Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Why should it need to ?
Can you give an example?
AI and the singularity
- Thread starter arfa brane
- Start date
Can you give an example?
Division by zero is plus zero. Nothing was neccessary for the creation of life. +0.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Ok, if that is proper math, then you may be right. OTOH, if 0 = (+ 0) then where does the division come in play?
Now if 0/0 = 1, then we'd have something. But of course it doesn't. The answer is always zero.
In any case I cannot see a real life scenario in nature, where 0/0 = +0 = indetermined?
Last edited:
"Nothing lasts forever." That's conception. It's something that occurs to every human. For this to occur, nothing is neccessary. It may not be plus zero, but it's definitely zero.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Theoretically there are animals that do not die. Check out this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii
Not unlike the slime mold, which consists of cooperative single cell polyps.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Question; what does AI have to do with "the singularity" anyway?
In it's broadest sense the singularity (universe) is an AI itself. Perhaps a better term would be " pseudo-intelligence", i.e. it functions in accordance with mathematical values and functions, but is not sentient in and of itself.
In it's broadest sense the singularity (universe) is an AI itself. Perhaps a better term would be " pseudo-intelligence", i.e. it functions in accordance with mathematical values and functions, but is not sentient in and of itself.
Last edited:
The first creature. Starfish do not die either.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, thanks for your confirmation. That kinda disagrees with your post # 84, don't it?
1÷0 does not take forever to calculate!
It doesn't contradict.
It doesn't contradict.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't do anything in reality.
If I have one of something and I don't divide it (/0), it remains one thing.
I don't know its use in "human" theoretical mathematics, but scribbling numbers does not always translate into natural mathematical functions or expression in reality.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
"Nothing" can also exist only for a single instant. Then there is nothing, then there is something.
At that scale who can define Nothing? You're right, it is just a human concept.
We define Nothing as the absence of physical stuff. It tells us nothing about the possible mathematical potentials which may exist independent of the presence of physical stuff.
And the definition of Potential is ; "That which may become expessed in reality".
Last edited:
Lookingfor...
Registered Member
There are two ways to interpret Counter's psychology. Nothing lasts forever, meaning nothing remains for eternity, or something will dissapate, because it will not last forever.
Last edited:
Nothing cannot exist. If there is nothing there will be nothing forever, which gives birth to something...namely forever.
Forever is a CONCEPT
As such it has not physicality
As such it is nothing
NOTHING maintains its NOTHINGNESS
From Counter Post 12
From Write4U Post 33
From River Post 34
From WriteU4 Post 35[/quote]Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]
First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.
100 / 1 = 100
100 / .1 = 1000
100 / .01 = 10000
As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.
From Write4U Post 33
From River Post 34
From WriteU4 Post 35[/quote]Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]
First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.
100 / 1 = 100
100 / .1 = 1000
100 / .01 = 10000
As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.
I thought that the fact that a number WAS a number elevated it above zero - hence it could NOT contain any zeros
Hence my logic indicates ANY attempt to divide ANY number by zero would result in zero zeros being found inside the number
There certainly is such smaller numbers contained within larger numbers as Dinosaur post shows
But a zero within a number in somewhat akin to a vaccum within a air filled room
How far apart do the air molicules for the space between them to be considered a vacuum?
With numbers no space can exist within itself to be considered a zero
Hence my logic indicates ANY attempt to divide ANY number by zero would result in zero zeros being found inside the number
There certainly is such smaller numbers contained within larger numbers as Dinosaur post shows
But a zero within a number in somewhat akin to a vaccum within a air filled room
How far apart do the air molicules for the space between them to be considered a vacuum?
With numbers no space can exist within itself to be considered a zero
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]
First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.
100 / 1 = 100
100 / .1 = 1000
100 / .01 = 10000
As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.[/QUOTE] We hear that mathematics are a human invention and in the case of zero it truly is. It is a demarcation point which itself has no value.
This may be useful in abstract mathematics, but does reality function that way? If something has no value of any kind it cannot be used in practical physics.
And your example demonstrates dividing values by values. But if we turn this around and use multiplication instead of division, we get;
100 x 1.0 = 100
100 x 0.1 = 10
100 x 0.01 = 1
100 x 0.0 = 0
1,000,000 x 0.0 = 0
Or if we take the opposite:
0 / 1 = 0
0 / .1 = 0
0 / .01 = 0
0 / 100 = 0
0 / 1,000,000 = 0
I see it "division" as breaking a value (number) apart into constituent parts and values.
But if I divide zero (a non-value) into any number of parts, it remains without value (zero). IMO
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
why humans feel
what drives creative thought
is free will really free will
how is evolution crafted by the nature of biology
It's actually much easier to prohibit division by zero, by defining division to be restricted to non-zero divisors. In fact the Euclidean division 'algorithm' (q.v.) makes this explicit.Write4U said:
Hence division by numerical zero is not defined (is a kind of contradiction of division itself) in any number system (although there are zero divisors in ring algebras).
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
im no mathmermagician
just ponder'n words. when zero = a degree then zero is an actual number ?
as opposed to individual numbers and then asserting a value to zero also being a number ?
thus, when zero = a value, the value is the sum not the zero ? so zero is (dont know the proper word) kinda like a named 'x' value like a place holder rather than an actual number.
philisophically musing...would this suggest that counting starts at a value rather than no value ?
thus you do not start counting by having a zero
you can only start counting by having a number, be it 1 or any other value ?