is there a difference between zero and infinity??
Relationship between zero and infinity. Tolulope Mayomi. The purpose of this paper is to propose the possibility that relativity and quantum. If you consider a general number line, we can position the zero at any In this case plus/minus infinity appears between the positive and What about the people who philosophize about the difference between pure math. The concept of zero and that of infinity are linked, but, obviously, zero is not to specify the difference between nothing, unity and multitude.
We may define division from multiplication. We may need to expand this definition slightly to handle division by zero.
That is, there may be more than one number which satisfies the relation. The answer to the problem may be a set of numbers, or infinity. If we ground mathematics in the study of existent reality, there is no zero outside of counting, and there is no infinity except as a pure concept.
Laws of Zero - Wikiversity
Orders are commands that are applied for some political reason, that need have no reference to nature nor to truth. What Shadowjack states here is a general epistemological or ontological principle.
The problem I see is that, while setting aside the "political," he substitutes his own ideas as "nature" or "truth. It is a fundamental epistemological error to confuse interpretation with reality. Shadowjack has not, so far, grounded his discussion in nature and reality, but simply manipulates ideas in ways that seem logical to him.
It is easily possible that division by zero gives a not obvious result similar to Q! He has not stated this. Q is not defined here. Either answer is satisfactory to the logical necessity of showing the calculation.
There is no natural observation which involves division by zero. The problem arises entirely in language. Shadowjack, here, acknowledges that there is more than one "answer," "satisfactory" to logical necessities.
The necessity is invented.
Zero and Infinity
If N is infinite, the check is impossible to verify. We are, again, outside of the natural reality, we are looking at pure thought only, invented. Does Shadowjack's answer, differing from my proposal, remain logically consistent? I don't know as I write this. I am, with most of us, a student. This may seem picky, but if we are going to propose that most people are "wrong," we'd better be clear about what we mean.
Let's see if he shows that.
Relationship between zero and infinity | Zenodo
The concept of zero and that of infinity are linked, but, obviously, zero is not infinity. The problem, of course, is what happens as N approaches zero. It could be any number and satisfy the relation. I'll repeat, this problem arises only in language, the language of mathematics. What I think may be the correct line into the infinity mathematics is to hypothesise that zero divided by zero approximates infinity.
Now that may actually work because we are saying if the empty set contains the empty set then infinity. This is not a coherent sentence. He is referring to what he does not explain. There are two meanings of zero.
Laws of Zero
Shadowjack may be confusing them, here. Furthermore, by making zero a concept we would be able to avoid writing those exceptions to rules where we have to specify that the equation is true as long as something is not zero.
I just thought of few more examples: Whereas if your opponent has zero points and you have two points, you would technically have to say that you have infinite times as many points as him. It's true that infinity and zero have many interesting relationships. But zero is far less troublesome than infinity, and far more important.
We couldn't do much algebra without zero, because we couldn't define the additive inverse negative without the additive identity. We couldn't do that without zero! There would be ways to get around it, I suppose, but they would be very awkward. You'd lose a lot if you refused to do any arithmetic with zero, which is what we mean when we say that infinity is not a number.
Now, it's true that zero is "just a concept"--but the same can be said of all numbers. You've never seen a three, have you? You see three boys, three sticks, and so on, and you generalize from that to the concept of "three".
You can't have zero apples--but you also can't have -3 apples. Actually, you can have both, if you think of it the right way. You can't have a circle with radius 0, or with radius -3, either--so do negative numbers not exist? Zero and negative numbers are just extensions of the concept of counting, taking the idea of "number" beyond where it began.
The reason zero is neither positive nor negative is that positive MEANS greater than zero, and negative means less than zero. Zero is not an exception there--it's what the whole idea of positive and negative revolves around almost literally! Zero IS even--I hope no one taught you that it isn't!