When is 1 not 1?

I seem to remember that 0 is an infinitely small number so, for example, dividing 9 by zero on a calculator gives E.
Now I'm stuck!

Tony

Hmmmm, try again.

If zero can be thought of as a null place holder then the difference between 0 and 1 is the difference between nothing and something.

0

Logically, zero cannot relate to a number, as any quantity from that viewpoint in unquantifyable - so it's impossible to relate it to any numerical scale. But we have to relate it to 1, but 0 +1 = 1, so that doesn't work and neither does 2 x 0, so we must give zero a numerical value in order to qualify it on any numerical scale, so we must give it an infinitely small value. Therefore - to make it work, the answer must be 0.99999 recurring.
It isn't real though - just a flaw in our mathematical system.
That's my logic anyway.

Maybe there's a hint in here. Hard to believe but many years ago I'd have found this fascinating.

I remember my maths teacher saying to me 'you would contradict me if I said 2 + 2 = 4'

I replied well it doesn't always

teacher: Yes it does

Erik: No, it doesn't

Teacher: Yes it does

Erik: So 2 bananas and elephants are 4 of what exactly?

Teacher: Get out of my class boy.

quote:

OK....here we go.

What's the difference between 2 and 3? I'm sure some of you will say 1.

OK, what's the difference between 1 and 2? 1 again?

So the real question is: what's the difference between 0 and 1? Tip: its not 1.

But 1 is still 1
The headline is sort of misleading, as you have given 1 a meaning, then it doesn't loose it's meaning. So the difference between 0 and 1 ain't 1, so what, the meaning of 1 don't change... So when is 1 not 1, certainly not in this example!

Yes, 1 is still 1 because technically zero is not a number. Adam is pissed, and I'm working.

One is not amused

Victoria Regina

The difference between 0 and 1 is Man Utd not getting 3 points tonight.

So the difference must be 2!

...er, points!

Didn't Bertrand Russell write a whole book on this, which even he conceded damaged his phylosophical faculties?

I have seen it, but have forgotten the title. I am sure it would be compelling reading, and a must for those partaking in this Thread!

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:
The difference between 0 and 1 is.......

an infinite series of numbers between 0 and 1.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Didn't Bertrand Russell write a whole book on this, which even he conceded damaged his phylosophical faculties?
Fredrik

This sounds more like the fallout from Russell’s Paradox.

Gottlob Frege was close to publication of his 2nd volume of ‘Grundgesetze der Arithmetik’ when Russell wrote to him with the good news that there might be a tiny problemette with his attempt to formalise language.

My hearing of this story had Frege going off to grow vegetables for the rest of his life – but I also have a definite image of Spinoza torturing spiders “while tears of joy coursed down his beard”. All probably better than the facts.

Dear Adam,

I am glad I am thick enough to at least avoid the hang-ups of Genius! I can't remember, but was Russell's book, the Tractatus Mathematicus? I might (very likely) be wrong? I did read some Russell on Phylosophy when younger, and I thought the most obviously sensible thing I can remember was his comment that the Universe should most reasonably be accepted as a Brute Fact!

That was fine enough for me!

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Adam,

I am glad I am thick enough to at least avoid the hang-ups of Genius! I can't remember, but was Russell's book, the Tractatus Mathematicus? I might (very likely) be wrong? I did read some Russell on Phylosophy when younger, and I thought the most obviously sensible thing I can remember was his comment that the Universe should most reasonably be accepted as a Brute Fact!

That was fine enough for me!

Fredrik

Fredrik,

I think Russell was a dry, humourless old stick. A first rate mathematician and a second rate philosopher. His mind was all cogs and wheels and lacked subtlety and insight IMO. I think Wittegstein was way ahead of Russell. I think Russell somehow managed to capture the British public's view that he was a great genius rather like Stephen Hawkin has today without really being that great(just like Hawkin).

Public perception of genius is often flawed IMO take Einstein for example who (allegedly?)pinched some of theories from his wife and then dumped her when he became famous. Einstein the plagiarist Einstein often gets the most votes for having been the greatest human of all time but why? I watched a tv programme which showed people being stopped in the street and asked who was the greatest man ever to live and many people said Einstein but when asked why they could not answer. Even those who said it was because of his theory of relativity were stumped when asked which one? Some knew the relativity formula but none could say what it meant even in the most simple terms and none could give one reason why his theories help improve anyone's life? In fact it was shown that people give the answer that they think will make them look the most intelligent but in my view they most often give the answer that makes them look the most foolish like voting for Princess Diana as being the greatest Brit of all time. It just beggars belief. Hawkin is also a household name in America and is often voted as being the greatest living genius but this is beause he has appeared on the Simpsons as being the greatest living genius and if 'the Simpsons' says so it must be true. Just read the bollocks on this site Stephen Hawkin's IQ. The average IQ is 100. Leonardo Da Vinci and Sir Issaac Newton had an IQ etimated to be approx. 175 and Voltaire at approx 180. On 'The Simpsons' Hawkin's IQ was said to be 280 and now there are people on the web suggesting it is higher than this. Take a look - it's good for a laugh. I rest my case.

Erik

Dear Erik,

I am just about getting better after a really nasty temperature last night.

In citing Russell, I was merely pulling a leg or two over the basic premiss of this Thread!

Actually it was my interest (not followed through) in Philosophy that really nailed my own suspiscions about the validity of the Christian Religeon!

All the best from Fredrik

God is a number.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Erik,

I am just about getting better after a really nasty temperature last night.

In citing Russell, I was merely pulling a leg or two over the basic premiss of this Thraed!

Actually it was my interest (not followed through) in Phylosophy that really nailed my own suspiscions about the validity of the Christian Religeon!

All the best from Fredrik

Im not disagreeing with you Fredrik, I just felt like saying something and tacking it onto the end of your post was easier than someone elses. At least Russell wrote on why he was not a Christian and he was also a prominent anti-war campaigner which makes him ok in my book. Get well soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
God is a number.

Yes, a big fat zero in my view who does not add up to anything of any merit, the very concept of whom subtracts from our power to transecend this life ouselves and only multiplies our delusions.

Dear Erik,

I did not think you were getting at me! Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
God is a number.

No dear Erik.
I did mean that god is a numbers' series.

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
God is a number.

No dear Erik.
I did mean that god is a numbers' series.

I was only teasing dear Gianluigi. By the way I have not watched the news or read a newspaper all week. Is Italy relatively safe now or is the fool still in power?