26 Jul '06 20:19>1 edit
Originally posted by SPMarsHa, not sure if that's a good or bad thing although.....
You remind me of someone I used to call "The Master Of The Empty Set".
π
Originally posted by uzlessIf you want to define your own set of mathmatical axioms that either avoid these problems with zero or even just avoid zero altogether then go ahead. Don't come crying to me when the whole lot fails to work.
Again, just because it's convenient to define something, it doesn't necessarily make it right.
You say it doesn't matter *why* because it's a *definition*...why do you take this definition on face value? Just because we are taught it's a definition and therefore irrefutable?
Is it possible this definition is wrong? Is there a way to test this definiti ...[text shortened]... axioms than our current number system. Kind of like QWERTY keyboards vs Dvorak. π
Originally posted by uzlessMy understanding here is a bit shady.
Ignoring Xanthos's trailer park comment for the moment, you are referring exactly to what I am getting at. My question is not necessarily whether or not 0!=1 is correct, but rather whether or not a mathematical system that we have devised requiring 0!=1 to be correct is a system we should be using in the first place.
You state mathematics is currently fou ...[text shortened]... DED it to fit his model of the Universe...turns out it was just his model that was wrong.
Originally posted by TommyCNow we're getting somewhere...
My understanding here is a bit shady.
As far as I know, there are a few alternative philosophical stances within Set Theory that change a few things - they basically limit mathematics to certain things that can be 'made' in certain ways, that is it's mathematics with less objects and less proofs. I think mainly the things that drop off are some results wit ...[text shortened]... self with Set Theory for starters, and then good luck thinking your way beyond it π