Are we teleporting?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So I've been reading this bit about introduction to calculus for noobs: http://www-math.mit.edu/~djk/calculus_be...ion03.html
And i found something particularly disturbing so thought i'd come here and tell everyone about it.


About what i found disturbing:

[start rant]

It's this particular math: 
1 * 0 =0
2 * 0 = 0
3 * 0 = 0
4 * 0 = 0
etc

I have seen this in my school but i hadn't actually given much thought to it,until now .__. 

Consider this math: 
1 * 0 = ?
1 * 0 = 0

Most of the people will read it as 1 multiplied by 0 gives 0.
When i looked at it what i saw was kind of wierd.This is how i saw it:

# I go to a supermarket 
# I buy x egg(s) 
# I take the egg(s) in my right hand
# The universe forgets that i had anything in my right hand
# I give the cashier what i have in my right hand [which is nothing since the universe doesn't remember it anymore.]
# I get billed for 0 dollars

This is the logic of 1 * 0 = 0.

But is that really true? o.0 Quite obviously not,right? 
Even though the universe forgets that i had anything in my right hand doesn't necessarily mean that i didn't have anything in my right hand now does it?

Shouldn't the logic be: 

# I go to a supermarket 
# I buy x egg(s) 
# I take the egg(s) in my right hand
# The universe forgets that i had anything in my right hand
# I give the cashier what i have in my right hand
# I get billed for x dollar (1 egg costs 1 dollar - for the sake of the argument)

If that is what the logic should be then doesn't that mean :

1 * 0 = N
2 * 0 = N
3 * 0 = N
etc
where N is the set of all natural numbers?
Why N? Well because by picking an egg from the supermarket i acknowledge that there are egg(s) in my right hand but still maintain ambiguity as to the no of egg(s) i have in my right hand.But since i have acknowledged that there are egg(s) - the no. of egg(s) will have to be greater than 0

Jesus fucking Christ,math is so fucking complicated how did you guys ever learn it?! >_<

[end rant]


Ok,back to reading..

[dyresand]

Pool look up magnetic worm holes we are literally that close to FTL travel because of that discovery. Why teleport when you have a FTL drive.
Not to mention there is the problem with teleportation anyways. The key problem is you would die and get assembled on the other end of where you wanted to go.

[IATIA]

Not to mention there is the problem with teleportation anyways. The key problem is you would die and get assembled on the other end of where you wanted to go.

One may not be much better off in a wormhole.

As this does not coincide with my particular world, I had never really looked hard at continuity vs. reality. Re-reading Zeno's paradoxes, I see some validity to them.

Technically, there are an infinite number of points between point A and point B. Regardless of how little time it takes to pass a point, one could never pass an infinite number of points.

However, we can get from A to B, so basically, it just reinforces my worldview in my head.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Not to mention there is the problem with teleportation anyways. The key problem is you would die and get assembled on the other end of where you wanted to go.

One may not be much better off in a wormhole.

As this does not coincide with my particular world, I had never really looked hard at continuity vs. reality.  Re-reading Zeno's paradoxes, I see some validity to them.

Technically, there are an infinite number of points between point A and point B.  Regardless of how little time it takes to pass a point, one could never pass an infinite number of points.

However, we can get from A to B, so basically, it just reinforces my worldview in my head.

YES! Exactly!

Infinite number of points between A and B.
To get from A to B one would have to spend time 0 in each of the points.
So are were moving at a speed of infinity all along? No,right? It doesn't matter,i just need to be one superhero. 
We were probably teleporting all along.
This would also mean that there is no "infinity" in reality.Just like there is no "zero" in reality.

[Alex K]

Good morning pool,

I don't understand how your egg-xample is supposed to be an illustration of 0*1=...

A better analogy for 3*0=0 is this:

I go get 3 eggs, but they are free today (0$ per piece), so I pay 0$.

or:

Eggs cost 3$ a piece, but I buy no eggs, and therefore I pay 0$.

Both situations would be calculated by 0*3=0 or 3*0=0, which are equivalent.

[Longhorn]

Just make a fucking omlette -_-

[Alex K]

Which, by sheer coincidence, is exactly what I'm going to do now...

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Good morning pool,

I don't understand how your egg-xample is supposed to be an illustration of 0*1=...

A better analogy for 3*0=0 is this:

I go get 3 eggs, but they are free today (0$ per piece), so I pay 0$.

or:

Eggs cost 3$ a piece, but I buy no eggs, and therefore I pay 0$.

Both situations would be calculated by 0*3=0 or 3*0=0, which are equivalent.

You got it wrong K.

In 3 * 0 = 0
3 indicate the type of product,i.e,Egg. 
0 indicate the number of products.

So in 3 * 0 = 0 
Basically,this statement is saying that you got a few eggs from the supermarket and then says that when you go to cash out they check you out for 0 dollars since you didn't get anything. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard in my entire life.

The logic of 3*0=0 is

You get eggs. 
They check you out for 0 dollars since you didn't get any eggs.

The real logic of 3*0=0 should be

You get eggs.
They check you out for N dollars. 

Also,there is no way that 3 * 0 = 0 is the same as 0 * 3 = 0

In 0 * 3 = 0

You get nothing from the supermarket.
They check you out for 0 dollars.This is correct.

But there is no way you get egg(s) from the supermarket and then they check you out for 0 dollars.
;______;

[Alex K]

Yes there is, if the supermarket has a free eggs special on that day.

There is no logic assigned to the order of numbers in ordinary summation or multiplication. x*y and y*x are mathematically the same expression. There is just a meaningless ambiguity in writing it down.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yes there is, if the supermarket has a free eggs special on that day.

There is no logic assigned to the order of numbers in ordinary summation or multiplication. x*y and y*x are mathematically the same expression. There is just a meaningless ambiguity in writing it down.

That actually makes some sense. o.O But i have a better analogy read below.

Okay,check this out though, 

1 * 3 = 3 
I buy 1 egg 3 times and then i get checked out for 3 dollars.
3 * 1 = 3
I buy an egg that is the equivalent of three 1 egg and then i get checked out for 3 dollars.

That undoubtedly makes sense.I agree.

But look at this:

0 * 3 = 0
I don't buy any egg(s).
I get checked out for 0 dollars.
#I repeat this process for 3 times.
When i leave the supermarket,i have no eggs with me and my cash is not reduced.

3 * 0 = 0
So i go the the supermarket and take a egg,i go to the cashier and then realize that i have no money so i can't pay for it,so i don't get to take it.Okay,that makes sense.

But 3 * 0 = 0 assumes another thing.It assumes that there are no eggs.Which is false.There are eggs,i just didn't have the money to buy them,so i don't have them but that doesn't mean that there are no eggs,objectively speaking.


3 * 0 can have two possible answers. 
0(subjective answer) and also N(objective answer)
Since,math is objective,i should probably go with N.

Another thing
There is just no freaking way that 0 * 3 = 0 and 3 * 0 = 0 is the same.I agree that it is the same with other numbers but not with 0.Hell no.Zero is special.

Any number * 0 is N.Like:

-3 * 0 = N
I am acknowledging the existence of an egg(-3) but i didn't have any money to buy it.This means that there is an egg but just not with me. But there is ambiguity as to the number of egg(s) there is,so the answer would be N.

This is all just too weird.No wonder i couldn't learn math,i'm too thick to grasp even the most simple concepts of it. :|

Edit:

I changed my mind.
Any number * 0 = 1.
or
Any number * 0 = not defined.

Edit 2:

Wait,wait wait wait wait.WAIT.

Any number * 0 = That number itself.

So,

1 * 0 =1
2 * 0 =2
3 * 0 =3
4 * 0 = 4
5 * 0 = 5

but
0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 3 = 0
0 * 4 = 0
0 * 5 =0