Dividing by zero

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.

We create nptational symbology but do not create Ontologies, we use Ontological directives that already are inherent in us. Tat Tvam Asi is a case of this, and the Ontological presumptions follow a ridged epistemic closure.

Tat Tvam Asi
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

Epistemic Closure
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

If you assume 1/Monad is Whole, and that Dyad/Duality is illusion, based on misconception of true nature like Shankara did, it morphs the nature of casual inference and numerical succession significantly, Buddhism and Advaita are largely at odds with one another in mathematics, while oddly shadowing one another in key concepts. The Ontology already existed, isn’t dependent on name and notion, it is how we process and think of self and otherness, it’s uniqueness of information is a non issue, as the awareness of processing is what makes a “thing” a unique experience. In a situational context, more so.

As a Cognitive Non-Dualist, it us easy for me to ply through the various schools of Non-Duality, as it is all mathematically based on processing Subject-Object presumptions. I have considerable success at it. You can see what I mean in this English Subtitled movie in Sanskrit of Shankara developing a Monistic model of mathematics that defies everyone’s presumptions in this thread, especially James and Phyllo’s further reasoning. When Ontology and Epistemology starts running up together, logic yields to neurology.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CFH95llYAFs

You can also see Ecmandu rolling around in dirt and a river in that movie. Crazy fuckers.

Yes, we do: e.g. RM:Affectance Ontology
All of classical physics is an ontology. Relativity is another ontology. Quantum Physics is yet another (as ridiculous as it is). The Abramic religions stem from yet another. The I Ching, still another.

What we use to do it is another issue. But at least you made it clear that we do create ontologies.

We also create notations; mathematics, languages, symbologies. Ecmandu can claim that a square “actually has” three sides and give some argument concerning it. But Ecmandu doesn’t dictate the standards for the language. The same is true for the notations in mathematics. The division symbol doesn’t mean what he says or thinks, except in his own personal misunderstood version.

So explain to me how division is used.

I often say to people that some of the smartest people are people who don’t understand something because there’s nothing to understand.

There’s the issue of simply dividing which is a branch of math that’s only in my notebooks right now, and there’s dividing EQUALLY, which is the standard you’re all used to.

Even if you use the latter standard…

You are effectively dividing zero 31 times, or dividing zero into 31, or dividing 31 zero times, or dividing 31 into zero…

My logic is infallible …

You all understand something in a combination of words which cannot actually be understood

I forgot…

Explain to me how division isn’t the reciprocal of multiplication???

James already addressed that: