- 30 Oct '08 22:02 / 3 editsSee, no mathematician has successfully managed to define 1/0 and since this is obviously an indication that mathematics is a woefully inadequate tool or pursuit by which we may appreciate/ understand the world around us or the subject in its own right I posit that 1/0 = ɣ

This real number is so big (yet less than infinity) that it cannot (and will not (proof omitted...have faith )) be quantified by us mere humans and so you shall have to take it on faith that this number exists and is a solution to 1/0 = x.

I believe that this is a much satisfactory resolution to the problem of 1/0 than saying it is un-defined ...any peculiarities that occur as a result of using this definition should merely show that we humans are fallible and don't know everything.

This breakthrough was inspired by the fact that since scientists don't know EVERYTHING about the universe...god(X)didit!

**edit:***ɣ should be the lowercase gamma symbol btw*...so many edits and abandoned first post because this board keeps lopping off all my text and it was annoying me, and finally this post is just a light-hearted response to the notion that scientists MUST know EVERYTHING in order for their position to have as much validity as the theory that one person's god from an infinite set of all possible gods is the only explantion for everything. - 31 Oct '08 07:49A lot of Christians do not hold scientists to that extreme form of recognizing the validity of their theories. I for one am perfectly at peace with the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, yet I know there is a infinitessemally (sp?) small period of time between the BB and the point where we know what happened. That's okay--the theory is still sound.
- 31 Oct '08 08:09

As far as I know, matematicians have proved that 1/0 cannot be defined and used in mathematics. Certainly you can always define that 1/0 = 5, but it doesn't fit with the rest of mathematics. So the equation x = 1/0 has no solution, none at all.*Originally posted by Agerg***See, no mathematician has successfully managed to define 1/0 and since this is obviously an indication that mathematics is a woefully inadequate tool or pursuit by which we may appreciate/ understand the world around us or the subject in its own right I posit that 1/0 = ɣ**

This real number is so big (yet less than infinity) that it cannot (and will not ( ...[text shortened]... person's god from an infinite set of all possible gods is the only explantion for everything.

Fundamentalists don't know everything either. "Where does god come from" is one kind of unanswerable question. So saying that scientists don't know it all, makes fundamentalists even worse.

So let's say that we, the human kind, don't know everything. But we are progressing. - 31 Oct '08 11:18

Any mathematician worth his salt can define 1/0 as anything he wants. However, he also knows that the equation 1/0=x where the symbols have their standard definitions is not a valid equation. It is not a case of x being unknown or undefined, but rather the equation not being meaningful.*Originally posted by Agerg***See, no mathematician has successfully managed to define 1/0 and since this is obviously an indication that mathematics is a woefully inadequate tool or pursuit by which we may appreciate/ understand the world around us or the subject in its own right I posit that 1/0 = ɣ**

The implication of your post is that there exists a real number which when multiplied by zero gives the answer 1. Under the standard definitions of those words, you would clearly be wrong. - 31 Oct '08 11:27

This discussion about math is living proof that you can learn more and more, about less and less, until you know everything about NOTHING!*Originally posted by twhitehead***Any mathematician worth his salt can define 1/0 as anything he wants. However, he also knows that the equation 1/0=x where the symbols have their standard definitions is not a valid equation. It is not a case of x being unknown or undefined, but rather the equation not being meaningful.**

The implication of your post is that there exists a real number whic ...[text shortened]... o gives the answer 1. Under the standard definitions of those words, you would clearly be wrong.

- 31 Oct '08 14:46

lol -*Originally posted by bill718***This discussion about math is living proof that you can learn more and more, about less and less, until you know everything about NOTHING!**

A generalist knows less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything.

A specialist knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.

An old saying. - 31 Oct '08 18:54 / 3 edits
*Originally posted by twhitehead***Any mathematician worth his salt can define 1/0 as anything he wants. However, he also knows that the equation 1/0=x where the symbols have their standard definitions is not a valid equation. It is not a case of x being unknown or undefined, but rather the equation not being meaningful.**

The implication of your post is that there exists a real number whic ...[text shortened]... o gives the answer 1. Under the standard definitions of those words, you would clearly be wrong.*Any mathematician worth his salt can define 1/0 as anything he wants.*

and ensure that the system within which he makes such a definition is useful and more importantly still...internally consistent???

believe it or believe it not I am a 2nd year undergrad in maths and so I'm not going to try and defend any such positions people may *think* I hold on division by zero...nor do I seriously hold that my 2nd post was in anyway serious...more it was a sarcastic rebuttal against those who suggest that scientists must give a complete account of the mechanics of the universe else their god of the gaps theory is more valid. - 31 Oct '08 19:57

I realized you weren't being serious, but I wondered what you aimed to achieve by using bad logic to argue against bad logic. I guess I misunderstood the sarcasm.*Originally posted by Agerg**Any mathematician worth his salt can define 1/0 as anything he wants.*

and ensure that the system within which he makes such a definition is useful and more importantly still...internally consistent???

believe it or believe it not I am a 2nd year undergrad in maths and so I'm not going to try and defend any such positions people may *think* I hold on ...[text shortened]... plete account of the mechanics of the universe else their god of the gaps theory is more valid.

But the important point to impress on a God of the gaps believer is that the answer to 1/0=x is not a gap. It is not that the answer exists and we do not know it, it is that we know that the equation itself is illogical. There are many things that we do not know and possibly many things that we cannot know, the interesting philosophical question is whether something we cannot know actually exists. - 31 Oct '08 20:03 / 1 edit

God of the gaps ?*Originally posted by Agerg**Any mathematician worth his salt can define 1/0 as anything he wants.*

and ensure that the system within which he makes such a definition is useful and more importantly still...internally consistent???

believe it or believe it not I am a 2nd year undergrad in maths and so I'm not going to try and defend any such positions people may *think* I hold on ...[text shortened]... plete account of the mechanics of the universe else their god of the gaps theory is more valid.

There are plenty gaps in science ?

And lots of unproven stuff scientists put into those gaps. - 01 Nov '08 05:39

I have never liked the word 'proof' when applied to reality. It just doesn't fit well. One cannot do a mathematical proof on reality and I really cant think what else the word could mean.*Originally posted by jaywill***God of the gaps ?**

There are plenty gaps in science ?

And lots of unproven stuff scientists put into those gaps. - 01 Nov '08 17:57

Look up fields, and if you want a salad, use vegetables, not words.*Originally posted by Agerg***See, no mathematician has successfully managed to define 1/0 and since this is obviously an indication that mathematics is a woefully inadequate tool or pursuit by which we may appreciate/ understand the world around us or the subject in its own right I posit that 1/0 = ɣ**

This real number is so big (yet less than infinity) that it cannot (and will not ( ...[text shortened]... person's god from an infinite set of all possible gods is the only explantion for everything. - 01 Nov '08 18:26

No we don't.*Originally posted by jaywill***God of the gaps ?**

There are plenty gaps in science ?

And lots of unproven stuff scientists put into those gaps.

Where we have gaps, we look at all of the things we know, and use what we know to come up with one or more hypotheses to fill that gap, and then we set about verifying it through observation and experimentation (and, in my case, "experimentation" can include exploring the physics of a weather system through computer modelling, or heading out to nature to get as many detailed observations of a storm as possible).

If it's not supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, it is not used to fill the gap. Period. - 01 Nov '08 18:36

Abstract algebra was one of my favorite topics when I got my degree in math. I mean, approaching one and zero not as as numbers for counting but rather elements of a set that have particular properties when used in a binary law of combination defined over that set? Cooool.*Originally posted by ChronicLeaky***Look up fields, and if you want a salad, use vegetables, not words.** - 01 Nov '08 18:45

Absolutely; your first sentence holds for me, too. I'm not sure why the original poster put this in the theology section; "a field is a ring whose multiplicative group of units is abelian and consists of all nonzero elements" and "any complete ordered Archimedean field is isomorphic to the reals" are hardly divine commandments (or are they?).*Originally posted by convect***Abstract algebra was one of my favorite topics when I got my degree in math. I mean, approaching one and zero not as as numbers for counting but rather elements of a set that have particular properties when used in a binary law of combination defined over that set? Cooool.**