Zero is the absence of value, therefore not positive or negative - just read what Switch said.
Although, I don’t think there are negative or positive numbers (IMO) - that’s all a point of reference.
Zero is the absence of value, therefore not positive or negative - just read what Switch said.
And in lower level math you can negate the polarity of zero, it actually makes lower level math much simpler and easier for beginning mathematicians to understand. But just because you ignore something does not mean it does not exist.
For instance, 1/x when x=0 is said to be undefined. Technically true. Literally not. y= infinity and negative infinity at that point and so, since a function cannot have two outputs for one imput, they have to figure out WHY it has two outputs. The answer? You had two inputs. +0 and -0. But for algebra and trigonometry and calculus I, II and III it’s much simpler to keep the students from being confused and just tell them that the answer is undefined.
I understand what you’re saying, but I thought that issue was solved with limits ie. like in my earlier post:
lim 1/x = - infinity
x -> 0-
lim 1/x = + infinity
x -> 0+
when x=0:
1/(0) = undefined
So there is actually no value for the function when x=0 (rather than 2 values as you claim).
Or does higher math undo these teachings and replace with new teachings as you claim? dun dun dun!
Higher math explains what exactly is happening with limits of undefined results. It’s less a matter of undoing the teachings as it is expounding on why you were taught that and how to logically arrive at the answer through other, more accurate means.
And in lower level math you can negate the polarity of zero, it actually makes lower level math much simpler and easier for beginning mathematicians to understand. But just because you ignore something does not mean it does not exist.
I don’t ignore it - there is no polarity of zero.
A car in reverse has a negative velocity, a car in drive has a positive velocity. A parked car has no velocity (unless you include it’s velocity on the planet). It has no polarity because it is nothing. Plain & simple.
For instance, 1/x when x=0 is said to be undefined. Technically true. Literally not. y= infinity and negative infinity at that point and so, since a function cannot have two outputs for one imput, they have to figure out WHY it has two outputs. The answer? You had two inputs. +0 and -0. But for algebra and trigonometry and calculus I, II and III it’s much simpler to keep the students from being confused and just tell them that the answer is undefined.
f(X) = 1/X IS undefined. Simply put, X or Y can’t equal zero because 0 /= 1. There are not two outputs for one input (which IS possible, try f(X) = X2) - just look at the graph! Zero is absolute - you either have nothing, or you have something.
Jermo, talk to me when you get into higher level math.
This board does not have support for the appropriate symbology for me to demonstrate just how clueless you are when it comes to pure, logical mathematics. At very low level calculus and low level physics, yes, you may ignore the polarity of zero. Sometimes logic dictates that zero has no polarity. Just like sometimes logic dictates your answer to the question of the velocity of a baseball thrown by a man on planet earth. Obviously that is going to be bound by 0 < X < 300 miles per hour. So any answer you get over 300 miles per hour just isn’t going to make mathematical sense for THAT problem. Does that mean 400 miles per hour does not exist? Of course not!
Jermo, talk to me when you get into higher level math.
This board does not have support for the appropriate symbology for me to demonstrate just how clueless you are when it comes to pure, logical mathematics. At very low level calculus and low level physics, yes, you may ignore the polarity of zero. Sometimes logic dictates that zero has no polarity. Just like sometimes logic dictates your answer to the question of the velocity of a baseball thrown by a man on planet earth. Obviously that is going to be bound by 0 < X < 300 miles per hour. So any answer you get over 300 miles per hour just isn’t going to make mathematical sense for THAT problem. Does that mean 400 miles per hour does not exist? Of course not!
I’m ready to listen, but apparently you aren’t ready to explain it. What the hell does the baseball velocity have to do with the polarity of zero?
Here’s a fun one for ya, Jen.
A negative times a negative = a positive
A positive times a positive = a positive
A negative times a positive = a negative
A positive or negative times zero = ?
What is it Jen? I can guarantee you that even if a “positive” or “negative” zero exists, the answer is still the same.
Depends on the rest of the question. Are you ONLY talking about +0 and -0?
Which is first? -0 or +0? Yes it makes a difference. I won’t answer until you tell me WHY it makes a difference. I get paid GOOD money for this information, so I don’t want to give it free to a person who either won’t understand it or won’t appreciate it.
Depends on the rest of the question. Are you ONLY talking about +0 and -0?
I’m not indicating that there is a positive or negative 0.
Which is first? -0 or +0? Yes it makes a difference. I won’t answer until you tell me WHY it makes a difference. I get paid GOOD money for this information, so I don’t want to give it free to a person who either won’t understand it or won’t appreciate it.
Fine. You can be stubborn if you want. I’m waiting for proof of your claim of a polar zero. I still deny it. And until you show proof - which I doubt you will - I will remain unconvinced. I won’t hold my breath though.
I cited sources. If that’s not good enough for you, then tough tiddlywinks. The mathematical community has come to “consensus” that there is polarity on zero.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Jen.
You don’t do yourself much service by telling everyone how much more advanced you are in Math than them, then refusing to even try to explain a concept to willing listeners who don’t understand how you are correct. And citing sources is even worse, because if its such advanced math, they have less chance of understanding it in a textbook then from another who understands it and can explain things to them.
Don’t explain it if you don’t want, but you come off as an arrogant jerk, IMO.
I tried to simplify it so most people could understand it. I don’t really get into theoretical mathematics for that reason. At least not on this board. But after you put forth sources and one person continually demands sources from you on the same thread, same topic, you just get to the point of not caring.
I’m not saying he’s an ignoramous. I’m just saying he has not dedicated years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to the study of high level mathematical equations and functions. How am I supposed to have a high level discussion about it with him? I tried to make it a lower level discussion, but when you do that, you do lose a lot in transition. Though, I made a valiant attempt. It’s just difficult when people have been telling you something completely different so as not to confuse you and then have someone present the facts without the blinders placed on them.
Anyway, a three year story turned into one line:
Zero has polarity. This polarity is normally so trivial as to be ignored in 99.9% of the instances zero appears (or more.) However, just because it’s trivial does not mean it does not exist.
I tried to simplify it so most people could understand it. I don’t really get into theoretical mathematics for that reason. At least not on this board. But after you put forth sources and one person continually demands sources from you on the same thread, same topic, you just get to the point of not caring.
I’m not saying he’s an ignoramous. I’m just saying he has not dedicated years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars to the study of high level mathematical equations and functions. How am I supposed to have a high level discussion about it with him? I tried to make it a lower level discussion, but when you do that, you do lose a lot in transition. Though, I made a valiant attempt. It’s just difficult when people have been telling you something completely different so as not to confuse you and then have someone present the facts without the blinders placed on them.
Anyway, a three year story turned into one line:
Zero has polarity. This polarity is normally so trivial as to be ignored in 99.9% of the instances zero appears (or more.) However, just because it’s trivial does not mean it does not exist.
Well, you didn’t exactly try to explain. You talked about other things. So, I went looking myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_zero
−0 is the representation of negative zero or minus zero, a number that exists in computing, in some signed number representations for integers, and in most floating point number representations. In mathematical terms there is no concept of a negative (or positive) zero, and −0 is identical to, and represented as, 0. In science, −0 may be used to denote a quantity which is less than zero, but which is too small in magnitude to be rounded down to −1. In statistical mechanics, certain systems in a state of population inversion may be considered to have an absolute temperature of −0.
I don’t see anything that matches what you have said, Jenn.
As I said, I’m not debating it further until you can prove up with some higher level math. Until then, I don’t believe you’d understand the terms I’d need to go into more depth. Not saying you are not intelligent, just that you have not been exposed to the subject matter at hand.
As I said, I’m not debating it further until you can prove up with some higher level math. Until then, I don’t believe you’d understand the terms I’d need to go into more depth. Not saying you are not intelligent, just that you have not been exposed to the subject matter at hand.
Too late, I found my answer. Have fun with your voodoo.
Phenomenology, Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics
Richard Tieszen
ISBN 0521837820Essay #3
So……I stumbled upon a copy of this today and checked out Essay #3 (it’s titled “Free Variation and the Intuition of Geometric Essences: Some Reflections on Phenomenology and Modern Geometry”). The essay spans pages 69-89, so I read through the 20 pages looking for some mention of a polar zero. I thought I was getting close at the top of page 85 when Tieszen said
…toward invariant and never attainable poles.
but unfortunately he never went where I was hoping he would go.
I could find nothing in Tieszen’s essay #3 to support Jen’s assertion that a polar zero exists. Since this is quoted as one of her sources, I am afraid I am going to have to call her bluff. There is no polar zero folks.
Dunno what reprint you have, I’m looking at mine right now and using it for a proof.
Ouch…
Same ISBN number, same source. Disparate answers…
I guess that those of us reading along at home are left with trying to determine which of the two posters is more believable… unless we also go out an buy this particular book (since no one has posted a free online source… other than sources that show zero as non-negative :mrgreen:)
Well Switch, I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t studied extensively on the subject. Flipping through a 20 page essay does not constitute studying extensively either. However Jen’s assertion in this thread peaked my interest enough to go looking for more information (as did Jermo). I would have preferred if Jen tried to explain it a little more, or if she had quoted something from her book in an attempt to explain, but she did not.
Is it possible I missed a reference to this in the 20 pages I read? Absolutely. All Jen need do is quote the section from the book that supports her assertion, and cite a page number so we can readily verify the quote, and this discussion is over (with Jen the clear victor). But unfortunately she doesn’t seem to want to win. Which makes me wonder if she has the proof she claims she does…
The funny thing is she’s spent 4 pages of this thread (plus another thread “tired of games”) trying to argue why she shouldn’t have to cite sources or explain theory because it takes too long. I’ll bet she could have whipped up a quote from this book that would have more than sufficed in ten minutes - a lot less time than she’s actually spent on this thread to date I’d wager.
Jen likes to cry foul that everyone is out to get her, but I honestly went into this topic treating it as a learning experience. It boggles my mind that Jen, a self-professed scholar, wouldn’t have the same openmindedness going into these types of discussions.
I can admit when I’m wrong. I just need some evidence showing it. I think everyone here has been gracious enough to afford Jenn ANOTHER chance to prove her claims. It’s not asking much. It’s a learning experience for everyone.
Anyway, I knew we had another discussion about a claim Jenn made concerning zero, and finally tracked it down. It starts here and goes for a while without conclusion (dividing by zero):
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=7456.60
Actually, I see it’s about research into the possibility of dividing zero. All I’ve got to say, why is Jenn obsessed with zero???
