Creation of the Big Bang!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Just try not to use arithmetic which employs zero and infinity as accepted by everyone else on the planet, when you have redefined them to suit yourself for the purposes of this interminable discussion.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There isn't any conflict in definitions Atko. As a matter of fact, ZERO is the most desirable state in many practical cases, real world case in Engineering, Economics, Biology, etc.

ERROR = DESIRED STATE - ACTUAL STATE (feedback mechanism)

The objective of control systems, adaptive mechanisms or self organizing populations is to bring the ERROR to ZERO. The fastest and more efficiently the ERROR is brought to ZERO, the better the objective is achieved. True that we know to approach ZERO asymptotically for now, but absolute ZERO convergence will bring those systems to their most desirable state, that of most stable existence.

I must admit that when started reading these thread, I considered ZERO just as a measure of NOTHINGNESS. Along the way, with the help of Patrick, I am now convinced of the Primary Operation of ZERO in Universal Reality. Without ZERO, nothing else can exist.

Thank you Patrick.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Makis)
Don't look any further than the obvious:
X/infinity = 0

Etc etc….<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is neither obvious nor correct. If you need a maths refresher on this subject check out -

[url] www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html [/url]

Equally, trying to haul infinity as a variable/constant into a transfer function is just as absurd.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Makis)
If we think in input-output terms, 0 is the transfer function, or in fancy terms, the OPERATOR, than transforms infinity into everything. For the Universe to exist, both 0 and infinity are required. A finite universe will not be passible, in this context (0*finite=0)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gives us, in a simple system -

<img src=" www.capricorndreams.com/tf1.gif " border=0>

Where e(inf)={lim.s->0}(R)s[1-T(s)]

plugging in your concept (i.e. T(s)=0, e(inf)=0, R(s) = inf)-

0={lim.s->0}inf[1-0]

0={lim.s->0}inf

inf = 0/{lim.s->0}

inf=0

Come on guys, even Patrick said

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Patrick)
Don't use the math then...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> (Makis)
I must admit that when started reading these thread, I considered ZERO just as a measure of NOTHINGNESS. Along the way, with the help of Patrick, I am now convinced of the Primary Operation of ZERO in Universal Reality. Without ZERO, nothing else can exist. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, maybe you're convinced, but next you have to prove it - sorry Patrick (and I'll quote this one more time in case it get's ignored again),

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>(Patrick)the entity described as "ZERO" in this thread is still the purest form of existence. Please try to disprove that.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The burden of proof is on you Patrick, that's how real science works, not with uninformed armchair debate and yuppy mathematics. All you've got at the moment is an "I believe" statement about to tiptoe over the line to being a religious manifesto. I guess the next step is observation and experiment … I'll keep an eye on the journals…

Atko
(Arisen from the dead...)

inf = 0/{lim.s->0}

inf=0

[\quote]


Atko, either you are joking or who knows what (maybe you are enjoying this). The operation 0/0 is not defined, and not equal to 0, by any means.

Maybe you should read the link you gave us carefully, especially this one:

www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/nineoverzero.html

You keep making the same mistake. You confuse Universal operations of the ZERO-INFINITY pair with finite operations involving limits, exactly as you did when you added 1 to x/inf.

One thing that a yuppy, armchair (!) totaly unimformed idiot like me can tell you is that the mathematical notations you are using imply more than you think they do -- they are a simplified subset of First Order Predicate Calculus, which is based on an Axiomatic foundation for Logic.

Beyond the notation used for helping little kids to count, many things are hidden and beyond the grasp of the average joe.

Try this one: X**0 =1

or in words:

X to the POWER of ZERO = ONE

Try to understand its Philosophical implications and not what your high school teacher told you it means. The implications are very profound. But please, never again divide 0 by 0, it hurts.

Makis

Are you deliberately missing the point?!

I've been saying since this self absorbed pretentious thread started that you <b><i>can't</i></b> divide by zero. If you actually took the time to read the posts rather than skim them, as seems to be the case, this would have sunk in. Each time I've posted any maths I've illustrated the absurdity of even considering these sorts of nonsensical computations. If you can't grasp that then further discussion is utterly pointless.

Patrick - No problems with your idea - have fun with it. My only issue is with the ropey arithmetical and allegorical linkages masquerading as "proofs", oh, and having to repeat myself.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Each time I've posted any maths I've illustrated the absurdity of even considering these sorts of nonsensical computations.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I never talked about any computations. Maybe that's what you are missing. I talked about Operations. Computations are a subset of Operations in the Universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I've been saying since this self absorbed pretentious thread started that you can't divide by zero.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

But you do in order to disprove other's arguments. I said:

x/inf = 0

where do you see any division by zero?

Furthemore:

inf * 0 = x

Any division here either?

Nevertheless, I will now:

X/0 = inf

is a perfectly legal operation in math. It says, in my view, that zero is the primary constituent of everything in an infinite sense or way. I repeat:

ZERO IS THE PRIMARY CONSTITUENT OF EVERYTHING IN AN INFINITE SENSE OR WAY.

Hermann Weyl, a great Philosopher and Mathematician said:

"Mathematics is the science of the infinite, its goal the symbolic comprehension of the infinite with human, that is finite, means..."

It is true however that your refutations fueled a very important and valuable debate. You have been indespensible here.

Patrick

Heisenberg uncertainty may have kicked in here - I could have sworn I replied to this post a while ago, but don't see it in the list.

So here goes again -

I neither agree nor disagree with your idea. I'm not frustrated by it at all. What's amused me is makis's peculiar ability to extract the opposite meaning from anything I write; the quote that -

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

inf = 0/{lim.s->0}

inf=0

[\quote]


Atko, either you are joking or who knows what (maybe you are enjoying this). <b>The operation 0/0 is not defined, and not equal to 0, by any means.</b>

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

- was a prime example. I've bolded the last line because that was my whole point - the continued allusion to mathematics which don't apply produces absurdities like 1/0. It drops out of the assumptions and models you've alluded to. I would urge you both to read the posts more carefully.

I support free-thinkers - a lot of great ideas and theories start from a hunch, and maybe this is one of them. Try to be self-critical and not so tetchy when someone disagrees with you.