And then the universe exploded.
- Thread starter Sn1P3r M98
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Division by zero, is for all intents and purposes, infinity. Division is reverse multiplication, and multiplication is just repeating adding, so division is repeated subtraction (how many times you can subtract one number from another number before you hit zero). Therefore, any number divided by zero is infinity, because zero can be subtracted an infinite number of times from any number and still not reduce the number to zero. In other words, 7 divided by 0 is infinity, because zero can be subtracted an infinite number of times from seven and you won't reduce seven to zero. Thus, the only possible reasonable quantity that division by zero can yield is an infinite one.lacktheknack said:
This is all original research though, reasoned out by me, so I don't know what anyone else thinks about this, but my math teacher seems to agree with me. I haven't seen the face of god yet, or if I did, I didn't notice.
OT: My fav paradox is the barbershop paradox, just cause it's so simple, yet it's consequences are grave.
Sorry, but my physicist/math suspenders popped on this one, and I want to clarify people's understanding of the mathematics before they run around screaming stuff that isn't correct.Bobic said:
This statement is not actually correct. Infinity/Infinity is an indeterminate quantity because the actual answer can be anything. The specific answer for any given situation must be obtained by applying a limit process by which the numerator and denominator simultaneously tend toward infinity so that algebraic cancellations allow the specific value of the ration F/m to be obtained. However, to do this, you need the formulaic forms of F and m depending on some common parameter such there is a particular value of this parameter which simultaneously causes F and m to be infinite. Then you can use algebraic cancellation of terms between the numerator and denominator to arrive at the limit answer as the independent parameter tends toward the specific value causing F and m to simultaneously tend toward infinity. So you would have something like this:
Make F and m be monotonically increasing functions of a parameter lambda such F and m simultaneously tend toward infinity as lambda tends toward a specific value c
F = F(lamba)->INF as lambda->c
m = m(lamba)->INF as lambda->c
Then we find the acceleration a through the limit process as lambda->c
limit[F(lamba)/m(lamba), lambda->c] = a
The specific value obtained for a will depend on the functional forms of F and m as monotonic functions of lambda. The simultaneity is key to obtaining a finite value. If F tended toward infinity faster than does m, then the limit process would produce that the acceleration a is, in fact, infinity. If m tended toward infinity faster than does F, then the limit process would produce that the acceleration m is, in fact, zero. Only in the case that they both tend to infinity at the exact same rate as they near infinity do we have the possibility of obtaining a finite, non-zero acceleration. So, what happens when an irresistible force(F = INF) meets an unmovable object(m = INF)? The answer is it depends on how you obtained the force and the object.
Other indeterminate forms are things like INF*0, 0^0(no, this doesn't equal 1; you can't do this), INF - INF, 0/0(this one is quite common), 1^INF. The reason these are indeterminate is not that one cannot find an answer; it's that there is no singular value that is always the answer. It depends on the functions leading to the indeterminate form.
It creates a parallel reality, and the only way to go back to your own time would be to go back before you killed your parents and prevent yourself from doing so (however, just by going in the past, even without killing anyone, you most likely already changed, even in minimal ways, the future outcome, so you can never really go back to your time, you can only go back to a present/future similar enough to the one you originally left.)FargoDog said:
That or ask Stephen Moffat to reboot the Universe.
Not really a loop. Just a very haunting existential question. If you ask someone what existence is they'll just have no answer. A paradox requires two facts which contradict eachother, so you end up going in a loop.Zeithri said:
And Zeno's paradox(es) are easy; it's impossible to separate one part of the world from another. So you can't actually divide your trip in half and then walk the other half; you're just walking the entire way. It describes the flaw mathematics has in representing the real world. And if you're looking for a deep and confusing question, think of this: are mathematics representations of how the world actually works, or are they just our human interpretation of the universe? How is it that a mass of calculations and arbitrary rules is able to describe every natural phenomenon?
EDIT: And the tree that falls with nobody to hear it isn't so much a paradox but a question of values. Do you consider sound the vibrations of air molecules, or a human's interpretation of those molecules hitting your eardrum and sending electrical impulses to your brain? I never really got how that's such a confusing problem.
I like this one. I wonder what Descartes would have said about it. His cogito only proves to the thinker that one exists, but only to oneself.Zeithri said:
...actually, Descartes believed in God, so I figure he would have had an answer anyway, likely involving being placed there by God.
Trying for a non-theist approach is pretty damn hard. Maybe take Kant's route and claim that existence is not a predicate. Never studied that one much. I'd be pressured to take a forcing approach and discard the definition of existence as irrelevant.
Simple, you create an alternate timeline in which you never existed while remaining within your own timeline in which you didn't kill your parents. In short, you splintered reality and created another one.FargoDog said:
but even an image must have mass, or energy. maybe a way to create holograms???El_Chubba_Chubba said: