Nullity: the new number: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Nullity: the new number » Nullity: the new number

Nullity: the new number

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Nullity: the new number

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 495

Posted 10/08/08 - 12:06 PM: Subject: Nullity: the new number	#1
Nullity is a brand new number coming to us from a computer geek who says we need to define infinity(s). Mostly, responses have been callous with people saying he doesn't know anything, and proponents responding with ilk such as "division by zero can't happen cuz that's what my calculator says and it is teh TRUTH" Withheld no longer, I present nullity. Where is my damn PHI key on this computer? Obviously it isn't a number if it ain't on my keypad. 0/0 = nullity 0^0 = nullity oo - oo = nullity nullity + nullity = nullity It's inverse is the same: nullity it is represented as the sum of all infinite sets, ie both negative and positive infinity, which don't cancel each other out. From Wiki: To investors, Anderson makes the following promises: * "I will help you develop a curriculum for transreal arithmetic if you want me to." * "I will help you unify QED and gravitation if you want me to." * "I will build a transreal supercomputer." This was brought up in some off-topic or psuedophilosophy topic about something silly that no one agreed with, so I wanted to bring this gem back to the light of day. I've heard arguments from my friends that it isn't a number, but then I say that zero isn't a number. What do you think about this new number?
Future Tense Passed Relief

muaz jalil
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 24, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/09/08 - 03:44 AM:	#2
Might I ask a dumb question (the question was redundant and pointless, since i am going to ask it anyway) Whats the utility of having nullity (pun wasn't intentional). Btw what happens if we multiply nullity with infinity: Step 1) (0/0)(1/0) = Nullity (1/0) step 2) (01)(0/0)= (Nullity/0) Step 3) 0*Nullity = Nullity/0 Step 4) 0 = Nullity/0 Where am I heading???

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 495

Posted 10/09/08 - 02:03 PM:	#3
There are no dumb questions because no one has the answer to everything. The utility in Nullity appears to be in accordance with some explanation of the universe, or at least that can be garnered if we are to believe that Quantum Electrodynamics and Gravity are to be unified. I'm not sure exactly what that means or how that'll be done... but it sounds awesome. Basically, this would become THE MATH if that came to fruition. Whenever you write nullity, you need to remember that it is cartesianonally represented by 0/0. So when you say "zero times nullity" you get (00)/(01), which is still Nullity. So long as you keep your numerators and denominators together, it works out. Zero would be 0/1. Zero times infinity is also nullity. This open letter makes a good claim against Nullity some common practiced laws, but zero isn't like most numbers, and Nullity is closer in design to a logarithm than 2 or 1000 or 0. I mean, what are we to do expecting 0^1 and 0^0 to be the same number? http://cale.yi.org/index.php/Open_letter_to_James... In summary, First, Anderson set some things to rest. 1/0, which has been largely defined in the past by limit theorem as approaching infinity, is positive infinity. -1/0 is negative infinity. This may not seem intuitive at first, but if we were to divide a whole into zero parts, we would be required to divide an infinite number of times. Nullity, however, can be defined as 0/0, 0^0, or 1/0 – 1/0. Of the two types of infinity, negative and positive, these are but two directions from the origin or zero point. But when zero is divided into zero, or there is no positive or negative association, both are accounted in a single term. This means nullity defines the numbers of the entire Cartesian plane. It is from negative infinity to positive infinity. It is the summation of all infinite sets. Why? Well, when you have infinity, and you subtract 7, you still have infinity. When you subtract infinity from infinity, you have total infinity. The two terms do not cancel, but stack. This stacking, this both, is called Nullity. Though the name implies otherwise, we could say that nullity is less than zero and greater than infinity... but I'm sure that just makes things worse.
Future Tense Passed Relief

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 495

Posted 10/10/08 - 11:11 AM:	#4
okay, I'll try again: Descartes, the guy who made the cartesian plane, famously drew a circle, once. He said he could fit an infinite number of points in this circle. He then drew another, larger circle and again said he could fit an infinite number of points inside of it. He found this very peculiar... and proceeded to draw an infinite grid without bounds. Turns out that he was originally right in that infinity does have bounds. Now, some three hundred years later, a man has realized that there is indeed a circle of infinity around the cartesian plane and he has given it a name. That name is nullity.
Future Tense Passed Relief

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 578

Posted 10/10/08 - 02:51 PM:	#5
ManiacJack wrote: we could say that nullity is less than zero and greater than infinity. This makes no apparent sense to me. You're saying that: a) infinity < nullity < 0 but since: b) 2 < infinity and since: c) 0 < 1 then by a), b) we have: d) 2 < infinity < nullity < 0 and by a), c) we have: e) infinity < nullity < 0 < 1 and so by d), e) we get: e) 2 < infinity < nullity < 0 < 1 from which we can derive that: f) 2 < 1 which contradicts the total ordering that holds on the set of natural numbers. So either 'nullity' is not a number, in which case you cannot have equalities like: g) nullity = nullity and so all those arithmetic properties you described in your first message must go out of the window, or else this is all just gibberish. But then again if you pick the first option and 'nullity' is not a number, then it is just another name for 'NaN', a concept that's been around for a while, and whose acronym stands for... 'Not a Number'. To be honest I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is new, and if it indeed is new, then I'm having trouble seeing how any of it is useful. And by the way: zero is a number. It is the integer that precedes 1. Cordially, moonlight.
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 578

Posted 10/10/08 - 02:57 PM:	#6
ManiacJack wrote: Descartes, the guy who made the cartesian plane, famously drew a circle, once. He said he could fit an infinite number of points in this circle. He then drew another, larger circle and again said he could fit an infinite number of points inside of it. He found this very peculiar... By the way that was Galileo, not Descartes. Cordially, moonlight.
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 495

Posted 10/11/08 - 06:35 PM:	#7
Thanks for the correction pertaining to Descartes and the circle drawing. However... moonlight wrote: This makes no apparent sense to me. You're saying that: I meant as in a figure of speech. Nullity, obviously, doesn't fit on the normal number line. It makes addition and multiplication look the same. It is a transreal number. Video link of it in use: http://vodpod.com/watch/18746-divide-by-zero from which we can derive that: f) 2 < 1 Come on! I didn't say anything close to that. and so all those arithmetic properties you described in your first message must go out of the window, or else this is all just gibberish. But then again if you pick the first option and 'nullity' is not a number, then it is just another name for 'NaN', a concept that's been around for a while, and whose acronym stands for... 'Not a Number'. To be honest I'm having trouble seeing how any of this is new, and if it indeed is new, then I'm having trouble seeing how any of it is useful. Not a Number and the Number Nullity are not the same concept. One was used to force computers to not fall apart, and that would be NaN. Nullity, however, is an actual concept, ie an actual number. It is the ring around the infinite number of points that is necessitated. Einstein used geometry to figure relativity, and that means space bounded by a 'circle' and it appears that infinity also, inevitably, leads to this 'circle' around the cartesian plane. And by the way: zero is a number. It is the integer that precedes 1. As is nullity a number... though it is not an integer. It uses limits, ie calculus/physics to attain a value. Hope that helps!
Future Tense Passed Relief

Timothy
The Author of Waverly

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 18, 2004
Location: Unemployment line
Total Topics: 70
Total Posts: 1931

Posted 10/11/08 - 07:08 PM:	#8
ManiacJack wrote: Come on! I didn't say anything close to that. From what you said, it can be derived that 2 < 1. You're as committed to the logical consequences of what you say as you are committed to what you said.
""Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump." W.V.O. Quine

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 495

Posted 10/12/08 - 08:46 AM:	#9
Sorry, Timothy, but such is not the case. From what you said, it can be derived that 2 < 1 Is log base 10 of x bigger or smaller than the integer 1? Is this even a sensible question? Could you say both or neither? Would that illuminate anything further? etc. Please excuse my figure of speech. I thought it would be helpful as an explanation of an external reference frame... If you want to say that the cartesian plane contains all possibilities of figures of speech, not do any calculus, and try to use causality in reference to infinity which does not lie on the same linear plane as integers such as 1 and 2, be my guest. I only point out that this is not what Nullity is about. Nor is infinity. These concepts are spatial, not linear. I am indeed bound by logical consequences. So, if I were to divide 1 into 0 parts, I would have to divide an infinite number of times. What is not logical about that? Thus, the limit of 1/x as x becomes closer to 0 is +infinity, thus 1/0 = +infinity. Is this the part people have trouble with? The Galileo example was to illuminate the concept that even an infinite number of points [ie the cartesian plane] is bound unto its self. Just because you cannot reach infinity on the number line doesn't mean it isn't there. It is obviously an important concept to mathematics, or at least I would think so. Einstein, in working out his theories of relativity, used geometry as a form of bounded space, which allowed him to go around the notion of a blind infinity- because if scientists can find evidence for the BigBang, then we are already aware of how infinity is limited. Of course, circles etc. do not exist in the cartesian plane- or haven't as single functions. It turns out that in avoiding circles, we only run into them again- and that is the essence of nullity. So, we can figuratively describe the cartesian plane as a square, and outside of this square is a circle, and the square can never reach the circle but that doesn't mean it isn't there- as is shown to us by the late, great, the Einstein. This circle, from the perspective of the square, is called nullity. It is but a definite infinity. Hope that helps! But then... seeing how many views this topic has and how many responses... I can only hope. Thanks for the Q's, nonetheless. I try my best.
Future Tense Passed Relief

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 578

Posted 10/12/08 - 02:57 PM:	#10
Hi ManiacJack, I'll accept that your words were a figure of speech, and that you don't abide by the statement upon which I built my previous answer. But I must say your subsequent answers to Timothy continue to make no apparent sense. You proposed as an answer the following question: Is log base 10 of x bigger or smaller than the integer 1? But 'log base 10' is a function of numbers, not a number. Are you implying that nullity is a function? Moreover, you keep mentioning 'transreal' numbers. May I ask: what the hell are they? I mean, I'm no Gauss, but I do know some maths, and this is the first time I hear of this set of numbers. Mind giving us a definition of the set? What is it useful for? Are any of its members (apart from nullity) solutions to mathematical equations, which otherwise admit no solution? Also, in your opening message you state the following definitions to describe 'nullity': 0/0 = nullity 0^0 = nullity oo - oo = nullity nullity + nullity = nullity It's inverse is the same: nullity But if I replace 'nullity' with 'NaN' (the IEEE floating point, a.k.a 'not a number') guess what I get? Exactly the same 'properties': 0/0 = NaN 0^0 = NaN oo - oo = NaN NaN + NaN = NaN It's inverse is the same: NaN Hence those definitions are not providing any information as to what 'nullity' is, aside from a synonymous for 'NaN'. So the question remains open: what is 'nullity' if not 'NaN'? Cordially, moonlight. Edited by moonlight on 10/12/08 - 03:10 PM
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.