Dividing by zero

It’s 31 divided zero times!!!

Damn you people are nuts, seriously…

You go to school, learn how to parrot something, and don’t even think about what you’re saying

That’s the Greek philosopher coming out in you Turd!

The point is, I can say a group (monad) of 6 hens is in my yard…

Those Greeks were really superstitious !

What’s to say there’s no super matter or super antimatter or neutral matter… Nothing, yet you bloviate the Greeks …

It’s not what’s to say, but saying it dear Watson, that is the differential presumption that gives rise to Dyad. Dyad isn’t mnemonic. It is a condition for categorical differation, of saying “to know more, one must Orient and Observe further”.

I accept your admittance to defeat. I now kind myself as the king of all Mathematics.

Once more time : 31 / 0 = nonsense
No point arguing this ad infinitum
So shall have to agree to disagree

Nonsense is still something, a state of incoherent being, chaos of the thing in itself.

It is a state if being, a prerequisite of “Thingness”, of myriad calculation, and so isn’t without part in the serialization of things, however real or abstract they are in formulaic thought.

As even Phyllo’s minimalistic syllogism shows, something more than nothing is left over. Is it “1” is incorrect, but so is any decimalization, as being has no quanta to be serialized.

One must either abandon Being and Becoming, as well as Past, Present, and Future, to get around this issue- which would be highly traumatic to modern number theory, or embrace a aspect on numbers exist on the De Dicto and De Re expanse, imbedded in syllogistic expression of formulaic expression, that goes very much counter to modern presumptions on the nature of Zero, as it is found not to behave as we always believed prior to how it was supposed to “be”.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re

You’re arguing without content.

My content is referential to the previous phrase in my argument.

I hardly call that a defeat.

I see this as a joke post…

You’re a trinity freak who’s skeptical…

Obviously you know neutral as a concept, which makes positive and negative a trinity.

What I’ve found about life besides binary is that some areas are trinity, binary and some are more.

Again I can see your ancient readings in your posts

You and I both well know the ancients didn’t see 1 & 2 as numbers… There was a deep equivalency !

How many stages of grief are there for death???

More than 1, 2, or 3!!!

How many plot lines are there to stories???

12

So why are we wasting our time talking about this??

Answer me that.

What you don’t know…

I’ve read a great many classics.

I know the same shit you do.

My “job” is to be accurate… Regurgitation is a hinderence to contribution

Perhaps we both read them, but between us, only I understood them.

One irrespective isn’t a number, but it is a component of metrics under Dyad. 1 & 2 are metrics. 3 is a number, but it is also serialized, and dependent upon 1 and 2 which are likewise serialized, in fact, a reason 3 is a number, serialized,us because of the proceeding metricfication that goes on to infinity. Being is inherent in Two and Three, and in less than One, as well as Infinity, despite infinity being nonesensical save for when it is axoimatically particular.

Paradox is the root of all knowledge, every idea is reducible to this.

Look, it is me having a Roman styled Triumph on your ass Ecmandu, Biatch!

2 pieces??
Do you want to think about that some more?

You’re getting confused because you want to visualize division as some kind of physical process. That makes sense for some numbers but not for the majority of numbers. That does it mean to divide 31 by pi (3.14) in terms of pieces? Or dividing 31 by one quarter (1/4) in terms of pieces? Dividing by zero is even more “physically” nonsensical.

Precisely because it is physically nonsensical is the reason it has the properties I stated well in subsequent posts.

Zero must have a quantity to be undefined, contradiction.

Zero has quality, and serialization, it is linear. A void still takes a shape.

Mathematics does not need to have physical meaning. It’s essentially symbol manipulation using very well defined rules. Sometimes it’s possible to overlay the symbols on top of a physical reality and make calculations which have a physical meaning. And sometimes it’s not possible. In both cases, the mathematical rules work the same way.

The consequence of your interpretation of division by zero is that 31/0=31 and 31/1=31 which means that 1 is mathematically the same as 0. And if that is true, then 1+1=2 but also 0+1=2 and 0+0=2 and 10=11 and 31=30, etc.

IOW, all mathematics breaks down and becomes nonsense.

You can claim that if you want to invent your own notation, but I wouldn’t count on anyone but you using it. For the rest of the world, the notation means whatever THEY defined it to mean, not you. And THEY do not use “31/0” to mean “31 divided zero times”.

Their notation defines multiplication and division as inverse operations. Thus if a/b = c, then c * b = a by DECLARED DEFINITION of the notation. So in their notation, you are claiming that 31 * 0 = 31.

If you want to read it upside down and backwards, go ahead.

Quite the opposite, the drive to “pure mathematics” has shown quite the opposite, that mathematical systems are relative and explainable by and through one another.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

Again, not the case, in pure mathematics, different systems are approachable for comparison of differation, even the thinking of a schizophrenic.

Likewise, you have a incredible burden of proof to show nowhere else in pure or applied mathematics we don’t operate anywhere established as Ecmandu is describing. A keen observer of the ways and means of life will likely poke some serious holes in your presumption James. History has shown even defunct, rotten systems of mathematics can still yield useful, dependable results. Our own modern theories are likely full of Swiss Cheese, but it is pragmatic to stick to them as long as they can still be shown to be useful.

One man using a better system is a improvement over everyone using avlousy one, without ever questioning why. It is evidence of the I dominable spirit of the philosophical man.

Hmmm do units matter?

I suppose 2 apples divided into a lack of quantity of oranges could be the same answer

People create notations and ontologies. Usefulness through consistency is required for anyone else to use it. The notation system belongs to whoever created it.

A notation system is not a matter of truth but of standard use. Ecmandu doesn’t create the standard. And no, it is of no great burden to prove that the standard in use is contrary to what he proposes as a standard (not to mention that his version would be useless).

Units do matter in that they must remain consistent throughout.