The Improbable value of 0=1... Is it possible?

[Reiku]

A)

x^2=x, then dividing both sides by x gives

x^2/x=x/x,

then x^2/x=x and x/x=1…

so x=1, but if x has a value of zero 0, then 0=1.

But it isn’t good form at all to simply state that x had a value of zero, when we worked with x having some value.

B)

Infinity from Nothing

I've seen some people use the arguement...

1/∞=0
Then
1/0=∞?

... but this is fallicious.

But we are strenuously told that 0/1 is obsolete… so we could say that 1/∞ is also obsolete, because normally two functions like:

4/4=1
Then
4/1=4

Work, but the above does not when considering the variables of 1/0.

C)

Zero Has A Value for 0=1

-1/1=1/-1

then

√-1/1=√1/-1

√-1√1=√1√-1

i/1=1/i

so that i/2=1/2i and

i/2 – 1/2i = 0

If we swap the equation around, so that 0= i/2 – 1/2i is like saying:

0 = (+1)+(-1)

Then the value of zero might as well become the value (+1)+(-1). Then the value zero actually has some kind of value. This is the only way to tackle how something could possibly come from nothing, simply by stating that nothing was actually something.

D)

Any finite number raised to the zeroeth power is one, such as x^0=1. Zero however is not a finite number so this rule can't be applied as 0^0. To see why you can use natural logarithms abbreviated ln.
If y=ln(x).
Then exp(y)=x or e^y=x.
Now take the any number x not that is not equal to zero.
x can be positive or negative
Then consider the equation z=y^x.
Take the ln of both sides to get ln(z)=xln(y)
Now if x=0 then ln(z) is also zero totally regardless of the value of y, except for y=0, because the ln(0) is not defined.
If ln(z)=0 then z must have the value 1. That is ln(1)=0

..............................

Besides all of these equations, I am leaning towards example C) to explain how something comes from nothing. The answer was plain and simple. Nothing has an actual value of something.

So, when people ponder about how something comes from nothing, we must remember that it cannot be done logically, even with the simplest of algebra. Instead, we should start considering that if 0=1 anywhere in our equations, then it must be assumed that 0 has some kind of value.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

All of that is vacuous.

You talk about mathematically circular or incorrect things. For A you say "Let's divide by x. But what if x=0?". But then you know you cannot divide by x. B does the same. C you make the mistake of assuming $$(ab)^{c} = a^{c}b^{c}$$ and you also do incorrect algebra. All of which is pointless because you end up coming back to a+(-a)=0. So what? And D is the same. You come up with "There is an f such that f(x)=0 for x!=0. Therefore there's something from nothing".

All you're doing is mathematically slights of hand and pointless rambling. Nothing you say directly relates to physics because nothing you're talking about has direct implications for a physical theory. a+(-a)=0 is physically meaningless because you haven't assigned physical meaning to 'a'.

Instead, we should start considering that if 0=1 anywhere in our equations, then it must be assumed that 0 has some kind of value.

No, it would mean our theory is wrong.

 

[Reiku]

The algebra isn't wrong, nor are my conclusions. You state practically the same problem i state for A) --- so i don't know what your whining about anyway.

For C, the idea was that zero has a value to begin with, because the statement 0=1 is ilogical if zero has no value at all.

And D) must be correct, because i was taught it from an ''actual physicist.'' Something you like to tag yourself with.

Therefore, i stated i preferred the idea that for 0 to equal 1, then 0 must have some value like 1.

Now what was wrong with that?

 

[Reiku]

It might be just how we have come to accept the big bang. Before big bang, nothing, ziltch, nada, the big goose egg. Then suddenly something 0=1.

If this is wrong, then challange how the equation 0=1 doesn't fit our picture of the universe from the standard model. Even if you say it wasn't a value of 1, an rather infinity, then its just as bad 0=∞ as 0=1. You could sandwitch the whole thing like 0=1/∞=0... but is this saying we somehow exist in the 1/∞? Because 1/∞ doesn't even make any sense.

As i stated in the OP, for 0=1, zero must have the same value as one... as i said...

''so that i/2=1/2i and

i/2 – 1/2i = 0

If we swap the equation around, so that 0= i/2 – 1/2i is like saying:

0 = (+1)+(-1)

Then the value of zero might as well become the value (+1)+(-1).''

Then before the big bang, there was certainly something.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You state practically the same problem i state for A) --- so i don't know what your whining about anyway.

I'm 'whining' about the fact you don't show anything.

You do an algebraic operation and then say "And if we do something which we know we cannot do, it screws up!". Wow, what a shocker!

For C, the idea was that zero has a value to begin with, because the statement 0=1 is ilogical if zero has no value at all.

Where do you show that 0=1? You end up with 1+(-1)=0. That's not 0=1.

If you hadn't screwed up your rearragnement you would have ended up with :

1/i = i/1
-i = i
2i = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0

You didn't rearrange your equation properly. However, this is wrong too, because you assumed that $$\sqrt{\frac{a}{b}} = \frac{\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{b}}$$, which isn't true always for complex a and b, so you wouldn't have ended up with 1/i = i/1 anyway.

So your algebra is wrong.

And D) must be correct, because i was taught it from an ''actual physicist.'' Something you like to tag yourself with.

I didn't say the maths was wrong. I said the conclusions you draw from it are wrong. So you can find an f(x) such that f(a)=0 for $$a \not= 0$$. So what? Since you aren't giving f(x) from a physical model, it's irrelevent to physics. I can construct a mathematical model of flat space, that doesn't space is flat.

If this is wrong, then challange how the equation 0=1 doesn't fit our picture of the universe from the standard model.

You haven't constructed a working physical model. Just saying "5 = table" doesn't mean it's physically valid.

Then before the big bang, there was certainly something.

Complete BS. You are just playing with maths. You have justified nothing to do with physics.

Look :

"If $$g_{ab} = \delta_{ab}$$ for a,b = 1,2 then $$ds^{2} = g_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b} = dx^{2}+dy^{2}$$, therefore the universe is 2 dimensional and flat."

Have I just proven that the universe is 2 dimensional and flat? Nope. I've jus shown I can write down some maths which gives me the concept of a 2 dimensional flat manifold. I have not shown it has anything to do with physics. Just like you've done. You do a little bit of pointless maths and proclaim it's valid physics. If it's valid, what justification do you have that it describes the universe we live in? What testable predictions can we make? Does it describe the universe as we see it? No, it doesn't describe anything to do with physics.

Stpo wasting your time doing BS pseudo-physics. Actually open a proper book on physics and start learning. If you're actually studying physics in 6th form, start reading your textbook.

 

[Reiku]

You're talking shit.

''I'm 'whining' about the fact you don't show anything.

You do an algebraic operation and then say "And if we do something which we know we cannot do, it screws up!". Wow, what a shocker!''

Yeh. And that's what you tried to say... wow !!! What a shocker eh?

''Where do you show that 0=1? You end up with 1+(-1)=0. That's not 0=1.

If you hadn't screwed up your rearragnement you would have ended up with :

1/i = i/1
-i = i
2i = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0

You didn't rearrange your equation properly. However, this is wrong too, because you assumed that , which isn't true always for complex a and b, so you wouldn't have ended up with 1/i = i/1 anyway.''

Use your imagination please. I showed that 1/i=i/1 was more or less giving final result of 1=0, because of the argument of swapping the variables of the solution

i/2 – 1/2i = 0
0= i/2 – 1/2i

so that something gives nothing, and yet nothing gives something, which i replied as ''was just like saying'' 0=(+1)+(-1) and yet, is identicle to 0=1. Why are you continuously spouting out math that wasn't intended in the OP? It's almost as if you are trying to proove something against me which isn't right for the arguement, but you are doing it anyway.

0=(+1)+(-1) is like saying 0=1. The only way to state that 0=1, is that 0 is 1. Simple. Don't make it anymore complicated than it needed to be.

''Complete BS. You are just playing with maths. You have justified nothing to do with physics. ''

Again, you are taking things out of context. I even asked:

''It might be just how we have come to accept the big bang. Before big bang, nothing, ziltch, nada, the big goose egg. Then suddenly something 0=1.

If this is wrong, then challange how the equation 0=1 doesn't fit our picture of the universe from the standard model''

But you never tackled my challenge.

Secondly, 0=1 turns out to be an abstract. It canb't describe the whole, but describe some abstract notion of how it came about. As i said, you took it far too seriously.

 

[Reiku]

Hence AN... ''0=1 turns out to be an abstract. It can't describe the whole, but describe some abstract notion of how it came about''

 

[Reiku]

I mean't to write in the last post AN,

''then how can it be psuedo-math? If i am claiming 0=1 as an abtraction to how we envision the big bang... (which by the way, i am not the first. A few mathematicians have described the strangeness of 0=1), then i am not elaborating on any psuedomath.''

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your talking shit..

My talking shit? Oh, sorry, you mean 'you're talking shit'. Still haven't grasped basic grammar I see...

Use your imagination please. I showed that 1/i=i/1 was more or less giving final result of 1=0, because of the argument of swapping the variables of the solution

Well 1/i isn't equal to i/1. You only get there by ignoring mathematical consistency. Why bother with superficial mathematical trappings if you're just going to ignore rigour as and when you feel like it? Why not just jump to "1 = table = blue = happy, therefore up is east, black is fat and I'm the King of Spain!". You only do the tiniest smattering of equations to try to give the impression your end results have some kind of validity in mathematics. They don't. You ignore mathematics and you don't bother with physics.

so that something gives nothing, and yet nothing gives something, which i replied as ''was just like saying'' 0=(+1)+(-1) and yet, is identicle to 0=1. Why are you continuously spouting out math that wasn't intended in the OP? It's almost as if you are trying to proove something against me which isn't right for the arguement, but you are doing it anyway.

No, nothing you said is valid in maths or physics. You assumed that $$\sqrt{\frac{a}{b}} = \frac{\sqrt{a}}{\sqrt{b}}$$ to get to your end result. This isn't generally true. So the maths in your original post isn't valid. You don't get 'something from nothing' and even if the maths did show that, you haven't physically justified anything.

You continue to miss my point. All the mathematics in the world isn't going to justify your claims about the big bang if your maths isn't part of a physical model. Where's your physical model?

But you never tackled my challenge.

I did. You mentioned 'the standard model'. I asked where you justified your maths comes from the Standard Model. Where does it come from any physics model? Nothing in your original post relates to physics! You can only make claims like "And so our model predicts that the physical process is...." if you started off with a physical model, did some manipulation of it and found it predicted something.

For instance, you get the prediction of time dilation in relativity by starting with relativity's postulates, doing mathematical manipulation and finding your description of space-time implies time dilation. Where's the physical model in your original post? Without it, you can predict anything you like. I just 'proved' in my last post that the universe is 2 dimensional! Oh no, wait.... I didn't. Why? Because my mathematics wasn't from a viable physical model, I just plucked it from thin air. Just as you did in the original post.

As i said, you took it far too seriously.

Nice back tracking. Funny how you're the one who keeps claiming to have a 'universal equation' or to prove dimensionalities of the mind or there's only 2 universes or there's something before the big bang but when someone nails your **** for the nonsense it is, suddenly you were only thinking outloud or just pitching ideas for discussion and you shouldn't be taken seriously. :roflmao:

Perhaps if you stoped trying to bite off more than you can chew and proclaiming you've got huge results like the ones I just mentioned, people wouldn't think you were such a tool? I've seen you post these things on 3 forums and every time you get shot down. But you never learn. Every one of these threads invitably ends up with someone correcting you and you not liking it. Grow up.

 

[Reiku]

A bit slow then. I noticed the grammer mistake quite a while back and fixed it. Anyway...

 

[Reiku]

''Nicve back tracking. Funny how you're the one who keeps claiming to have a 'universal equation' or to prove dimensionalities of the mind or there's only 2 universes or there's something before the big bang but when someone nails your **** for the nonsense it is, suddenly you were only thinking outloud or just pitching ideas for discussion and you shouldn't be taken seriously.''

Who... you? You've nailed me? Think highly of yourself don't you?

You can't prove the mind doesn't experience some kind of dimension. The very fact we observe three-dimensions and feel a fourth, is certainly proof alone we experience some kind of dimension unlike any that are external. So you don't even use your brain.

Ekpyrotic theory uses a model of only two universes. Did you miss that one out too? Or at least, it only uses two universes, because that is all it can entertain.

And before you get on any high horse AN, BAUT was filled to the brim with silly numpties who didn't know that spacetime was considered one thing, and the spacetime was expanding... but it went right over their little heads, because they kept saying that space and time cannot expand. Just space alone. See how ridiculous tha sounds? The only other place i have posted something, i've only had two replies, so i don't know what you going at.

You're the tool AN. There was no initial correctment to make, but you insideously attempt to shoot something down, and miss by long-shots. Hey look, a few things you have said, i have come to admit. But now this is just personal, or atleast, you've certainly went out your way to make it so.

My idea's are taken seriously, depending on what i talk about. The vectors for the mind, is quite serious, if you understand that what we see isn't apart of the external world, but we still see the vectors of space, and feel one of time... Hows that not serious? How is applying like math that we use everyday, for a new confident model of consciousness not serious?

I dare say this will be shoved in psuedoscience anyway. Ben tends to take your side in everything. You two have fitted up a nice relationship over the months of knowing each other.

 

[Reiku]

And when i say personal, you direct away from so many threads, but make a point of coming into mine, hijacking them and then finish by insulting me.

 

[Reiku]

''You don't get 'something from nothing' ''

Well doh... didn't you read the OP?

''Where's your physical model?''

Last time. The standard model. It states from nothing 0, came something 1. While the latter variable covers a much more complex arena, it is still an abstract explaining that 0=1. From nothing, comes something. Why is this so hard to fathom? Even the most simplest of minds around here would be able to concieve the point i am trying to get across.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Who... you? You've nailed me? Think highly of yourself don't you?

How many claims/threads/results of yours have I shown to be nonsense?

You can't prove the mind doesn't experience some kind of dimension.

An ill defined statement at best. Besides, you used, incorrectly, vector calculus and complex numbers in your claims. You saw the word 'imaginary' in relation to i and thought that would relate to 'imagination', as per the mind.

Ekpyrotic theory uses a model of only two universes. Did you miss that one out too? Or at least, it only uses two universes, because that is all it can entertain.

I didn't say such things were wrong. But you claim you develop a result/model yourself when you do nothing of the sort. You provide little to no maths (and the maths you do provide is bordering on remedial) and nothing which makes your results testable.

Pay attention to what I said. I said you keep making claims about things you either don't understand, cannot justify or want to make people believe you understand. Wether or not you got the idea for one of your essays from a more mainstream concept doesn't matter.

And before you get on any high horse AN, BAUT was filled to the brim with silly numpties who didn't know that spacetime was considered one thing, and the spacetime was expanding... but it went right over their little heads, because they kept saying that space and time cannot expand. Just space alone. See how ridiculous tha sounds? The only other place i have posted something, i've only had two replies, so i don't know what you going at.

I find it funny you insult people for not knowing relativity when we've firmly established you don't either. And before you say "Relativity is my best topic", I don't consider the stuff you learn aged 17 in high school 'doing relativity'.

My idea's are taken seriously, depending on what i talk about.

Seriously by whom? Other fruitloops?

I dare say this will be shoved in psuedoscience anyway. Ben tends to take your side in everything. You two have fitted up a nice relationship over the months of knowing each other.

Yes, it's my fault this will go to pseudoscience, nothing to do with it actually being pseudoscience. Tell me, did Ben move your threads over to there before I joined here? I bet he did.

That means you're just in denial. And the fact that the people who have demonstrate maths and physics knowledge/understanding keep telling you you're wrong seems lost on you. Is it a huge conspiracy against you or could it be you're just wrong?

And when i say personal, you direct away from so many threads, but make a point of coming into mine, hijacking them and then finish by insulting me.

Because of several reasons :

1. You keep posting BS. Lots of BS
2. You make grand claims with absolutely nothing to back them up
3. Correcting you is easy because your mistakes are so basic
4. It's fun

Last time. The standard model. It states from nothing 0, came something 1.

Really, where? The Standard Model says nothing about space-time since it's not a theory of gravity. Relativity says nothing about the moment of the BB or before it because it cannot describe the singularity it predicts the universe started as. So the two main pillars of 'standard physics' say nothing about the moment of the BB or before it. Hence while they might say "There is now something", they don't say "There was nothing before the BB".

Even the most simplest of minds around here would be able to concieve the point i am trying to get across.

Yes, if the point you're trying to get across is that you're an idiot.

 

[Reiku]

''An ill defined statement at best. Besides, you used, incorrectly, vector calculus and complex numbers in your claims. You saw the word 'imaginary' in relation to i and thought that would relate to 'imagination', as per the mind.''

If not a lie, its on your behalf of forgetting what i said in total.

I said, ''let us not get mixed up between mathematical 'imaginary' and the imaginary situation of the mind.

On that note, i know why i don't bother with you. You mix things i say up, hijack my threads and insult me. More than enough reasons. You treat this place as if it were physorg.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

On that note, i know why i don't bother with you.

Because if you took my advice and read real books and engaged in actual physics, you'd realise the vast quantity of time you've wasted on these 'essays'.

I'm still waiting for you to point out where in the 'standard model' there's the statement there was nothing before the BB.

As I said, if you made an effort to do actual physics and did things like post questions here when you got stuck with your homework etc I'd be happy to help. But you don't. And you get upset when those of us doing physics point out you're not doing physics with these 'essays'.