Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E, Sep 12, 2022.

  1. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    You have found a couple of specific examples. It's like saying 2x4 can not have length. But that in no way indicates that zero can never be a magnitude.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, it's like saying a 2x4 can not have zero length.
    According to the quote, magnitude can never be negative.
    seems to create all kinds of contradictions, when applied in a general sense.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What prohibits something from occurring?
    You're possibly referring to electrical permittivity. It's okay. You're still allowed to use the word "permittive" in other ways. You just need to be clear about how you're using it.
    I don't see how adding the adjective "mathematically" helps to clarify what you mean.
    Without time or dimension, there is no spacetime geometry. Spacetime geometry is all about time and dimension (distance).
    Your claim is that "nothing" allows the expansion of the universe?

    Nothing isn't a thing. It's literally "no thing"!
    Pass. I thought you might have some meaning in mind when you write things. If you can't/won't explain what you mean, I'm not that interested. A specific reference might suffice, possibly, but I'm surprised you can't just say what you mean in a short sentence or two.
    What kind of infinity are you talking about? Infinity is a concept that can be applied to lots of different things.

    Since you mention beginnings, perhaps you're talking about infinite time (?) Time could have a beginning and no end, which would be infinite time, wouldn't it?
    Infinity is not a condition, as far as I'm aware.
    So you're saying that our universe somehow came from an abstract quality that has no physical existence?

    How could that happen?

    Also, I note in passing that your reply to my previous post is very selective. Are you unable to define any of the other terms I asked you to define? Do you agree with the rest of what I wrote, including the objections I raised to your thesis?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    That would be one possible definition, albeit a rather clunky one.
    It has the "value" zero!
    What a lousy attempt at a definition of zero! Where did you dig that one up?

    At a pinch, "absence of magnitude" might squeak through the censors, but "absence of quantity" is about something other than numbers.

    A temperature of zero degrees Celcius does not indicate an "absence of the quantity called temperature". Nor does it really indicate an "absence of all magnitude". The magnitude of the temperature is zero degrees Celcius! Zero specifies the magnitude of the temperature.

    Maybe the author of this just got confused.
    This is a better defintion. Zero is the additive identity in arithmetic. That is, zero is the number x, such that x+y=y+x = y for any number y.

    Notice how zero is a number, just like 4 or 7 or -3.14159 or pi. It's not an "absence" of anything, though it can be used to quantify an absence of something.

    If I have zero sheep, then there's an absence of sheep that are mine. But the number of my sheep is zero. If I add zero sheep to my existing flock of 7 sheep, I will have 7 sheep at the end of the addition process.
    You're confusing yourself again because you have such a surface level understanding of mathematics.

    In science, we often write numbers in "scientific notation", which looks like this:
    \(17.3 = 1.73 \times 10^1\)
    \(5783.235 = 5.783235 \times 10^3\)
    \(-1.7394 = -1.7394 \times 10^0\)
    \(0.0018 = 1.8 \times 10^{-3}\)
    If you like, you can refer to the "magnitude" of a number by quoting the power of ten in the standard scientific notation (which has exactly one non-zero digit in front of the decimal point). So, the magnitude of the number 5783.235 would be 3 (or, depending on how you want to say it, \(10^3\)).

    Numbers that differ in their powers of 10 are said to different by "orders of magnitude". So 16000 is said to be 3 orders of magnitude larger than 16. Often this is used more loosely, by dropping the stuff before the power of 10. Thus the numbers 53 and 98 are both said to have the same order of magnitude, whereas 530 and 58 have different orders of magnitude, with 530 being larger than 58 by an order of magnitude.

    Using this terminology we could write:
    \(0= 0 \times 10^{51}\) or
    \(0 = 0 \times 10^{-23}\)
    In other words, "zero" has no specific order of magnitude. Any power of 10 would do.
    There is no "zero" in nature. Zero is a number, invented by human beings. Zero is not "nothing". Zero is not an "absence of something". It is a number.
    No. It means when we count the dimensions, we find that the number of dimensions is zero.
    Define "generic universal mathematics"?

    How is this different from any other sort of mathematics?
    Vectors are not dimensions. Scalars are not dimensions.
    A vector space (which, by the way, is a mathematical abstraction) can have a dimension; the dimension is just a number. A scalar quantity can have a value, such as zero, which is just a number.
    Pulling random quotes from the internet doesn't help your case.

    The dimension of a vector space is a number.
    It depends on the context in which you're using the word "dimension". It could be a scalar (a number), or it could be a more complicated concept (e.g. like a spatial dimension).

    Class is over for today.
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2022
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for spamming his "universe is mathematics" religion to a thread where it is off topic. This follows previous warnings for the same behaviour.

    Due to accumulated warning points, Write4U will be taking a short time out from sciforums.
    DaveC426913 and origin like this.
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Why can't it?
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Is Mathematics real?

    We should be careful in distinguishing what is mathematically real, and what is physically real, I think.
    That mathematics in four dimensions appears to model the physical world is just a mathematical coincidence.
    An unreasonably efficient one. Why the complex number appears to be involved in that efficiency is another coincidence, but without it physics would be, difficult.

    Historically, mathematics kicked off because human observers wanted to understand stuff like the phases of the moon, planetary motion and whatnot. So the mathematics of all that must be real, in some sense.
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Mathematical treatment of dimensions in computer graphics:

    It's about simplifying things, or finding a least complex solution/algorithm. Amirite?

Share This Page