If math is true, answer this question

Started by SatanLucy

Replies
44
Posts
45
Page
1 / 2

Conversation

#1 •••
⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.

Edit comment

#2 •••
@SatanLucy

Mathematically, there is no such number. The concept of "times greater" relies on multiplication, and multiplying zero by any number always results in zero (0×n=0). Therefore, it is impossible to multiply zero by any factor to get a non-zero result.

While one might colloquially say a positive number is "infinitely" greater than zero in a relative sense, this is technically undefined in standard arithmetic. Statements like "1 is infinitely more than 0" do not make mathematical sense because you cannot use a multiplicative description to compare a non-zero value to zero.


Edit post

#3 •••
@SatanLucy


SatanLucy wrote:
Which number is two times greater than zero?


Math is math, is a derived method of intellectual reasoning, and is either applied accurately or inaccurately..."Truth" is inappropriate.


In terms of mass, any mass is greater than no mass..."2 times" is irrelevant.


Nonetheless, an increase in mass can be reasoned and measured mathematically.


Edit post

#4 •••
@FLRW
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#5 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#6 •••
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#7 •••
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#8 •••
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#9 •••
@FLRW
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#10 •••
@SatanLucy

Any number multiplied by 0 is 0

Edit post

#11 •••
@SatanLucy


SatanLucy wrote:
any mass is greater than no mass

Mathematically, no. Mass of 2 is not greater than mass of zero. If it truly were greater, we would know how many times greater.

But sadly, there is no number two times greater than zero.


Hmmm...You didn't quite get it.

Edit post

#12 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#13 •••
@SatanLucy


SatanLucy wrote:
Hmmm...You didn't quite get it.

Did you?


Yes I understood my reply, wherein I answered the futility of your question.


Edit post

#14 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#15 •••

OMG, is SatanLucy a Trumper?????

Edit post

#16 •••
@FLRW
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#17 •••
@SatanLucy

But your math is very Trumplike.

Edit post

#18 •••
@SatanLucy


SatanLucy wrote:
OMG, is SatanLucy a Trumper?????

No, I just don't believe in science, math and logic. These are usual characteristics of a Trump supporter, yes, but I am not a Trump supporter. I support Mao's China.


Well, certainly in terms of predictable outcomes, "belief" is somewhat futile....Though you have have previously, readily taken science, math and logic on board.


SO BK AKA Lucy is typically contradictory, just as modern China contradicts in the name of Mao...But hey, the masses need a figurehead, hence the Orange Clown in the red hat...Though I'm not sure that I've got a figurehead...and I'm not greatly into mass participation, if at all... What do you think?

Edit post

#19 •••
@SatanLucy


SatanLucy wrote:
OMG, is SatanLucy a Trumper?????

No, I just don't believe in science, math and logic. These are usual characteristics of a Trump supporter, yes, but I am not a Trump supporter. I support Mao's China.


I hate to have to break it to you. but Mao died in 1976, it hasn't been Mao's China for 50 years.

Edit post

#20 •••
@Sidewalker
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#21 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#22 •••

What is the square root of four?

Edit post

#23 •••
@Sidewalker

Square root of 4 is 16

Edit post

#24 •••
@Debby


Debby wrote:
Square root of 4 is 16


There are two different answers and 16 isn't one of them.





Edit post

#25 •••

Why does 1 = .999...

Edit post

#26 •••
@Sidewalker


Sidewalker wrote:
Why does 1 = .999...


It doesn't actually...It's a bit like comparing English brie with French brie, and will only matter to a Mathematician or an Affineur.


In simple terms .999... is always .1 and as many relevant 0's as necessary, short of 1.


The equation exemplifies incompatibility and simply has to make do.

Edit post

#27 •••
@SergeantLynch


SergeantLynch wrote:

Sidewalker wrote:
Why does 1 = .999...

It doesn't actually...It's a bit like comparing English brie with French brie, and will only matter to a Mathematician or an Affineur.


Except it does actually, one divided by 3 is point three repeating, point three repeating times 3 is point nine repeating, therefore one exactly equals .9 repeating.


1/3 = .333...

.333... X 3 = .999...

1=.999...


In simple terms .999... is always .1 and as many relevant 0's as necessary, short of 1.


No, "as many relevant 0's as necessary" implies a finite number, but a repeating decimal is an infinite process, saying "as many relevant 0's as necessary" is like saying the necessary number of times you must traverse the perimeter of a circle to get to the end, there is no end.


The equation exemplifies incompatibility and simply has to make do.


It only demonstrates the incompatibility inherent in representing fractions as decimals because converting some fractions like 1/3 or 1/9 to decimals results in an infinite loop.

Edit post

#28 •••

Here's another one:


Three men check into a hotel to share a room, the desk clerk tells them the room is $30, they each give him ten dollars and go to the room. The manager comes back from dinner and tells the clerk the room is actually $25 and sends the bellboy to the men's room with five one dollar bills to return the overpayment. Since the men can't divide five three ways, they each take a dollar and give the bellboy a two-dollar tip.


So, the men paid $9 each, 3 times $9 is $27, plus the $2 tip is $29, where did the other dollar go?

Edit post

#29 •••

Magic { poof! dissipation out of existence } and,


...miracles { extra-ordinary } exist beyond human comprehension?

Edit post

#30 •••
@Sidewalker
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post