# The limits of computing.

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

1. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,195
Can a human do what a computer cannot? For example dividing by zero.

danshawen likes this.

3. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
Computers can divide by zero. They can return either infinity or just "not a number".

danshawen likes this.

5. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,676
Both humans and computers can divide by zero. They both get the same answer - it has no meaning.

danshawen likes this.

7. ### The GodValued Senior Member

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

Division by zero ----> Singularity.

danshawen likes this.
8. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,888
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. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,195
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.

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. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
Zero is the same as any other number. It is not a "thing".

danshawen likes this.
11. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,855
In a BBC english TV program called QI (recommend viewing)

' Is zero a odd or even number? '

The answer is given as ' even '

Because it lies between two ones

-1 and 1

Go figure

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

Messages:
4,779
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. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,195
...but what of +0 or -0

They exist!

For example 1+0, 1-0.

danshawen likes this.
14. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,855

OK

What of?

danshawen likes this.
15. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
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. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
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 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,855
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

danshawen likes this.
18. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
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 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,855
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

DaveC426913 and danshawen like this.
20. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
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.

danshawen likes this.
21. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,855
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

Naughty naughty

22. ### sideshowbobSorry, wrong number.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
4,779
How can you tell the difference between adding zero and zero that was there all along?

23. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,888
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, . . . )