Well, **** it.
I'll tell you what.
We'll all know when we're dead.
For the time being, who care's who's right?
I'll tell you what.
We'll all know when we're dead.
For the time being, who care's who's right?
Things you should never pick your nose with and more
- Thread starter Bad.Mojo
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I was reading an article in the newspaper a while back about how some buerocrats were lobbying to force U.S. public schools to teach creationism alonside evolution (or in some cases, abolish evolution altogether and teach creationism exclusively). They were also trying to force mandatory prayer at the begining of class to "enstill a proper system of beliefs that will prevent another Columbine inccident". Now, i'm not a religious person, and I don't have a problem with religious people, but you've got to wonder what ever happened to "freedom of religion" when the state is forcing you to pray in school, whether you want to or not.
On a side note, it is true that the Theory of Evolution hasn't been proven (thats why it's always called the "theory" of evolution). However, all things being true, since you can't prove everything that happened in the bible, shouldn't it be called the "Theory of Creation" as well?
-Keiichi
------------------
If the past is an idea that can only occur in the here-and-now, and the future is also just a concept happening strictly in the present, is there really a past and future? Or just a continuum of present moments?
[This message has been edited by Keiichi (edited 04-20-2000).]
On a side note, it is true that the Theory of Evolution hasn't been proven (thats why it's always called the "theory" of evolution). However, all things being true, since you can't prove everything that happened in the bible, shouldn't it be called the "Theory of Creation" as well?
-Keiichi
------------------
If the past is an idea that can only occur in the here-and-now, and the future is also just a concept happening strictly in the present, is there really a past and future? Or just a continuum of present moments?
[This message has been edited by Keiichi (edited 04-20-2000).]
I don't care what they call either one, as I don't strictly believe in either one.
As for prayer in schools, I don't think that the public school system should be doing something the churches should (even if they aren't). And that statement by the lobbyists seems to say that atheist people are evil and prone to blowing up schools. I know many atheists, and they're not exactly like that. Kansas? Just plain silly, but so are the evolutionist people that call evolution pure fact, and are denying scholarships to people from Kansas (Scientific American and Discover have a few of those people).
------------------
fozum borgu...
As for prayer in schools, I don't think that the public school system should be doing something the churches should (even if they aren't). And that statement by the lobbyists seems to say that atheist people are evil and prone to blowing up schools. I know many atheists, and they're not exactly like that. Kansas? Just plain silly, but so are the evolutionist people that call evolution pure fact, and are denying scholarships to people from Kansas (Scientific American and Discover have a few of those people).
------------------
fozum borgu...
ThatÂ’s correct keiichi. Evolution is just a theory. There is a lot of evidence out there that supports evolution, but there is a lot of evidence that contradicts it as well. Creationists have attacked evolution, claiming that it is based on invalid evidence derived from faulty scientific processes.
Oh, and there biggest complaint is that it doesnÂ’t agree with whatÂ’s clearly stated in the Bible. (Clear to them, anyway)
IÂ’d say they probably feel that the Bible is really the only evidence they need to prove themselves correct, but in order to convince those that arenÂ’t "Bible" types, they are trying to show that the means with which scientists have obtained evidence to support evolution is flawed, from a scientific perspective. But like I said earlier, anyone can critique a theory. Some of these creationists, who take this approach, claim to be scientists, but in my mind, a true scientist is just as objective toward his/her own theory as they would be with any other. IÂ’ve attended a Creationist seminar, and I didnÂ’t see that happening. I just saw a lot of narrow mindedness. But I think they feel the same way about the evolutionists.
Oh, and there biggest complaint is that it doesnÂ’t agree with whatÂ’s clearly stated in the Bible. (Clear to them, anyway)
IÂ’d say they probably feel that the Bible is really the only evidence they need to prove themselves correct, but in order to convince those that arenÂ’t "Bible" types, they are trying to show that the means with which scientists have obtained evidence to support evolution is flawed, from a scientific perspective. But like I said earlier, anyone can critique a theory. Some of these creationists, who take this approach, claim to be scientists, but in my mind, a true scientist is just as objective toward his/her own theory as they would be with any other. IÂ’ve attended a Creationist seminar, and I didnÂ’t see that happening. I just saw a lot of narrow mindedness. But I think they feel the same way about the evolutionists.
Personaly, I strongly dissagree with forcing children to say prayers before going to class. What about the children who come from other religions? IMHO I say that we should have a choice on whether to learn about evolution or creationism. Of course, I'm a Canadian so my opinions on what should be done in the U.S. aren't really valid.
------------------
------------------
First off I might as well state that I'm not exactly an atheist, more like an anti-christian. To me, religion is all fine (I'm thinking about converting to buddhism - the only religion I know which 1: encourages its followers to think and reason instead of blindly follow and 2: hasn't been at least a partial cause of any war), as long as it doesn't make people suffer/die - which christianity has done in many and most countries.
Anyway.
I don't understand the problem so many religions have with science. Take christianity for example (only since it's the religion I'm most familiar with - I've done much research on it in order to be able to make myself my -own- opinion) - many (not all) 'hardcore' christians say that big bang can't be right because God created the world, evolution is wrong because God created all animals bla bla. Well, that just isn't true. Science leaves plenty of space for most of the biblical statements to still be valid. For example, God created Earth. Well, if he is God, he created the Universe too, right? So he created Big Bang. Science will probably never be able to say that he didn't (if you want to know why, read that astrophysics book by whatshisname, that really smart physicist.. uuhh... is it Stephen Hawkings, or am I messing his name up?) and so leaves a big nice spot open for God. As for evolution - if God created the first bacteriae, and then simply controlled evolution, he would have created all animals and everything living on Earth today - and there is nothing in the theory of evolution as far as I know that strictly states that evolution could not have been controlled by an external entity. Big open spot there too.
Allright, my point is, why can't religion and science exist together? Both scientists and religious ppl are often too stubborn to admit the other side to be possibly valid - why?
------------------
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
Anyway.
I don't understand the problem so many religions have with science. Take christianity for example (only since it's the religion I'm most familiar with - I've done much research on it in order to be able to make myself my -own- opinion) - many (not all) 'hardcore' christians say that big bang can't be right because God created the world, evolution is wrong because God created all animals bla bla. Well, that just isn't true. Science leaves plenty of space for most of the biblical statements to still be valid. For example, God created Earth. Well, if he is God, he created the Universe too, right? So he created Big Bang. Science will probably never be able to say that he didn't (if you want to know why, read that astrophysics book by whatshisname, that really smart physicist.. uuhh... is it Stephen Hawkings, or am I messing his name up?) and so leaves a big nice spot open for God. As for evolution - if God created the first bacteriae, and then simply controlled evolution, he would have created all animals and everything living on Earth today - and there is nothing in the theory of evolution as far as I know that strictly states that evolution could not have been controlled by an external entity. Big open spot there too.
Allright, my point is, why can't religion and science exist together? Both scientists and religious ppl are often too stubborn to admit the other side to be possibly valid - why?
------------------
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
Well, some religions take what's written in the Bible literally, which would obviously contradict a lot of popular scientific theories. Or at least show that many scientific theories aren't based on evidence found in the Bible, which is considered to be the ultimate truth. This discussion wasn't grouping all religions together. I'm sure there are many religions that don't reject science.
Well. First of all, religion cannot be proven/disproven. But, first of all. Christianity has been around 2000 years. But, in Egypt, people worshipped Ra for 5000 years at LEAST. So, there is no way that "God" can be truely as the christian belief sees him as.
Second, if "God" is all powerful, why isn't he here? That was a trick question, being as if he was, he could simply will that we do not know of his existence, yet still say "What's happening, God", everyday.
So, basically those two arguments sum up any other arguments i would wish to make during this post.
On the idea of "Death". Again, quoted. Being as i do Not believe people die. I happen to believe Quantum Thoery, and if it is true, and in a universe of infinite possiblity, than you do not exist. You are simply an indefinently complex set of electrons, reacting to everything else in the universe, to create what "seems" as far as we as humans can tell, thought and reality. Contradictory of what i say, a great Greek philosopher once said, "I think, therefore i am". Now, both statements are contradictory, but both are true. But, false again. In a universe of infinite possibility, there can be not truths nor falsities. With this in mind, you cannot die. Death is an illusion given to us by evolution(or god, hell even Ra), to keep the human race in existence. If you think about, it makes sense.
One side not. If you met me in real life, you would not understand how the hell i thought of this from what you may or may not have seen of me. So, you shouldn't generalize people by what they say.
Abour Quantum Thoery, there have been certain advances that you may not be aware of. Bell and IBM, among others, have successful made a Quantum Computational Computer. Thoeretically, you could test Quantum Thoery simply with a program on one. It is very interesting, i did a project on it, and you should look it up on one the search engines.
Now that i think about it, "Science" can only be true as it is VERY general. It ecompasses the study of nothing and everything. And, the word science is not meant the same way as religion.
It might be helpful for me to tell you, that i do in fact know about the contradictions that i made above. Assume everything as probability.
Second, if "God" is all powerful, why isn't he here? That was a trick question, being as if he was, he could simply will that we do not know of his existence, yet still say "What's happening, God", everyday.
So, basically those two arguments sum up any other arguments i would wish to make during this post.
On the idea of "Death". Again, quoted. Being as i do Not believe people die. I happen to believe Quantum Thoery, and if it is true, and in a universe of infinite possiblity, than you do not exist. You are simply an indefinently complex set of electrons, reacting to everything else in the universe, to create what "seems" as far as we as humans can tell, thought and reality. Contradictory of what i say, a great Greek philosopher once said, "I think, therefore i am". Now, both statements are contradictory, but both are true. But, false again. In a universe of infinite possibility, there can be not truths nor falsities. With this in mind, you cannot die. Death is an illusion given to us by evolution(or god, hell even Ra), to keep the human race in existence. If you think about, it makes sense.
One side not. If you met me in real life, you would not understand how the hell i thought of this from what you may or may not have seen of me. So, you shouldn't generalize people by what they say.
Abour Quantum Thoery, there have been certain advances that you may not be aware of. Bell and IBM, among others, have successful made a Quantum Computational Computer. Thoeretically, you could test Quantum Thoery simply with a program on one. It is very interesting, i did a project on it, and you should look it up on one the search engines.
Now that i think about it, "Science" can only be true as it is VERY general. It ecompasses the study of nothing and everything. And, the word science is not meant the same way as religion.
It might be helpful for me to tell you, that i do in fact know about the contradictions that i made above. Assume everything as probability.
Your arguments don't make any sense. But maybe that was your intention all along. You must be some kind of hopped up genius, trying to drive me crazy. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Actually, quantum theory is very cool. I need to read more about it. Since I've only touched on it's surface to gain a general understanding, I really haven't fully grasped it's total "coolness".
Actually, quantum theory is very cool. I need to read more about it. Since I've only touched on it's surface to gain a general understanding, I really haven't fully grasped it's total "coolness".
Boy, you all have really problems with unanswered questions. IMO everybody believes what is most comfortable to him/her.
I personally don't believe in any god and I don't beleive in life after death.
This has two important consequences for me.
1. I don't give a shit why I am here and where I will go. I am here and only this matters.
2. It makes me alone responsible for any of my actions. If I kill soemone I cannot say Satan drove me or it was gods will - I did it because I thought it to be right at the moment; the other thing is, that I am not responsible for anything I did, after I die. No big trial about my sins and shit; I can wipe out a civilization and they won't get me for it. hehe
Call me crazy, but I like the world and mankind how it is. It shows us, that any reason is right for us to make 'our' world better - ignoring the fact that we destroy someone elses world by doing this.
If you see the holocaust with my eyes, you'll find that the Nazis just wanted to do the world something good; which proved to be rather bad as well for themselves as the rest of the world. So in fact all the good/bad things and the rights/wrongs are solely subjective.
What do we need a god or a life after death for; just to let everybody think he has to behave right in this world/life. The climbing crime rates show that many discover the real sense of religion: to keep people from anarchy, because laws won't do this.
If your parents and the friendly priest tell you you'll go to hell if you kill someone, you'll rather tend not to do so. If you know that no god and no other force will make you responsible for killing twelvehundred human beings you'll do it, when you get away with it in this world..
Hey, and if all the world was peaceful, we wouldn't have INF, because there were no weapons and no wars!
I like this planet, because there are weapons and wars - and I can't imagine any age of mankind without war.
Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
I personally don't believe in any god and I don't beleive in life after death.
This has two important consequences for me.
1. I don't give a shit why I am here and where I will go. I am here and only this matters.
2. It makes me alone responsible for any of my actions. If I kill soemone I cannot say Satan drove me or it was gods will - I did it because I thought it to be right at the moment; the other thing is, that I am not responsible for anything I did, after I die. No big trial about my sins and shit; I can wipe out a civilization and they won't get me for it. hehe
Call me crazy, but I like the world and mankind how it is. It shows us, that any reason is right for us to make 'our' world better - ignoring the fact that we destroy someone elses world by doing this.
If you see the holocaust with my eyes, you'll find that the Nazis just wanted to do the world something good; which proved to be rather bad as well for themselves as the rest of the world. So in fact all the good/bad things and the rights/wrongs are solely subjective.
What do we need a god or a life after death for; just to let everybody think he has to behave right in this world/life. The climbing crime rates show that many discover the real sense of religion: to keep people from anarchy, because laws won't do this.
If your parents and the friendly priest tell you you'll go to hell if you kill someone, you'll rather tend not to do so. If you know that no god and no other force will make you responsible for killing twelvehundred human beings you'll do it, when you get away with it in this world..
Hey, and if all the world was peaceful, we wouldn't have INF, because there were no weapons and no wars!
I like this planet, because there are weapons and wars - and I can't imagine any age of mankind without war.
Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
Christopher Webb
Overtly Serious Chappy.
The reason i hate most modern religions is that the push the "you're going to a better life afterwards if you follow our rules, so shut up and take life as it is" line. People should be taught that they can make a difference to the world. That and the fact that most religous people inevitably go into "god favours me" mode, mostly because they belive that god's values and their values are one and the same.
By the book christians should remember that people used to beleive the earth was the centre of the universe, about which rotated the sun and moon. The stars were just little shiny things which rotates about a dome (supported on pillars), above which resided god and heaven. The earth was flat, and below it was hades. Bypassing all the major flaws in this theory let's skip to one or two important ones:
a) The entire earth came before the sun idea partially stemmed from the belief that the sun was a tiny ball of bright flame which orbited fairly close to the earth
b) The entire dome notion was because the idea of the heavans above was a lot easier to come up with than the idea of eternity and ifinity. Remember they didn't have the number 0 for a while.
Look at it this way though; if god exists, would it create all the universe individualy, or would it (i prefer to refer to god as an it. Actually, this should be It. Think about it (as in the word); what makes god a he or a she? Isn't it rather insulting to put human values on a being which might of created the universe) create the entire universe in a Big Bang (TM) and then let it expand outwards?
In other words, Christians would rather people beleie in a tiny set world than in the marvel of the infinite universe. Given most fundamentalists; it figures.
For me, chaos theory explains the link between god and science (that and 0/0=?1). The entire idea 7 days thing is just another in a long series of creationist myths that mankind has had to come up with over the eons to explain what he couldn't explain. I think god would just lightly touch certains 'things' in order to change it for whatever reasons he might have. Which one is easier; picking up a few key rocks and changing the status of a dew key layers of rock; or pointing at the ground and shouting "volcanoe!!!"
Christopher "ScOrN" Webb
PS If you're wondering what came before the universe (ie the Big Bang), the current (i think) theory is the the universe came before the universe. Basically the theory states that as the planets, galaxies and stars (refered to from now on as the 'stars') spread out, the gravity that each one emits sucks it back towards the centre. The stars slowly decellerate, reach the equilibrium stated in the laws of Thermodynamics; then begin to move back in. Basically, time reverses from the manner we know it now as. All the matter of the universe now collapses back into itself until it reaches the size of an electron, then BOOM!!! Big Bang. And so on.
------------------
<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>
By the book christians should remember that people used to beleive the earth was the centre of the universe, about which rotated the sun and moon. The stars were just little shiny things which rotates about a dome (supported on pillars), above which resided god and heaven. The earth was flat, and below it was hades. Bypassing all the major flaws in this theory let's skip to one or two important ones:
a) The entire earth came before the sun idea partially stemmed from the belief that the sun was a tiny ball of bright flame which orbited fairly close to the earth
b) The entire dome notion was because the idea of the heavans above was a lot easier to come up with than the idea of eternity and ifinity. Remember they didn't have the number 0 for a while.
Look at it this way though; if god exists, would it create all the universe individualy, or would it (i prefer to refer to god as an it. Actually, this should be It. Think about it (as in the word); what makes god a he or a she? Isn't it rather insulting to put human values on a being which might of created the universe) create the entire universe in a Big Bang (TM) and then let it expand outwards?
In other words, Christians would rather people beleie in a tiny set world than in the marvel of the infinite universe. Given most fundamentalists; it figures.
For me, chaos theory explains the link between god and science (that and 0/0=?1). The entire idea 7 days thing is just another in a long series of creationist myths that mankind has had to come up with over the eons to explain what he couldn't explain. I think god would just lightly touch certains 'things' in order to change it for whatever reasons he might have. Which one is easier; picking up a few key rocks and changing the status of a dew key layers of rock; or pointing at the ground and shouting "volcanoe!!!"
Christopher "ScOrN" Webb
PS If you're wondering what came before the universe (ie the Big Bang), the current (i think) theory is the the universe came before the universe. Basically the theory states that as the planets, galaxies and stars (refered to from now on as the 'stars') spread out, the gravity that each one emits sucks it back towards the centre. The stars slowly decellerate, reach the equilibrium stated in the laws of Thermodynamics; then begin to move back in. Basically, time reverses from the manner we know it now as. All the matter of the universe now collapses back into itself until it reaches the size of an electron, then BOOM!!! Big Bang. And so on.
------------------
<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>
Actually there is no -widely accepted- theory on what existed before BB, since the environment under which things existed were such that the common laws of physics were not valid, thus we cannot know a single little thing about what existed before.
------------------
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
------------------
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
ahm: 0/0 is NOT 1!!!
At least not always.
It's rather fascinating, that any division by zero is forbidden, but 0/0 has a possible answer.
In fact 0/0=R where R is any real number(for those hardcore mathematicians out there 0/0=C C is any complex number.
This theory can easily be proven:
0/0 -> now make the same as in 1/1 or 2/2 etc. You'll get 1. Right.
But now:
0*5/0*3. You don't multiply 0/0 but rather take the 5 and 3 out of it, like in 6=3*2.
Now once again take away the 0 and you got 5/3 for 0/0.
Same shit for any other number; in fact you can produce any number you want with 0/0. The only problem is, that it's not allowed to scratch the zero away in maths; but you are allowed to multiply any term by zero.
Has something to do with being allowed to make a false term correct but not a correct term false..
enough maths for now..
Why does anybody believe in some kind of god?
Do you really have that low self esteem to need something that is bigger than you? I can live pefectly with the thought of no god being out there. After all it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that there is a god as well as to prove there is no god. Why don't anybody leave me alone with these god discussions. I don't tell anyone not to believe in a god so leave me alone with this 'belive in god' thing.
Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
At least not always.
It's rather fascinating, that any division by zero is forbidden, but 0/0 has a possible answer.
In fact 0/0=R where R is any real number(for those hardcore mathematicians out there 0/0=C C is any complex number.
This theory can easily be proven:
0/0 -> now make the same as in 1/1 or 2/2 etc. You'll get 1. Right.
But now:
0*5/0*3. You don't multiply 0/0 but rather take the 5 and 3 out of it, like in 6=3*2.
Now once again take away the 0 and you got 5/3 for 0/0.
Same shit for any other number; in fact you can produce any number you want with 0/0. The only problem is, that it's not allowed to scratch the zero away in maths; but you are allowed to multiply any term by zero.
Has something to do with being allowed to make a false term correct but not a correct term false..
enough maths for now..
Why does anybody believe in some kind of god?
Do you really have that low self esteem to need something that is bigger than you? I can live pefectly with the thought of no god being out there. After all it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that there is a god as well as to prove there is no god. Why don't anybody leave me alone with these god discussions. I don't tell anyone not to believe in a god so leave me alone with this 'belive in god' thing.
Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
Christopher Webb
Overtly Serious Chappy.
I was kinda speekin' theortically there...
Maybe I should clarify
if 0/0=1, then perhaps this means that there is a god, if you keep in mind that 0=nothingness and 1/0=infinity. In reality, as I recalled, 0/0=infinity, but it's a different kind of infinity than the one that=1/0. Namely, that 1/0= somethin' that's beyond human measurment, while 0/0=everything. Of course, there is only 1 of everything, while there is only 1 everything.
Human maths is only geared towards counting entities (1 apple, 2 apples), which is not how the universe operates
<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>
Maybe I should clarify
if 0/0=1, then perhaps this means that there is a god, if you keep in mind that 0=nothingness and 1/0=infinity. In reality, as I recalled, 0/0=infinity, but it's a different kind of infinity than the one that=1/0. Namely, that 1/0= somethin' that's beyond human measurment, while 0/0=everything. Of course, there is only 1 of everything, while there is only 1 everything.
Human maths is only geared towards counting entities (1 apple, 2 apples), which is not how the universe operates
<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>
ahm, I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt it's maths - no insult, just a remark..
1/0 is NOT infinity.
Any division by 0 is NOT forbidden, but mathematically NOT defined. This is true for any 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, any any other real/complex number you want to divide by zero.
If you want any discussion about this topic, write to the maths teacher on our university - that guy really is good in his job.
The thing you probably mean is the 1/x where x goes thowards zero. The 1/x would go to infinity, BUT x will never reach zero!
After all I doubt you should make your belief/not belief in god dependend from a damn mathematical equation! And I don't even think about 'how our universe works and if maths could have anything to do with it'; any answer to this would be more than speculative - just like saying 0/0=1.
If you did enough maths examples using x-> 0 or infinity with the rule of 'de l'hopital' you'll find there are many results for 0/0.
Don't brake your head thinking about things the whole human intelligence together couldn't understand.
Snakeye
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
1/0 is NOT infinity.
Any division by 0 is NOT forbidden, but mathematically NOT defined. This is true for any 1/0, 2/0, 3/0, any any other real/complex number you want to divide by zero.
If you want any discussion about this topic, write to the maths teacher on our university - that guy really is good in his job.
The thing you probably mean is the 1/x where x goes thowards zero. The 1/x would go to infinity, BUT x will never reach zero!
After all I doubt you should make your belief/not belief in god dependend from a damn mathematical equation! And I don't even think about 'how our universe works and if maths could have anything to do with it'; any answer to this would be more than speculative - just like saying 0/0=1.
If you did enough maths examples using x-> 0 or infinity with the rule of 'de l'hopital' you'll find there are many results for 0/0.
Don't brake your head thinking about things the whole human intelligence together couldn't understand.
Snakeye
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
Well, i wouldn't say that you shouldn't speculate. Often times, the most incredible ideas come from individuals.
MiscMan
mmmmmmmm...realism
realworld maps!
MiscMan
mmmmmmmm...realism
realworld maps!
Re: Snakeyes
"0*5/0*3. You don't multiply 0/0 but rather take the 5 and 3 out of it, like in 6=3*2.Now once again take away the 0 and you got 5/3 for 0/0."
What you are trying to do is extracting the fractions of zero. Well, you really can't do that, since the fractions used in such equations are always the smallest possible prime number you can use to get the original number. For example, the fraction of 24 would be 2*2*2*3(not 8*3 or 4*2*3 or anything like that, it has to be the smallest possible primes), the fraction of 27 is 3^3 etc. So the fraction of 0 is 0*0, and (0*0)/(0*0)=0/0=undefined.
As for 1/0 - this is, as you say, mathematically not defined, and thus never used. As such, the equation has no relevance. However, philosophically/practically, 1/0 is infinite since you are trying to divide a unit into parts that don't exist, and to do so you need an infinite number of parts which becomes evident in certain cases in physics which I am making (futile) attempts to sort out. This philosophy is, however, never used in maths as far as I know.
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
"0*5/0*3. You don't multiply 0/0 but rather take the 5 and 3 out of it, like in 6=3*2.Now once again take away the 0 and you got 5/3 for 0/0."
What you are trying to do is extracting the fractions of zero. Well, you really can't do that, since the fractions used in such equations are always the smallest possible prime number you can use to get the original number. For example, the fraction of 24 would be 2*2*2*3(not 8*3 or 4*2*3 or anything like that, it has to be the smallest possible primes), the fraction of 27 is 3^3 etc. So the fraction of 0 is 0*0, and (0*0)/(0*0)=0/0=undefined.
As for 1/0 - this is, as you say, mathematically not defined, and thus never used. As such, the equation has no relevance. However, philosophically/practically, 1/0 is infinite since you are trying to divide a unit into parts that don't exist, and to do so you need an infinite number of parts which becomes evident in certain cases in physics which I am making (futile) attempts to sort out. This philosophy is, however, never used in maths as far as I know.
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
I can do that. It's not mathematically correct to scratch away the 0 but the rest is OK.
The fact is not trying to take any same number out, like in 8/12 -> 4*2/4*3. The fact is, that the term stays correct though you transform it. This is true for 0*5=0 and for 0*3=0. So mathematically I CAN say that 5*0/3*0=0/0, because the one side is exactly the same as the other. I also can say that 287371287489126321638176383*0=0.
So if I can say 6*0=0 and 13*0=0 I also can say 13*0/6*0=0/0!
It's a correct term and therefore mathematically correct.
The thin you are (officially) NOT allowed to do is to say 0/0 = 13/6, because it changes the correctness of the term. That didn't hold me off doing it, and my maths pro at the university said that my conclusions were correct, if you were able to scratch away the 0.
And I know that a div by zero is called infinity in technical applications, though being exact you never divide by zero, but let the divisor go to zero.
I'm studying electronic engineering and boy, you need a lot more maths here than an average man can take..especially the zero stories and complex numbers..
Snakeye
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
The fact is not trying to take any same number out, like in 8/12 -> 4*2/4*3. The fact is, that the term stays correct though you transform it. This is true for 0*5=0 and for 0*3=0. So mathematically I CAN say that 5*0/3*0=0/0, because the one side is exactly the same as the other. I also can say that 287371287489126321638176383*0=0.
So if I can say 6*0=0 and 13*0=0 I also can say 13*0/6*0=0/0!
It's a correct term and therefore mathematically correct.
The thin you are (officially) NOT allowed to do is to say 0/0 = 13/6, because it changes the correctness of the term. That didn't hold me off doing it, and my maths pro at the university said that my conclusions were correct, if you were able to scratch away the 0.
And I know that a div by zero is called infinity in technical applications, though being exact you never divide by zero, but let the divisor go to zero.
I'm studying electronic engineering and boy, you need a lot more maths here than an average man can take..especially the zero stories and complex numbers..
Snakeye
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing
Christopher Webb
Overtly Serious Chappy.
Wow!!! ANOTHER electrical engineer.
By the way, most of the stuff i've repeated is just wierd maths that I've been thinking about for a while. zeesh, i never said it was law. It's basically all theoritical anyway. But on the other hand, as i recall, there's something that says that infinity=0. It's kinda wierd i know, but there's supposedly something behind it.
hmmm 1/0 is undefined...yeah, i seem to remember something about that...but i thought it was just claculators and such that spat it out because they couldn't compute it.
snakeye, where do you study electrical engineering? I'm kinda studying electrical engineering at Monash, Clayton in Australia (and for those who don't know it's a big uni in melbourne). THe actual course is "Bachelor of Computer Systems Engineering". I do stuff that covers both hardware/software and there's some maths and physics on the side too at the moment.
<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>
By the way, most of the stuff i've repeated is just wierd maths that I've been thinking about for a while. zeesh, i never said it was law. It's basically all theoritical anyway. But on the other hand, as i recall, there's something that says that infinity=0. It's kinda wierd i know, but there's supposedly something behind it.
hmmm 1/0 is undefined...yeah, i seem to remember something about that...but i thought it was just claculators and such that spat it out because they couldn't compute it.
snakeye, where do you study electrical engineering? I'm kinda studying electrical engineering at Monash, Clayton in Australia (and for those who don't know it's a big uni in melbourne). THe actual course is "Bachelor of Computer Systems Engineering". I do stuff that covers both hardware/software and there's some maths and physics on the side too at the moment.
<insert cute/ interesting/ bizarre signature here>
0=infinity... I came to that conclusion once after reasoning with one of my friends (we both love these pointless discussions). My reasoning wasn't waterproof however, and I doubt any reasoning with a conclusion such as that can be 
Kinda like the famous 1=2 equation (if you've heard of it).
Btw snakeyes, that 0/0 != 13/6 is obvious. But 0/0 != 0*X/0*x is also true since you should never need to do equations like that, although I don't study electronic engineering so maybe I'm wrong there although I doubt it. Btw, 0 doesn't have a fraction at all, so a division performed with 0 like that is not valid.
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109
Kinda like the famous 1=2 equation (if you've heard of it).Btw snakeyes, that 0/0 != 13/6 is obvious. But 0/0 != 0*X/0*x is also true since you should never need to do equations like that, although I don't study electronic engineering so maybe I'm wrong there although I doubt it. Btw, 0 doesn't have a fraction at all, so a division performed with 0 like that is not valid.
047 079 105 116 117 099 114 101 109