crux of numeracy

[AntonioLao]

It seems well implicitly understood by law makers and rulers of nations as to what is the crux of democracy (to free or not to free). It seems obvious, but not casually spoken, although silently anticipated, as to what is the crux of prophecy (to fulfill or not to fulfill). For the crux of literacy it is to learn or not; for crux of fluency, to speak or shut up; for crux of policy, to abide or not; the crux of decency, to expose or not; the crux of supremacy, to dominate or not. However, in number theory, the crux is to choose the representations for the whole number zero as ‘0’ or as 1/¥. Clearly for anyone who constantly works with numbers in order to find answers to life’s mysteries, the choice is ‘0’ and not the cumbersome 1/¥. As ‘0’, it lies at the crossing that forms the crotch of the imaginary axis and the real axis. It is absolute. It is neither positive nor negative. It is the identity of all Abelian operators for addition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group). Yet when it is applied to products of semi-groups (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semigroup), it has the power to annihilate everything (numbers not people) into the empty set. It earns the everlasting property of multiplication by itself, yet somehow does not produce anything even if the operations are carried all the way to infinity. In the English language dictionary, it is the last word with the most definitions, before one can decide to close the pages of meanings. The other contenders are the words: ‘zone’ and ‘zoom’. In TQS (theory of quantum space-time or total quality 4-letter word beginning with an “s”), ‘0’ forms elements for infinitely dimensioned null matrices. For all other singular Hadamard matrices of TQS, one zero is enough to signify the value of all determinants. It is the value regardless of the order or dimension or LOE (level of existence) of the matrix.

[harmonygirl]

some good points, Antonio, you have gotten me thinking about the utility of zero and whether it can be a way to truth. I am leaning towards no, because by definition, it is WAY too flexible to assist in a numerical system. It is a wild card, if you will...

[Guille]

Antonio,

Do you think we could invent a new binary coding for computers but instead of zeros and ones, of zeros and ones divided by infinite?

Which number of the two is smaller, anyway?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It seems well implicitly understood by law makers and rulers of nations as to what is the crux of democracy (to free or not to free). It seems obvious, but not casually spoken, although silently anticipated, as to what is the crux of prophecy (to fulfill or not to fulfill). For the crux of literacy it is to learn or not; for crux of fluency, to speak or shut up; for crux of policy, to abide or not; the crux of decency, to expose or not; the crux of supremacy, to dominate or not. However, in number theory, the crux is to choose the representations for the whole number zero as ‘0’ or as 1/¥. Clearly for anyone who constantly works with numbers in order to find answers to life’s mysteries, the choice is ‘0’ and not the cumbersome 1/¥. As ‘0’, it lies at the crossing that forms the crotch of the imaginary axis and the real axis. It is absolute. It is neither positive nor negative. It is the identity of all Abelian operators for addition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group). Yet when it is applied to products of semi-groups (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semigroup), it has the power to annihilate everything (numbers not people) into the empty set. It earns the everlasting property of multiplication by itself, yet somehow does not produce anything even if the operations are carried all the way to infinity. In the English language dictionary, it is the last word with the most definitions, before one can decide to close the pages of meanings. The other contenders are the words: ‘zone’ and ‘zoom’. In TQS (theory of quantum space-time or total quality 4-letter word beginning with an “s”), ‘0’ forms elements for infinitely dimensioned null matrices. For all other singular Hadamard matrices of TQS, one zero is enough to signify the value of all determinants. It is the value regardless of the order or dimension or LOE (level of existence) of the matrix.

Anthony, please, please don't throw away one divided by infinity, so quick. It supplies the most important features of math required to solve TOE mechanics, i.e., one divided by infinity equals equilibrium, i.e., the initial infinite singularity chaos equilibriated into a finite number of "zero" circles, orbiting circles, of which we even live on one such a "zero..." I'll explain better later in a post I'm preparing...

regards
Lloyd

[AntonioLao]

running late will reply asap.

[AntonioLao]

I am leaning towards no

In operational Hadamard matrices there are no zero elements.

Do you think we could invent a new binary coding for computers but instead of zeros and ones, of zeros and ones divided by infinite? Which number of the two is smaller, anyway?

A Hadamard computer would be a one using only 1 and -1. Zero and 1 over infinity are of the same value although zero is absolute and 1/infinity is relative.

please don't throw away one divided by infinity

On the contrary, I'm using it, since it is the only sensible mathematical description of variational principle as a generalization of infinitesimal calculus.

[Guille]

A Hadamard computer would be a one using only 1 and -1. Zero and 1 over infinity are of the same value although zero is absolute and 1/infinity is relative.

Woudl a hadamart computer be better than current ones? (would it be faster? Smaller in size? Bigger in memory?...)

In what sense can 1/infinity be relative? And zero is absolute?
How can any number 'be' relative or absolute?

[AntonioLao]

Woudl a hadamart computer be better than current ones? (would it be faster? Smaller in size? Bigger in memory?...)

In a Hadamard computer instead of the usual garbage in garbage out (GIGO), it is energy in and energy out (EIEO).

In what sense can 1/infinity be relative? And zero is absolute? How can any number 'be' relative or absolute?

Infinity can only be approached. If you think you reached it, it appeared still to be infinitely faraway like an infinite amount of money even Bill Gate won't say he is the richest until he has more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 then more zeros after that. But if your pocket is empty then you are absolutely sure you reached absolute zero.

[Guille]

In a Hadamard computer instead of the usual garbage in garbage out (GIGO), it is energy in and energy out (EIEO).

Infinity can only be approached. If you think you reached it, it appeared still to be infinitely faraway like an infinite amount of money even Bill Gate won't say he is the richest until he has more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 then more zeros after that. But if your pocket is empty then you are absolutely sure you reached absolute zero.

So in a hadamard computer there would be no virus (and also no need for anti-virus)?

No I understand the difference between zero and one/infinity. You should read my reply to Sub in the thread "Walstad's Paradox", it includes a paragraph which relates set theory with this idea.

[AntonioLao]

So in a hadamard computer there would be no virus (and also no need for anti-virus)?

It runs on magnetic moments of positive and negative helicity.