Thought Club

[Frontside Back]

I have made it a habit to report every ad that comes across my path in social medias. Paradoxically that forces me to pay more attention to them, but I don't think that's a bad thing. It revealed me some weird insight on how they actually affect my behavior.

Couple days ago there was an ad for coffee. That made me crave coffee. My coffee wasn't even the same brand that made the ad. I don't think that matters. If you drink coffee, eventually you're gonna run out. Then you need to buy more. Again, most people don't buy the brand in the ad. Some do tho.

So, for me it seems more smart to see the ad, condemn it as bullshit and store it in the portion of the brain that deals with disgusting things. Not paying attention helps them creep past the defenses.

May I yoink this for Holy Nonsense?

Yoink away, I would be honored.

[The Wizard Joseph]

I don't intend to derail (much), but what happens if I divide the smallest possible real number by 2? Wouldn't that number be smaller yet?

Consider that lim(x), x->0 and lim(x/2), x->0 both take you to the same place (zero), just at different speeds.

I thought about this for a while. I think that the answer is any attempt to divide ~0 results in ~0, even division by 0. It is in essence and conception indivisible.

BLAM is another matter entirely and it's not actually

0.999... But an irrational number best described as (1-~0) because in a natural number line you only have the integers in the line to express the next numbers. 0.999... Is just the best illustration in a full decimal system.

I haven't figured this whole thing out, but am thinking about consulting with a mathematical scholar at some point about my little theory.

[rong]

Thinking about 1/(~0) might provide more insight

[The Wizard Joseph]

Thinking about 1/(~0) might provide more insight

Fuck! I think I'm stuck this way.

[chaotic neutral observer]

All you need is zero and one, and a set of rules to manipulate them with.  Adding a "smallest real number" just complicates things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers

[Frontside Back]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R59-Dvf0fI

[The Wizard Joseph]

All you need is zero and one, and a set of rules to manipulate them with.  Adding a "smallest real number" just complicates things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers

I'm talking bout 0 as a natural number. Please explain how what you referred to here is at all relevant.

[chaotic neutral observer]

All you need is zero and one, and a set of rules to manipulate them with.  Adding a "smallest real number" just complicates things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers

I'm talking bout 0 as a natural number. Please explain how what you referred to here is at all relevant.

Earlier, you said:

~0: not zero with a value of 0.000..infinit...00~0 it is the smallest possible real number, the Higgs boson of mathematics if you will.

I don't understand what I can do with ~0 that I couldn't do without it.  I can get the complete set of real numbers starting with just with zero and one.

I thought about this for a while. I think that the answer is any attempt to divide ~0 results in ~0, even division by 0. It is in essence and conception indivisible.

If (~0)/x = (~0), for any x, then, since division is the inverse of multiplication (by definition), we could also say:

(~0)*x = (~0). 

(~0) appears to be a renaming of zero.  As with zero, it doesn't matter how many of them are added together, the answer is always the same.

[altered]

The identity component of ~0 is a mistake, I think.

I think the closest you could get to ~0 is 1/inf. It's not quite right, you might have to do something like 1/omega. Omega is the term for power towers of inf right?

I think it's a useful concept.

[The Wizard Joseph]

All you need is zero and one, and a set of rules to manipulate them with.  Adding a "smallest real number" just complicates things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers

I'm talking bout 0 as a natural number. Please explain how what you referred to here is at all relevant.

Earlier, you said:

~0: not zero with a value of 0.000..infinit...00~0 it is the smallest possible real number, the Higgs boson of mathematics if you will.

I don't understand what I can do with ~0 that I couldn't do without it.  I can get the complete set of real numbers starting with just with zero and one.

I thought about this for a while. I think that the answer is any attempt to divide ~0 results in ~0, even division by 0. It is in essence and conception indivisible.

If (~0)/x = (~0), for any x, then, since division is the inverse of multiplication (by definition), we could also say:

(~0)*x = (~0). 

(~0) appears to be a renaming of zero.  As with zero, it doesn't matter how many of them are added together, the answer is always the same.

Again you use the term real numbers which is not the same thing as the set of natural numbers.

The difference between ~0 and 0 is only apparent when you add an infinite number of them together. Eventually ~0 gets to BLAM. Adding infinite 0s together would still be 0.

The identity component of ~0 is a mistake, I think.

I think the closest you could get to ~0 is 1/inf. It's not quite right, you might have to do something like 1/omega. Omega is the term for power towers of inf right?

I think it's a useful concept.

I don't know. Gonna look up this omega you speak of.

[chaotic neutral observer]

I think the closest you could get to ~0 is 1/inf. It's not quite right, you might have to do something like 1/omega. Omega is the term for power towers of inf right?

Infinity isn't a number, though; you can't divide 1/∞.  It would be like 1/grapefruit, or 1/ .

This whole thing has been done to death over the years.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1372459/one-divided-by-infinity-is-not-zero

[The Wizard Joseph]

I think the closest you could get to ~0 is 1/inf. It's not quite right, you might have to do something like 1/omega. Omega is the term for power towers of inf right?

Infinity isn't a number, though; you can't divide 1/∞.  It would be like 1/grapefruit, or 1/ .

This whole thing has been done to death over the years.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/62486.html
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1372459/one-divided-by-infinity-is-not-zero

That's funny because ~0 means (not)0

1/inf= ~0



altered do you mean this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_omega_function

[chaotic neutral observer]

Again you use the term real numbers which is not the same thing as the set of natural numbers.

Every natural number is also a real number.  If I can use a method to construct the real numbers, I can use it to construct the natural numbers, too.

The difference between ~0 and 0 is only apparent when you add an infinite number of them together. Eventually ~0 gets to BLAM. Adding infinite 0s together would still be 0.

I can't add an infinite number of zeroes together.

I can say something like lim(x*0), x->∞ = 0, but that's not the same thing.  It means "for arbitrarily large x, 0*x = 0.

What do you get if you add together an arbitrarily large, but finite number of ~0 ?

[chaotic neutral observer]

1/inf= ~0

Okay.  You've given a name to something that is considered meaningless in mathematics.  So what's it good for?  What problems does it solve that needed solving?

[The Wizard Joseph]

1/inf= ~0

Okay.  You've given a name to something that is considered meaningless in mathematics.  So what's it good for?  What problems does it solve that needed solving?

How to draw a natural line between 0 and 1. It is necessary for taking the preference out of mathematics by providing the means to explain in real numbers how such a connection functions. Currently the mathematician must choose whether or not to "believe" 0 is natural, or worse make such a choice to support a theory that may otherwise not work. 0 must be shown to have connection to 1 without having any integers other than 0 to work with. Two real, irrational numbers can illustrate the fact, they resolve an ancient paradox. That's enough for me.