Devans99

“Nonetheless, it is customary to define division on C ? {?} by z/0 = ? and z/? =0” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere#Extended_complex_numbe...

As you are both mathematicians, I hope you don’t mind if I take the opportunity to explain my concern a bit further. I feel there are some deep proble...

Agreed. A 0-dimensional point can in no way be the constituent of a 1-dimensional line segment - the point has zero length and the line segment has no...

An infinite universe results in strange phenomena such as: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/360596 That is to say, everything that is...

See this OP: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1

1 and 2 - I feel these are addressed in the OP? 3 and 4 - Seem to relate more to the meaning of death than life? 5 - There appears to be a link betwee...

I feel you are avoiding addressing my point and attempting to blind me with references to advanced math. If advanced math disagrees with basic math / ...

Interesting point. I think it could maybe be argued that the unhappiness that results from such behaviour causes a reduction in the amount of informat...

Fair point. So I qualify my original statement with: Something has to have life in order for the meaning of life to be applicable. That's an interesti...

The problem I see is that (applied) mathematics forms the basis for our understanding of reality. So scientists pick up definitions and theories from ...

So you mean some sort of Terminator/Matrix scenario where the machines take over and enslave us all? If we ever develop AI, I think it will value info...

Hitler was a destroyer of people - our primary source of information - and therefore a destroyer of information - therefore I think I he can be classi...

I think that the intelligence behind the creation of the universe must be from beyond spacetime - it created spacetime so it must be external to space...

But as I understand it, maths frames infinity as an object that already exists (axiom of infinity). I believe that axioms should be more than assumpti...

God is not, IMO, the God of ancient scriptures such as the Bible etc... The 3O's and various other capabilities traditionally attributed to God are lo...

I know very little about anti-realism. From your anti-realist perspective, what exactly is the past? To me the past is a deducible concept without ref...

Bijection/one-to-one correspondence is a procedure that produces paradoxes like Galileo's Paradox, or the cardinality of the naturals is the same as t...

Thanks Christian! It is getting late and I'm getting nowhere with @"Banno" so I guess I will say good night to everyone!

How so? You state that 1/0 is illegitimate. You also agree with the mathematical definition of a point as having zero extent. Then the question of how...

Thats typical... don't agree with someone... let's try to get them banned. You'd like a forum where everyone agrees with you. What exactly would be th...

Which is it then?

You have said that I'm wrong which is different to showing that I wrong.

You are implying that: - 1/0 is illegitimate - 1/0 is uncountable / infinite So which is it? It cannot be both.

You cannot make a coherent counter point. What am I to conclude? - You have no coherent counter points. If you had a coherent counter point, I'm sure ...

You have failed to counter my argument and move on to a therefore completely unwarranted conclusion. That is childish and also admitting defeat.

As usual you are obnoxious and unwilling to engage with the argument.

How can you count something that does not exist? (if a point has zero extent, it does not exist). How can you flaunt basic mathematics. 1/0 is clearly...

So are you suggesting that: 1/0 <> UNDEFINED ?

You are the one not understanding the point and I concur that this conversation is serving no purpose.

UNDEFINED is a legitimate mathematical expression. It is perfectly valid to write 1/0=UNDEFINED. Or ?-1 = UNDEFINED (in non-complex maths). Or whateve...

See here for example: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undefined.html

The following statements are equivalent: - You should not divide by zero - (any number)/0 = UNDEFINED

Why?

I know, that's why a write 1/0=UNDEFINED - I know it is an illegitimate operation - so I write UNDEFINED. This is the normal convention from maths. Bu...

:grimace: Your problem is that you do not take sufficient time reading and understanding other people's posts. You have not addressed in any way the p...

Resorting to vague generalisations, rather than addressing the point I'm making.

I know it is illegitimate; that is why I say it equates to UNDEFINED. But the definition of a point, as having zero extents, is also equivalent to div...

The full explanation of the point I was making is given in this post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/362723

Right, so the mathematical definition of a point is 'against the rules' ... of maths.

That is rather my point - maths with its definition of a point having zero extents - flaunts its own rules - there is an insistence in maths that both...

I am not a believer in ID either, but I think the field is at least a required counter-balance to mainstream evolutionary science. I wonder about how ...

Well for example I contend that because a mathematical point has length 0 therefore there are, on a line segment length 1, 1/0=UNDEFINED points, rathe...

And what is that misunderstanding in this case?

Could you perhaps enlighten us as to 'the way mathematics treats infinity' and how we should interpret these teachings?

Well that would be a paradox, unless we return to the mathematical definition of a point as something with zero extents - it is logically impossible f...

Imagine the dates of the years before Christ, they go: { ..., 5BC, 4BC, 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 0AD } If time is infinite, how long does this sequence extend o...

Technological progress leads to the replacement of manual labour jobs by machines. Hopefully this trend will continue - we will become more and more a...

Please explain what my fingers are if they are not 'objects extended in space'... That's not true, under the moving spotlight theory of time, 'now' is...

We will never, ever, be able to empirically prove spacetime is continuous, but we might be able to empirically prove it is discrete.

My contention is that something with the structure of the real line does not and could not exist in reality - maths is not reality - and we have never...