2005 #15
    also, i was basing the off of an idea that 0 should never be turned into [tex] a \infty ^0 [/tex]
  17. May 20, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I can safely say, then, that what you're describing is certainly not mathematics. The law of substitution is one of the most important things, and it's what makes the language of mathematics useful. If two things are equal, then substituting one for the other does not change the meaning of a statement.
  18. May 20, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    My point was there is no order of doing things as all addition and multiplication are binary operations and all you can do is stick 2 numbers in and get a single number out.

    2+3*4 does not make sense at all! Not unless you define some standard notation for it to mean something. Please try and read what people put more carefully.
  19. May 22, 2005 #18
    now i think i see what you mean by a binary operation.

    Does that means that 2+3*4 is a trinary operation

    i was taught that order of operations must always be followed so the same answer can be optained.
  20. May 22, 2005 #19
    im going ahead and printing out my fist post. thanks for helping me develop the rules better, and i can now latex type yay. im not going to speak on this more unless for some reason i get a big break thruogh, if that is possible. I'll post what my teacher says about this during end of august.

    Thanks again.
  21. May 22, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    To be honest this area of mathematics has been studied on a great level of detail by some of the greatest mathematicians and they have found ways to generalise it and look at it all at once and prove what is and isn't possible with this sort of thing. But you need to learn a great deal of maths first.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: The revised infinity theory.
  1. A theory of infinity (Replies: 8)

  2. Infinity by Particles (Replies: 1)