Re: Solving a * 0 = 0 Plankenstein Monster "IT'S ALLLLiiiiiivvvvvvvve !!!"


David C. Ullrich wrote:
On 28 Dec 2006 19:06:19 -0800, huangxienchen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

If someone says that 2 * 0 = 0, then 2 is a solution.

Yes, 2 is a solution. Not because someone might claim
that 2*0 = 0, but because 2*0 is in fact equal to 0.

If someone says that 5 * 0 = 0, then 5 is a solution.

But, can you put R in this equation ?

Of course not - R is not a number.

If someone says that R * 0 = 0, then R is a solution ?

No. Nobody has said that R is a solution. R is the solution
set. That means that R is the set of all solutions.

Well, maybe you can put R in there and maybe you cant. I dont know.

But there is _no_ reason why you must take the solution set as wholly
R, instead of each element of R element by element.

Meaningless.

Probably so.


I must maintain that the solution set can be taken as all of R as a
continuous solution, or can be taken as a single discrete value, or any
other subset of R such as N or Z, Q, or C, etc etc.

You can maintain whatever you want. Lots of people enjoy posting
nonsense on usenet. So what?

The solution can be R. The solution can be any {a} in R. Both are true.

Neither is true.

Existence is not so easily dismissed.

If the question were whether solutions exist or not, then you must make
a choice.

Either solve for a * 0 = 0 and present your solutions, or reduce to 0 =
0 where there is no solution at all because there is no variable.

For this equation, the various alternatives are fundamentally distinct
and none of them really present as the optimal solution. It is
completely indeterminate.

In fact, you could probably use this fact to construct a novel
definition of randomness.




This is mathematical indeterminacy, but nobody will ever admit it. Let
me tell you something, it will not cause math to crumble. Nothing
changes except whether to designate something as mathematical garbage
or not.

You guys have tossed this on the mathemaitical junkpile because you
think that "no unique solution" implies garbage.

Huh? Who said that?


It has to have some meaning. This boggles my mind. You have Wolfram and
many others, probably bleary eyed from gazing at cellular automata and
logistic map, looking for disorder in the pictures and the rules, and
here's indeterminacy sitting right there in front of you just laughing
at you as you search for it.

Reminds me of searching for car keys for 2 hours and finally finding
them in my pocket.

Frankly I'm shocked that after 100 years of really creative thinking
that nobody has tried to exploit it. I'm literally shocked by this.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FO logic without equality
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... _that_ sentence has only models of cardinality 1. ... so nobody can tell what you're referring to? ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FO logic without equality
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... so nobody can tell what you're referring to? ... to above, namely forall x. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FO logic without equality
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... so nobody can tell what you're referring to? ... to above, namely forall x. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... Nobody said that 2.x.sin- coshas a sensible value ... but I have to figure out for what reason that is. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Spa Punishments
    ... >>> And I thought nobody would remember me! ... >>You should know better than that David! ... >>> I don't recognise the handle, ... The next Senna was born. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)