Zero & Infinity : A try to define them more exactly

Topic first started at http://www.mymathforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=8993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been searching around for someone talking about a connection
between
the zero and the infinity. I've got an idea which I'm really starting
to
believe it's at least in part true. This idea has grown up 2 years ago
when I attacked myself to understand 0 & infinity.

First assumption is that 0 & infinity are opposite things. (As in
current
mathematic.. 0 = none & infinity = all.) Though, I thought that this
idea
wasn't fully true. So, I started trying defining the zero (as I
thought
infinity was tougher to represent). Looking at things around me gave
me an
idea. What is left when we say : 0 apple ? There is no apple, though
we
can still say 0 apple and our mind is able to interpret this. How
come ?
Because 0 apple is still left with what I'm calling the "structure" of
the
apple. So, as if, everything has a "structure" or "plan" to build it
and
this structure is filled in with some matter.

So here come my definition of zero : It is the infinity of all
structures.
Let assign it as I(s).
So the opposite, the "current" infinity should be : The infinity of
all
matter, but without structure. Let assign it as I(m).

So a number like 1 is a composition of I(s) & I(m).
From what I can say there is another "master infinity" which would
be :
I(s) + I(m) = Infinity

I don't know if what I'm saying to you is clear or not. Please respond
to
me by giving me your thoughts or your ideas about this.

Jonathan Boivin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I would say first is that zero & infinity are two opposite
entities. So like 1 and -1, they are the same but in an opposite way.
Which I could say that both are probably interacting the same way
without being the same thing.
The definition of I(s) is also meaning that the (s) part is a subset
of I, the master infinity. Which is the same for I(m). Both are also
unlimited sets. Meaning that each of them contains an infinite number
of members : one, all the structures, the other, all the matter.

Let's start with some basic math rules and let's try to understand
them.

5 * I(s) = I(s) --> Why is this ? Why zero responds to the absorption
rule ?
More, we can try to understand this with his opposite too.
5 * I(m) = I(m) --> I don't think that this is define in mathematic,
but it's quiet logic no ? If you have the biggest you can have, even
multiplying that biggest doesn't make it bigger because it is already
the biggest. So I think that we can say that I(m) responds too to the
absorption rule. Ehm.. intriging !

Let's go further. I said that 5 ( a number) is in reality a
composition of both infinities. So part of I(s) and part of I(m) is
making the number 5. (Just to ensure comprehension, I(s) = Infinity of
the structures (all possibilities) and I(m) = Infinity of the matter).
Let's try to write this mathematically. Let call 5(s) what designs the
structure of 5. Let call 5(m) what makes the matter of 5. So 5 = 5(s)
+ 5(m) ==> 5(s+m).

So, calculating 5(s+m) * I(s) = I(s) means what then ? It seems avious
to me that the absorption is done mostly for 5(s) and not for 5(m). So
what happens to 5(m) ? I know this seems confusing, but it's where my
thoughts are. The reason why 5(s) is absorbed by I(s) is that I(s)
already contains 5(s) as it contains all the structures.

The same questions apply to 5(s+m) * I(m) = I(m).

I would than define the absorption rule as absorbing the part of the
same subset and making "disappear" the other subsets.
Ehm, this need to be clarify and investigate.

I will stop here, even if I could continue on other things. I don't
want to confuse people, and more over, myself.
I'll just last say that my ultimate gold would be to understand the
division by zero.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... >> If you ask most people what infinity times zero is, ... which is a sparse set in the reals. ... mapped by any finite formula from the naturals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: John Gabriels Theorem Revisited.
    ... w/n can never be zero, no matter how large you make n. ... The difference between zero and infinity is that we can perform finite ... in his proof is the use of what he calls positional derivatives. ... average sum and average tangent theorem. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: You Dont Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ...
    ... Extended from minus infinity to plus infinity. ... a universal meaning of numbers and in particular of zero. ... > neutral zero between positive and negative numbers. ... > must be fundamentally revised in order to purify mathematics from some ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Forth PARANOIA
    ... A domain error may occur if x is zero and y ... If the second argument is NaN, ... and the second argument is negative infinity, ... argument is less than zero but not a finite odd integer, ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Interesting math
    ... And division by zero does not ... it would be wrong since infinity can never be approached: ... Interesting you should mention Zeno. ... Decades back one of my science teachers said, ...
    (alt.usage.english)