• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A "Before" the Big Bang?

Tricky said:
It's the same thing, Iacchus. Saying it doesn't expand into anything is exactly the same as saying it expands into nothing. It's just confusing to little minds like yours, so I am simply saying Belz phrased it better than I. But I'm not worried about looking like a baffoon. I'm not sure what a baffoon is.
Click to expand...

Tricky,
A baffoon is an inflatable buffalo. I hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
Zero is not a number, Iacchus. Here's a test. Try taking the reciprocal. You can do that with any real number.
Click to expand...

This statement is mathematically incorrect. Zero is a real number -- you can take the reciprocal of any number except zero, in the same way that you can take the square root of any real number except the negative ones, but that makes them no less numbers.

On the other hand, "infinity" is, as you correctly pointed out, not a number. It's a limit.

But I think this mathematical discussion is missing the central point, since mathematics by definition invoves notions of abstraction that are not necessarily represented in the physical world. If you want to discuss physics, foundational mathematics is of little help.
 
Tricky said:
Which is to say that he doesn't believe in a personal god or an intervening god or possibly even a conscious god. You might want to be careful who you get into bed with.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean he doesn't believe God had anything to do with it does it? And, if God weren't conscious? Are you saying He does it all in His sleep? :confused:
 
Tricky said:
It's the same thing, Iacchus. Saying it doesn't expand into anything is exactly the same as saying it expands into nothing. It's just confusing to little minds like yours, so I am simply saying Belz phrased it better than I. But I'm not worried about looking like a baffoon. I'm not sure what a baffoon is.
Click to expand...
While I'm sure I have at least one more brain cell than you, because I think in three dimensions you see.

:dl:
 
Tricky said:
I admit I'm not the world's best teacher. As my exchanges with you illustrate, I would have great difficulty being patient with the slow students. Though in defense of most of them, they don't usually argue that they know something when they don't. Only a few very slow people are so slow that they don't even know they are slow.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you're trying to teach. If you wish to come accross as a pompous ass, you're coming accross loud and clear. :p
 
drkitten said:
This statement is mathematically incorrect. Zero is a real number -- you can take the reciprocal of any number except zero, in the same way that you can take the square root of any real number except the negative ones, but that makes them no less numbers.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there is some terminology that I am incorrect about. I will still argue that zero is not a real number. I would describe zero as the absence of real numbers. I'm not a mathematician, but it does seem that zero is in a set of its own that is exclusive of real numbers.

But still, math has ways of dealing with non-real numbers as you correctly point out. The square root of negative one is i, and it can be correctly used in mathematical formulae, even though it is not a "real" number.
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, and if you were living inside the balloon, and had only two brain cells, this is all you would ever know, the inside of the balloon. Hey, ever see the movie, The Truman Show? :D
Click to expand...
Try actually reading what I posted:
Consider only the surface of the balloon, not what is inside or outside.
Click to expand...
Then think about the analogy and how it relates to what is being discussed. When you've done this, perhaps you'll be able to produce a meaningful reply.
 
Iacchus said:
That doesn't mean he doesn't believe God had anything to do with it does it? And, if God weren't conscious? Are you saying He does it all in His sleep? :confused:
Click to expand...
It means he doesn't necessarily regard God as a discrete or conscious entity. Maybe you should read up on pantheism (similar to naturalism). You obviously have no idea what it entails.

Iacchus said:
While I'm sure I have at least one more brain cell than you, because I think in three dimensions you see.
Click to expand...
Only three? That could explain your limitations.

Iacchus said:
It depends on what you're trying to teach. If you wish to come accross as a pompous ass, you're coming accross loud and clear.
Click to expand...
Yes, it probably appears that way to the slow students. Blame the teacher. Anything to keep from admitting they are slow.
 
Tricky said:
Perhaps there is some terminology that I am incorrect about. I will still argue that zero is not a real number. I would describe zero as the absence of real numbers. I'm not a mathematician, but it does seem that zero is in a set of its own that is exclusive of real numbers.
Click to expand...
Ah, but zero speaks of wherever it is we're starting from, even with numbers. I mean how can you speak of one, without the potential absense of one. Without that potential absense, how could you even count to two?
 
.13. said:
I was going to reply with 0 * x = 0. So when you take a complex equation and multiply it with 0 you are actually removing it. (That would be doing something to it though not with it?)

But after I read that sentence couple of times I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it.

Could you explain a bit deeper why 0 can't be considered a number? I've allways considered it as number you can't divide with. I've been taught it belongs to the set of real numbers like any other number. And it is well defined so you can use it like any other number.
0 * x = 0
0 + x = x
x / 0 = undefined

I understand you are not denying the usefull concept of zero though.
Click to expand...
0 * x = 0 - you have taken no sets of "x". You have done nothing
0 + x = x - You have added nothing to "x". You have done nothing.
x/0 = (My calculators variously report this as "E" or 99999999999...;) )

but consider the value of x/x that would be 1, for x = any real number. But not for zero. Zero has completely different rules from real numbers. Note, some books say for any real, non-zero number. As I say, my terminology may be incorrect, but I don't think you or Dr. Kitten would argue when I say the null set is much different from other "real" numbers.
 
Iacchus said:
Ah, but zero speaks of wherever it is we're starting from, even with numbers. I mean how can you speak of one, without the potential absense of one. Without that potential absense, how could you even count to two?
Click to expand...
Oh, and if it weren't for infinity, we basically set limits on everything which, essentially drop off nowhere. Got it? ... Nowhere. Without infinity, we would not even have the ability to count, from one to two.
 
Tricky said:
0 * x = 0 - you have taken no sets of "x". You have done nothing
0 + x = x - You have added nothing to "x". You have done nothing.
x/0 = (My calculators variously report this as "E" or 99999999999...;) )

but consider the value of x/x that would be 1, for x = any real number. But not for zero. Zero has completely different rules from real numbers. Note, some books say for any real, non-zero number. As I say, my terminology may be incorrect, but I don't think you or Dr. Kitten would argue when I say the null set is much different from other "real" numbers.
Click to expand...

Tricky,
read this. Zero can be a <ahem> tricky concept. It did take western culture quite a long time to "discover" it. Don't let MathWorld scare you, and check out the "See Also"'s at the bottom of the page.
 
Iacchus said:
Ah, but zero speaks of wherever it is we're starting from, even with numbers. I mean how can you speak of one, without the potential absense of one. Without that potential absense, how could you even count to two?
Click to expand...
Just because a number is not real does preclude it having a mathematical definition. Use Dr. Kitten's example of the square root of negative numbers. There is a defintion and mathematical use for i, but that does not mean it is a real number.
 
Tricky said:
Just because a number is not real does preclude it having a mathematical definition. Use Dr. Kitten's example of the square root of negative numbers. There is a defintion and mathematical use for i, but that does not mean it is a real number.
Click to expand...
Regardless, you can't do numbers without it ... neither zero, nor infinity.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, then, I would say it was a toss between The Truman Show or, The Matrix.
Click to expand...
Forget the films, Iacchus; they're not relevant.

Try to think about the balloon. Not what's inside it, not what's outside it. Just consider the suface of the balloon. Think about what happens to the two-dimensional surface as the balloon expands. Does it expand into a surrounding two-dimensional surface?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom