The limits of computing.

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by Counter, Apr 20, 2017.

  1. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    437
    Can a human do what a computer cannot? For example dividing by zero.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,844
    Computers can divide by zero. They can return either infinity or just "not a number".
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,809
    Both humans and computers can divide by zero. They both get the same answer - it has no meaning.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Ref : To Astro sub forum.

    Division by zero ----> Singularity.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,303
    If you try to get a computer to divide by zero, you usually get this message on the screen:

    "Congratulations, you are the 1100111th customer to attempt division by zero!

    This computer will now self destruct as a token of our sincerity."
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    437
    I agree sideshowbob. A computer equates infinity: it hangs. This is why computers are programmed with an error message displaying the computer cannot compute such a calculation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    However I would argue:

    (((x+1)/(0+1))-1)=x

    exactly the same as:

    +0
    *0
    -0

    Zero does not exist. There is nothing there to calculate with...
     
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,844
    Zero is the same as any other number. It is not a "thing".
     
    danshawen likes this.
  11. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,217
    In a BBC english TV program called QI (recommend viewing)

    the panel was asked

    ' Is zero a odd or even number? '

    The answer is given as ' even '

    Because it lies between two ones

    -1 and 1

    Go figure

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen and sideshowbob like this.
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,844
    That's the answer I would have given. It's also even because it leaves no remainder when divided by 2.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    437
    ...but what of +0 or -0

    They exist!

    For example 1+0, 1-0.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,217

    OK

    What of?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,844
    Do they? + and - designate on which side of 0 a number is found. 0 is not found on either side, so it would seem that +0 and -0 are undefined.

    In the expressions 1+0 and 1-0, the + and - are operators, not signs.
     
    danshawen and DaveC426913 like this.
  16. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Everyone here knows exactly what proportion means. If two triangles of different sizes are similar, and each side of one of the triangles is twice as long as the other, then you can relate them via direct proportion, right?

    Proportional math requires division. There's no other way to express a proportional relationship. Now consider the propostion of representing a proportional relationship between a triangle you can see and an ideal point.

    You can't do that, can you? Why not? It's nonsensical, that's why. A point is not a triangle.

    That's also what I mean when I say it's more than just "silly" to suppose that time itself is proportional to the speed of light. This leads to paradoxes like time stops for a photon traveling at the speed of light. It most certainly does not. If it is circularly polarized, the EM vectors keep rotating, don't they? You bet the do. They couldn't do that if time itself was stopped for a photon, could they? Of course not.

    The reason our reasoning about time makes no sense in relativity is because Minkowsi decided that time was proportional to the speed of light. Well, it isn't. An instant of time is neither proportional to a velocity, the velocity of light, nor can an instant of time be proportional to a time interval; ANY time interval. This is utter nonsense because, like the proportional triangle example above, it is dividing by zero. And this calculation has in fact caused the math associated with relativity and physics all kinds of problems, as well as many conceptually insurmountable paradoxes, one of which I have already related.

    If this error is removed, then quantum entanglement becomes possible within the conceptual framework of relativity. The Law of Conservation of Mass / Energy, and inertia's relationship to time is also restored. As far as I can see, there is no downside.

    But if you don't belive this, by all means, keep dividing by zero and tell yourselves it makes perfect proportional sense.

    So, the answer to the OP isn't "not a number". The full answer is: proportional math does not support division by zero, and whenever you encounter it, it most likely means you are attempting to compare things mathematically that do NOT compare in a proportional construct or context, whether or not what you are trying to calculate something that is physically meaningful or not.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
  17. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,217
    My 3 neurones must have disobeyed me and all went to sleep at the same time

    You can not divide 0 by 2

    There are no 2s within 0

    Danger Will Robinson

    The same as there are no 0s within 2

    Hello - it's a 2

    (it would be the same with any number in place of 2)

    Double danger Will

    Only number divisible by 0 is 0

    And it goes once

    Here endith my complete understanding of maths

    Anyone think there is a book in it?

    Uncharted space Will Robinson

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Division by zero only makes you a hero

    To gullible fools with proportional tools

    Who think math with infinity makes you close to divinity

    And 2=1, only in their vicinity
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    DaveC426913 and Michael 345 like this.
  19. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,217
    I am a hero who divided zero by zero

    My proportional tools made others the fools

    And the answer of one is second to none

    And my divinity goes on to infinity with no-one in my vicinity

    PS

    My bum is now numb
    Since 2=1 (about the size of a plumb)
    Came out of my bum
    With a thunderous hum

    Apologies to all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    DaveC426913 and danshawen like this.
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,844
    Sure I can. I have zero money and I give you half.

    On the contrary, there is a zero within every number: 1 + 0, 2 + 0, 3 + 0.... It's just quicker to write it without the zero.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  21. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,217
    Put a 2 in front of 6 of the zero money's you have and I'll take the

    1 million no problem

    Looks like to me your cheating

    Your adding the 0 first (+)

    Naughty naughty

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,844
    How can you tell the difference between adding zero and zero that was there all along?
     
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,303
    0 + 0 = 0 - 0 = 0
    =>
    +0 = -0 = 0

    Which implies that zero is the only integer whose additive inverse is itself.
    (i.e. +1 ≠ -1, . . . )
     

Share This Page