2.0035299304068464649790723515603e+19728
PWrong wrote:It might be useful for measuring the size of the universe using the Planck Length as a unit instead of meters. Or maybe finding the volume of a higher dimensional universe.
elpenmaster wrote:thus, infinityx0=1
since 0 times infinity equals 1, then logically 1/0 equals infinity
this all is logical if you use a circular number line.
meanstotheend wrote:It seems to me that everyone in the "modern" world of science is becoming fanatical, much as religious fanatics. I am proud to say that i am neither. EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE HUNG UP ON ABSOLUTES...I simply wanted to state that nothing is absolute.
Any and all comments are welcome!
elpenmaster wrote:i think that i first suggested the circular number line on this forum.
but i know that other people already had that idea before me
what is the reason that zero is not infinitly small? in calculus maybe there are limits and such to make it easier to figure things out, but. . .
Euclid wrote:In a way, zero is infinitely small. In the limit, as X approaches zero, does not 1/x go to infinity? Another way to look at this is to take something and cut it in half (Zeno's paradox). Now cut it in half again, and again...do you ever have nothing left? When you take whatever arbitrary piece you have and toss it away, then you have zero.
PWrong wrote:"Some simple facts about the universe"
Area: infinite.
Exports: None
Imports: None
Population: None
Since space is infinite, there are infinite places where life can exist. Therefore the population of each habitat is the total population divided by the number of habitats. Now any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as leaves no odds, so therefore the average population in any place is zero, therefore the total population of the universe is zero and any people you happen to meet are simply the products of a deranged imagination.
PWrong wrote:That sounds really interesting, but I can't see any use for that either. I mentioned mine because it seems to be the next basic operator.
a*b = a+a+a... b times
a^b = a*a*a... b times
Surely the next operator should follow this pattern? I found a function called the "power tower" on a math website, but it didn't reveal much about it.
I also found it interesting because raising to the nth power implies n dimensions, so the next operator must imply something different. Since n dimensions means n coordinates needed to describe a location, what if you need two or more values to describe the number of dimensions? For instance, the same object could be 2D and 3D at the same time. I know it's pointless to pursue something so difficult to visualise, but it might be worth a try.
Euclid wrote:PWrong wrote:
For longer than I can remember, I have thought of mathematics in terms of a number line. I sort of quiescently sit at zero and then venture out from there depending on what I am doing. Horizontal motion takes me positively and negatively through the integers and reals--to me, infinity is just way off in the murky distance further than I can see. I just move vertically, up or down, and now I am moving in the plane. .
Polyhedron Dude wrote:PWrong wrote:That sounds really interesting, but I can't see any use for that either. I mentioned mine because it seems to be the next basic operator.
.
I have investigated huge numbers, and have generated a notation that I call Array Notation - it generates numbers that blow Graham's number away. One of my favorites is gongulus - it is the number generated by a 10^100 array of 10's. A gongulusplex is the number generated by a 10^gongulus array of 10's.
Here are a few other number names I coined:
gaggol = {10,100,5}
tridecal = {10,10,10}
general = {10,10,10,10}
xappol - generated by 10x10 array of 10's
kungulus - generated by 10 {5} 100 array of 10's
Polyhedron Dude
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest