1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSo if we multipy 0 and 0 some say we don't get anything we get a 0 but if we multipy nothing with nothing i guess we get something what do you think i am only 12 so this is my idea.
August 10th, 2012, 03:34 PM
So if we multipy 0 and 0 some say we don't get anything we get a 0 but if we multipy nothing with nothing i guess we get something what do you think i am only 12 so this is my idea.
I like your curiosity! I am just having a little trouble understanding. Zero multiplied by zero is zero. What are you trying to say after this?
Well you have nothing and you have nothing so nothing plus nothing should make something.
You can only really multiply numbers. "Nothing times nothing" does not equal something. If you have two fields of grass, and each of them have no sheep, then you have no sheep.
Guess your right but il still think about if there might be something in my theory also.
Dude, 0+0=0.
But look at it this way you have nothing and you fuse it with nothing and it should make something even if that something is nothing actully did you look at it that way?
No. 0+0=0. It doesn't matter that you are adding them. The act of addition doesn't make 0+0=1!
Hello Mateja78,
I'm glad you're curious about math! Think of it this way... When we multiply a number by zero, we are subtracting that number from itself.This is from the iterative definition for multiplication. So what happens when you take nothing away from nothing? You still have nothing!
I sead that something could still be 0 or nothing
Well i guess it is answerd but wait if you take something from nothing won't that make a negative number than?
Originally Posted by epidecus
Hello Mateja78,
I'm glad you're curious about math! Think of it this way... When we multiply a number by zero, we are subtracting that number from itself.What?!?
Well i guess 0*0 is just 0 thanks for your time.
No problem, I like your interest!
Not sure if you really care, but... A number times zero is the same thing as that number minus itself. Actually, it's defined that way. So 0x0 is the same thing as 0-0.
Watch out. You can't always think of numbers as "nothing" and "something". I used it to help explain it in your terms, but you have to be careful. We must use the proper, precise terms or else all we'll get is a bunch of confusion. The big problem here is whether or not "something" is positive or negative. Unless you specify, or just use the proper terms, we'll have no idea what you mean.
No. A number subtracted from itself is additive inverse. A number multiplied by zero is the multiplicative property of zero. You can think of multiplying by zero that way, but it isn't defined that way. The multiplicative property of zero says that anything times zero is equal to zero.Not sure if you really care, but... A number times zero is the same thing as that number minus itself. Actually, it's defined that way. So 0x0 is the same thing as 0-0.
Yes. For example:
Like Billy Preston said, nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
No. You're saying a number subtracted from itself, or, is the additive inverse of that number, or
. So 5 - 5 = -5?
Yes. The multiplicative property. You just can't properly call it a definition because it's stated as a property based on more basic reasoning. This reasoning being that integer multiplication in the iterative definition is defined as repeated addition/subtraction:You can think of multiplying by zero that way, but it isn't defined that way. The multiplicative property of zero says that anything times zero is equal to zero.
...
...
Sorry to crash on you again guymillion :P, but I didn't really specify my point earlier with Mateja. Again, precise and proper mathematical terms. Is that "something" positive or negative? If positive, then taking that "something" from the "nothing" (zero) will result in a negative. But then if it's negative, well, you get the point. Also, some can take "something" to include zero. Zero is an actual number and represents a set just like every other number. So as you can see, the whole thing is very ambiguous and should be avoided altogether, which is my point to Mateja."Well i guess it is answerd but wait if you take something from nothing won't that make a negative number than?"
Yes. For example:
Not quite sure what you mean by that, or how you are "crashing on me."
No, although I can see what you are saying. For example,No. You're saying a number subtracted from itself, oris the inverse of
. However, the act of adding them together is additive inverse or
. It's the same as
.
Additive inverse - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of Additive Inverse
Cool math Pre-Algebra Help Lessons: Properties - The Additive Inverse Property
I can see how this would be fine, but you have still failed to show me a reference that says this....
...
Edit:
I now agree with your thinking mostly. This part is what convinced me:
...
...
It was next to this picture:
2000px-Multiply_4_bags_3_marbles.jpg
This is something I found, and it helped me see what you were saying. I guess I was just against the idea because I couldn't understand your first post. However, with regards to zero, additive inverse and multiplicative property of zero were basically saying the same thing, so I guess I wasn't too off.I got the stuff from wikipedia, just to cite my sources.
Last edited by guymillion; August 11th, 2012 at 07:52 AM.
No worriesThis is something I found, and it helped me see what you were saying. I guess I was just against the idea because I couldn't understand your first post. However, with regards to zero, additive inverse and multiplicative property of zero were basically saying the same thing, so I guess I wasn't too off.
"Level 1"
Integer addition : It's complicated
(inverse of addition is subtraction)
"Level 2"
Integer multiplication : Iterated addition/subtraction
(inverse of multiplication is division)
"Level 3"
Integer exponentiation (for an arbitrary base) : Iterated multiplication/division
(inverses of exponentiation are roots and logarithms)
After exponentiation is tetration ("level 4" iterated exponentiation/rooting), and it keeps going. I don't see a practical application of these higher operations anywhere outside the pure mathematics so that's probably why they're not very well known. A look at the wiki's is encouraged; interesting stuff.
No worries
Yeah, no, I get that.
Yup. Fairly straightforward:
1. Addition
2. Multiplication (addition multiple times)
3. Exponents (multiplication multiple times)
Right?
Partially. If you're introducing elementary school kids to multiplication, it's good to just say "repeated addition" or "fancy adding". This only applies when you're multiplying by the natural numbers 2 or greater. What happens when you multiply by 1? Or zero? Or a negative? The students probably haven't gotten into integers and all the rules involving negatives, so that's all they have to work with (I'm sure the teacher will tell them multiplying by 1 is the same and multiplying by zero is zero just because) But since we're extending this to all integers, we can safely say...Yup. Fairly straightforward:
1. Addition
2. Multiplication (addition multiple times)
3. Exponents (multiplication multiple times)
Right?
... multiplying by an integer of 2 or greater involves repeated addition
... multiplying by an integer of 0 or less involves repeated subtraction
... multiplying by 1 just leaves the number the same (which is why 1 is the multiplicative identity)
The same thing goes for exponents. If you square a number, or raise it to the power of 2, you're multiplying it by itself. And you know the pattern going up from there. You may know the power of 1 just leaves the base the same, and the power of 0 always equals 1, maybe you were taught that, just because.
Here's a more extensive outline (sorry for the long, boring stuff. bear with me)...
ONE:
Integer Addition : Again, Complicated
(iterated zeration?)
The inverse of addition is subtraction.
TWO:
Integer Multiplication : Based off addition and subtraction
...
...
The pattern continues in both directions and applies to all integers.
The inverse of multiplication is division.
THREE:
Exponentiation (where the base is arbitrary and the power is an integer) : Based off multiplication and division
...
...
The pattern continues in both directions and applies to all integers
The inverse of exponentiation with respect to the base is rooting.
The inverse with respect to the power is the logarithm.
FOUR:
Tetration : Follows the same pattern of iteration
---
[ For integer hyper-powers of 2 or greater : iterated exponentiation
For a hyper-power of 1 : identitive
For integer hyper-powers of 0 or less : iterated rooting ]
---
The pattern continues in both directions and applies to all integers.
The inverse with respect to the hyper-power is super-rooting (e.g. super-square root)
The inverse with respect to the base is the super-logarithm (looks like "slog(x)")
The sequence can be extended infinitely. What follows is usually called pentation (inverses: penta-root and penta-logarithm) and so on. Interesting and confusing stuff I have to say!
Nice post! Yeah, I should have mentioned that. I was just sort of ignoring negatives and division and stuff like that.
Interesting zeration post. I understand most of it, but it sure is weird. For example:
Whereis the operation for zeration. However, I don't really understand how to actually do the operation with numbers. It also doesn't sound as if many people accept its idea.
Last edited by guymillion; August 11th, 2012 at 12:15 PM.
Thanks!
Yeah, zeration sure is something special. I can see why it's so controversial. It just opens up a flood of questions. So far, the concept doesn't seem applicable at all, like it's purely abstract. And you're right. The idea is not very popular. Most of the people interested in stuff like fractals, and infinities, and higher dimensions will likely never hear of zeration. Seeing that it is so abstract, inapplicable, and unformulated leaves it with barely any serious attention.Interesting zeration post. I understand most of it, but it sure is weird. For example:
Where
Who knows? Maybe in the future it might become part of standard and established mathematics. If that happens, imagine the unorthodox applications it's capable of and the weird formulation required to extend it to the complex numbers. Maybe i°i = pi! (as a fun speculative joke)
Maybe the intuition here is that zero means you dont do something
then zero times zero might mean that you dont dont do something...
which seems the same as doing something.
| « Let's Play A Game... | What they have in common Euclides, Newmann & Riemann models? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
