Does 0+0=0?

Athens:

USS Athens said:
I must ask you, James R, how do you not believe that numbers are infinite?
Click to expand...

Which numbers? For example, the number 7 is not infinite.


John Bannan:

John J. Bannan said:
Doesn't "1" have relative size? Isn't "1" half of "2"?
Click to expand...

It is a mathematical fact that $$1/2 \times 2 = 1$$, but that says nothing about "relative size".

I think you need to define what you mean by "size" before we go any further.

Sure, numbers are points. But, they also have relative size.
Click to expand...

In what way?

John J. Bannan said:
No, zero doesn't have physical size. But zero does have relative size. Zero is half the distance from -1 than 1. Zero has relative size to 1 and -1.
Click to expand...

You seem to mixing up position and size.
 
James R said:
Athens:



Which numbers? For example, the number 7 is not infinite.


John Bannan:



It is a mathematical fact that $$1/2 \times 2 = 1$$, but that says nothing about "relative size".

I think you need to define what you mean by "size" before we go any further.



In what way?



You seem to mixing up position and size.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you want to look at relative size as position, go right ahead. However, isn't 1 half the size of 2? Now, if we are talking about an infinite point # 2 on a number line, then true, #2 has no size. But, if we are talking about #2 as the sum of all infinite points on the number line between zero and 2, then 2 does have size, it consists of an infinite number of points between zero and 2. Interestingly, however, if an infinite number of points have no dimension or size themselves, then how can this same infinite number of points reach from zero to 2 on a number line? Perhaps, because a number line is a physical object, which does have size? But of course, wouldn't this imply that physical objects are not made of infinite points?
 
Why? said:
Sure, if you want to look at relative size as position, go right ahead. However, isn't 1 half the size of 2? Now, if we are talking about an infinite point # 2 on a number line, then true, #2 has no size. But, if we are talking about #2 as the sum of all infinite points on the number line between zero and 2, then 2 does have size, it consists of an infinite number of points between zero and 2. Interestingly, however, if an infinite number of points have no dimension or size themselves, then how can this same infinite number of points reach from zero to 2 on a number line? Perhaps, because a number line is a physical object, which does have size? But of course, wouldn't this imply that physical objects are not made of infinite points?
Click to expand...

Are you Bannan ?

The points are just separators between the individual pieces of line.
 
Enmos said:
Are you Bannan ?

The points are just separators between the individual pieces of line.
Click to expand...

No, I am an admirer of Bannan. How can a point with no dimension separate a piece of line? A cake slicer with no width cannot cut a piece of cake.
 
Why? said:
No, I am an admirer of Bannan. How can a point with no dimension separate a piece of line? A cake slicer with no width cannot cut a piece of cake.
Click to expand...

Because they are abstract concepts. A cake is not.
 
Why? said:
How can a line, even an abstract line, comprised of an infinite number of points with no dimension have dimension itself?
Click to expand...

Because a point only in theory has no dimension. In reality everything has dimensions.
 
Enmos said:
Because a point only in theory has no dimension. In reality everything has dimensions.
Click to expand...

True. But I thought you were suggesting an imaginary number line had dimension. Sure, a ruler has dimension because it's made from a piece of wood. But, an imaginary number line consisting of an infinite number of non-dimensional points - does that have dimension?
 
Why? said:
True. But I thought you were suggesting an imaginary number line had dimension. Sure, a ruler has dimension because it's made from a piece of wood. But, an imaginary number line consisting of an infinite number of non-dimensional points - does that have dimension?
Click to expand...

No, because it is imaginary.. :shrug:
 
in order for something (the universe) to emerge and manifest itself, it needs a point of departure (zero). when the zero projects itself outside itself (0+0) it is divided into two, and the unity dies. but now that the unity (jesus) has died, manifestation is possible. 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= a line, the first dimension. line = beginning+distance+ending = trinity.

makes sense?
 
Why? said:
No, I am an admirer of Bannan. How can a point with no dimension separate a piece of line? A cake slicer with no width cannot cut a piece of cake.
Click to expand...

I also like Brannam's ideas because it allows me go to travel to any coordinate I want without going anywhere. Example - my origin could be my living room couch, and I could visit the pub several miles away by traveling a large number of "nowheres".

I mean -- I could REALLY REALLY go nowhere as hard as I could......milk that origin for all it's worth. I could sit there with my potato chips and bean dip with my butt firmly planted on the couch piling up on the number of absences in distance until I reached the pub.
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
No, because it is imaginary.. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Now, this raises an interesting point. Distinct real numbers have no dimension. But, they also have relative position from other numbers. For example, 1 is half the distance to 2. But, how can you have position without dimension? How can an infinite series of points between zero and one ever have position, when they have no dimension? How can you put a point with no dimension next to another point on an imaginary number line? Wouldn't these points simply stay at the same point? Well, come to think of it, doesn't a point have dimension? Otherwise, it can't be a point. Maybe it's wrong to say a number is a point. But then, what else do you call it?
 
John J. Bannan said:
Does zero exist in math? If it doesn't exist, then how come you can add two zeros together? And if you can add two zeros together, then how can those two zeros equal only one zero? Doesn't the equation 0+0=0 contain an inconsistency? Isn't math implying that zero exists, but has no size? That is why you can add two zeros together and get a result of one zero. You can't do that with any other number, e.g. 1+1=2 not 1. How can zero exist and yet not have any size? Does zero really have a size, but it is so small that it nearly approached a perfect zero, and that therefore its miniscule size is irrelevant to mathematical equations?
Click to expand...

Trust me, so long as i have a place here, i will speed this answer to you. It's actually quite simple, when taking into account conjugates. So 0 is not necesserily 0, so that 0' has a 0 as conjuagted factor. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top