Without a prefix: What are the Identities and Inverses of Integers?

[n0n]

http://n0n.madtracker.net/N0Ntheory_toe.bmp

 

[Muzza]

Jibberish?

 

[Gza]

It's called: "learn some arithmetic."

 

[MiGUi]

¿0 = 2/0* ... ?

Wow

 

[Petrushka]

Is anyone allowed to divide by 0 now, or just you n0n?

 

[n0n]

what, ok then why? doesn't it make sense? I asked a question and I got was riddicule, which is fine, or whatever, but what is wrong about it?

is the outcome logical or faulse petrushka? like I would know, but why would they be faulse?

in uniKEF theory a = 1 : b = -1 :: 0 = a + b + a + b + a + b + a + b -> inf. = 1

in what way is uniKEF theory different then mine other then I worked it out using numbers. instead of letters. I don't know all I can say is; what?

 

[HallsofIvy]

what, ok then why? doesn't it make sense? I asked a question and I got was riddicule, which is fine, or whatever, but what is wrong about it?

is the outcome logical or faulse petrushka? like I would know, but why would they be faulse?

in uniKEF theory a = 1 : b = -1 :: 0 = a + b + a + b + a + b + a + b -> inf. = 1

in what way is uniKEF theory different then mine other then I worked it out using numbers. instead of letters. I don't know all I can say is; what?

No, "uniKEF" is not different than yours: both are crap.

 

[NSX]

In reponse to your question, isn't it called n0n theory [as shown by your bmp]?

This is what I find wrong.

Can you answer this n0n:

Is anyone allowed to divide by 0 now, or just you n0n?

How can you divide by 0?

 

[Gza]

How can you divide by 0?

Don't you see NSX? The framework of his incredible theoretical breakthrough is based upon the underpinnings of uniKEF. A beautiful, elegant theory in which one is allowed to divide by zero without worry. Einstein and Newton would be proud.

and just a quick question for n0n(sorry, you are already taking a bit of a beating for this, but i'll try to ask without too much sarcasm). How is the link you provided a "theory of everything" as proclaimed by the name of the page? To me at least, it seems to be more of a TON (Theory of Nothing.)

 

[matt grime]

you ask why it doesn't make sense, but you haven't said what it is you think you're doing, you've just written some symbols, and at some point divided by 0. something that is not allowed in the real numbers. so?

 

[n0n]

ok i'll tell you the story behind it then. I am a musician, I work with *.wav files every day, its not my job but its like an obsession to me, to write music. so, I have much trouble trying to deside what is real or not in existence (do I believe in this , do I believe in that crap cause everything is so forcefull on ones being). So I desided to make my own based on my own logic(like the greats did, lol sad for thoughs who lack the respect of a free thinker for they themselfs are the hinder of ther own free thinking, I say " understand it first, then discuss the trueths and faulses") , and music was already something I was doing, so I based it on music. (my own logic means if it makes sense who am I to deny its existence unless it deny's its own existence) get this?

If you wrote music you would completely understand, cause within beats I can create a divisional outcome, within the riffs I can do the same. and the reduction of beats is also a part of changeing divisional outcome and it works. I started to really think about it, and that is what i came up with. and for the way music is written it makes a lot of sense, like every sense.

When I start writing a song, I don't have anything in my mind about what the song is going to be, I half to clear it otherwise nothing will come. and then I deside what sound I want,, any sound I feel like should be with me for the time of the song, and I listen to a lot of them. and that's the start, everything else is like the reduction at some point along the process. until completion.

abunch of symbols what? its only division and multipulication.
A: find largest possable divisior (which is the worked out part with arrows)
B: Divide nemerator and denominator by A
C: When the reduction to lowest terms is completed, only 1 can be divided into both numerator and denominator.

, and no I don't have to divide by zero the fact that it reaches 0 is still an exceptable answer I was just illistrating that even a division of 0 can equal 1. and how faulse is it, would you think differently if I came up with 2.3847293846 or something for a division of 0? cause if i came up with that, then I would know I am crazy. but nooo a division of 0 isn't even 0 so what the hell does that mean? sounds like acceptance of logic issues.
lol Ill make a tutorial :P. wow you guys are weird, its like right their and I still got to do a step by step process for division.

2/0 is the problem correct. if their is something wrong with the logic lol j/k their isnt

0 goes into 2, 0 times
2 - 0 = 2
2 * 10 (cause this is how division works remember) = 20
0 goes into 20, 0 times
20 - 0 = 20
20 * 10 = 200.
get it? if not wow. just because its by 0 doesn't mean the process has to change, does it cause then it wouldn't be division it would be some other thing. Did we forget how if things make sense then they must be true cause 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 / 0 = 0
here is what a faulse looks like 1 = 1+2/0 = 0 can you tell me why? cause I can. i

and by the way, I ask a question and its like I am trying to start a war , lol for some poor musician this is pretty pathetic but whatever rip on me all you want cause, I don't even know who you all are, and the only thing you can so far say is , ooh you can't divide by 0, god read between the lines. open your minds alittle.

for a musician its easy, for math people everything is strict, well I found freedom in your strictness so :P . now you try and comprehend that. mr. self actuallized mathematics profesoress's, cause what the hell? god him self could have sent the message and you'll would still be all booo booo booo. with no reason or math to disprove my findings what the hell else am I sapost to think?

 

[matt grime]

Oh, so your an ill-educated (mathematically - I'm sure in other things you are well educated, apparently, though, English isn't one of them either) troll. Because you don't understand what these things are it's our fault? Ok, but, for interest, you will need to go away and learn about groups, rings, fields, arithmetic and so on. Sorry you feel that it is necessary to have to define division (by zero) in that fashion, but, fortunately, we don't.

 

[n0n]

ehh whatever, should have just left a hate post and dish what I've been served lol. its good at least, I know I struck a nerve that's going to get struck again, cause that's what a theory for every thing is going to do. by the way what's the difference between one 0 and an infinite amount of 0? for an amount of 0 is still 0, if I am not mistaken.

lol why did I have to do the math for the division of 0 that way, haha, cause its the only way it makes sense. why do division in the first place, or hey even math, why not just say screw it all and go party till we all die.

haha fine pick on my typeing skill too. and while your at it take my lunch money. lol I love this game :D .

 

[matt grime]

You've not hit a nerve, just flagged yourself with the crank label by asking one of the most frequent enquiries of the crackpot fraternity. It is sad that often when asking this question you get the "disallowed" response treated as though there is some set of permissions that can alter as our ethics (or do I mean morals) change. It is not defined, as simple as that. Sometimes declaring some symbol to behave as though it were whatever the undefined operation is/does leads to a more complex and richer structure, such as declaring i to be the principal sqaure root of -1.

What do you mean by an infinite amount of zeroes? That is another ill defined question: the measure of a countable union of sets of measure zero is zero, the uncountable union can be any (positive) amount you wish, including 0 (which we will take to be positive as it is not strictly non negative).

And I'm not picking on your typing skills, that would be grand hypocrisy; I am picking on your grammatical usage (not just punctuation) in sentence structure. Typing "thoughs" instead of "those" is not a tpying error, by the way. Unless your typing is worse than mine, which I can't believe.

 

[n0n]

"What do you mean by an infinite amount of zeroes? That is another ill defined question: the measure of a countable union of sets of measure zero is zero, the uncountable union can be any (positive) amount you wish, including 0 (which we will take to be positive as it is not strictly non negative)."

ooh ooh their we go a good question, now were makeing progress :D.

What is nothing? if Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself. their for,

inf. n=1->

N = inf. distance & inf. closeness
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number until a point of something is created
N = (0^n) (0/1^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).

but can you believe that we are random? if not their is always the super complex making of a desicion (god)?
btw the random numbers in my little illogicalness were randomly picked, (like the big bang new I was going to pick 150/98, lol rrright that would allow for evolution to evolve in the way it does)


I shouldn't even try right, just more crazy talk, ok whatever. you failed to get your point across I failed at mine so no harm no foul. just cause mine isn't accepted yet or might not ever be doesn't mean it don't make sense. some things can be said to have a pun intended. and after that even I'm going wow.

 

[matt grime]

It was an analogy. (Dude should have commas around it.)

 

[Gokul43201]

What is nothing? if Nothing is chaos, what does all of pi explain?, an unperfect circle for it cannot reach a whole. what is nothing to stop logic? nothing blocks pi from reaching a whole, a limit to something is nothing, and it can be as forcefull as the logic itself. their for,

inf. n=1->

N = inf. distance & inf. closeness
0 = inf. # of N note: inf. means any number until a point of something is created
N = (0^n) (0/1^n) note: 0 represents a # of N
nothing = N0N
something = N0N/N0N and the reduction to the least common denominator and nothing
something within time = the continual providance of such an act/ repetition of the reduction in ever changing complexity to order (multi - fractals).

but can you believe that we are random? if not their is always the super complex making of a desicion (god)?
btw the random numbers in my little illogicalness were randomly picked, (like the big bang new I was going to pick 150/98, lol rrright that would allow for evolution to evolve in the way it does)

This is priceless !

Will someone please move this thread to Theory Development ? There's some potent stuff brewing here.

 

[Gza]

I don't even know who you all are, and the only thing you can so far say is , ooh you can't divide by 0, god read between the lines. open your minds alittle. for a musician its easy, for math people everything is strict, well I found freedom in your strictness so :P . now you try and comprehend that. mr. self actuallized mathematics profesoress's, cause what the hell? god him self could have sent the message and you'll would still be all booo booo booo. with no reason or math to disprove my findings what the hell else am I sapost to think?

n0n,
I just wanted to say that I too am a musician, and that "more free-thinking" nonesense is simply not true in this case (tell that to Newton). What is true however, is the fact that you are ignoring some pretty basic rules of simple arithmetic. So please speak for yourself, and not all musicians, thank you.

 

[n0n]

what so you say 0 is not equal to 0 alright so that's not what you said, but was more like 0 is not equal to a mass of 0's, **** Einstein him self said " mass and energy are different veriations of the same thing" so says the idea of e = mc2 where
e (something) = m (zerro) c^2(infinite distance and infinite closeness, time and nothing, like playback and volume, were nothing can exist but is something due to playback; static any one?)


ok If i take the 0/whatever off the thing will that work better?
cause it still works even without it there.

and there you all go. now what is it ? lol

 

[BobG]

n0n,
I just wanted to say that I too am a musician, and that "more free-thinking" nonesense is simply not true in this case (tell that to Newton).

Is that intended as irony? If velocity is change in position divided by time, then what is the instantaneous velocity of an object traveling in a curved path?

Division by zero was one of the biggest problems Newton's critics had with his new calculus. Newton had no limits (pun intended). Therefore, the difference quotient upon which derivatives are based is nonsense (in fact, Newton received quite a bit of ridicule over that - mostly from Robert Hooke).

$$f'(x)=\frac{f(x+\Delta x)-f(x)}{\Delta x}$$

Limits were added later by Cauchy, transforming it into a respectable branch of mathematics.

Not to give the wrong idea. Newton's derivatives actually told something about the object you were inspecting and his calculus was actually useful.

n0n's 'theory' is garbage. But it's garbage because it doesn't do or even say anything (and the division by zero thing would have to be resolved somehow in any event).

 

[Zurtex]

2/0 is the problem correct. if their is something wrong with the logic lol j/k their isnt

0 goes into 2, 0 times

0 zero times is 0 not 2.

 

[Entropy]

Gez people lay off. His just trying to learn. Cut him some slack and explain it too him without insulting him.

 

[n0n]

I know 0 /2 = 0, what I am saying is also (0/2) * (2/0) = 1 or maybe its not, I don't know, but BobG you are correct, in caling it garbage for it doesn't explain anything. If I got it to explain a car then It would be different, like way different. I see how the division of 0 cannot be seen as a group of 0's now, I figured that out on my own. for 0 in a division cannot be a 0 ^ 10, or 0 to the power of something, my logic was wrong.

0/2=0
2 - 0 = 2 contintues forever?

 

[Gokul43201]

http://n0n.madtracker.net/N0Ntheory_toe.bmp

Except for the last part, where you run into zeros and then call up infinity and so on, what you are doing looks like the Euler Algorithm for finding the GCD of 2 numbers.

 

[Zurtex]

I know 0 /2 = 0, what I am saying is also (0/2) * (2/0) = 1 or maybe its not, I don't know, but BobG you are correct, in caling it garbage for it doesn't explain anything. If I got it to explain a car then It would be different, like way different. I see how the division of 0 cannot be seen as a group of 0's now, I figured that out on my own. for 0 in a division cannot be a 0 ^ 10, or 0 to the power of something, my logic was wrong.

0/2=0
2 - 0 = 2 contintues forever?

2/0 is not valid within real numbers. It just doesn't make sense to divide by 0 in real numbers. The problem is a lot of people come on this forum trying to explain how maths is wrong and you can without any logical argument. Now, remember that infinity is not a number in real numbers:

2/2 = 1
2/1 = 2
2/0.5 = 4
2/0.25 = 8
2/0.125 = 16
…
2/0.00000000000000001 = 200000000000000000

As you can see, the number you are dividing by gets smaller the result gets bigger. However this means there is no finite number that satisfies 2/0, so there is no real number that satisfies this.

What do you mean by continues forever?

 

[Antonio Lao]

What is this Called?

It is called a quantum (integral value).

the numeric symbol 1 is a different quantum compared to the numeric symbol 0. 0 is the identity for the operation of addition for the field of integers. 1 is the identity for the operation of multiplication for the field of integers. The use of identities (0 and 1) is to find the corresponding inverse of an integer in its operations whether in addition or in multiplication.

The inverse of 1 is -1 since 1 + (-1) = 0.
The inverse 2 is 1/2 since 2*(1/2) = 1.