zurew

You don't have any understanding what powering a number to 0 even means. I already give you a breakdown and nemra gave you a breakdown also. I don't know why you are ignoring both of our answers Its extremely frustrating to engage with you , because you are willfully ignorant and you ignore answers and you trying to critique a subject that you don't even understand the basic concepts about.

IF you have 100 apples and divide it with 100 apples how much you get?

Dude you have to learn basic logic, of course you can create finite systems that are consistent.

(x^n)/(x^n)=x^0=1. This is an easy way to 'prove' it. If you divide a number with its own self you get one - is that different in this physical reality ?

wait, do you even know the justification for x^0=1? But again even if I grant you this, this doesnt really mean much to your original statement - the only conclusion follows from is that there are parts of math that cant be mapped onto physical reality, but it doesn't mean that current math is limited for modelling physical reality. As I already told you math is more than just about describing physical reality.

You are still confused about this. Some parts of math can be used to describe physical reality but there is much more to math than just describing physical reality. What do you specifically mean without being vague - that math isn't in alignment with phyiscs? So far when pushed on this you couldn't deliver anything tangible or of substance.

Whats next? Will you guys demand math to give prescription drugs for you?

You want to transform math to become physics at this point. I don't know why you would want to do that.

I don't know what your model is, but as long as your model isn't defined in a way where you have two mutually exclusive axioms - I think you can create a consistent system.

No (if by math we mean an axiomatic system), but that wasn't your question to him originally. Your question to him was specifically about your system where you presented specific operations.

I don't know why you would imply that he is being bad fath and at the same time demand him to do all the work for you. Some of you guys are lazy and arrogant as hell.

It seems that you have read some of my rants . I appreciate seeing some of you holding his feet to the fire as well.

Yeah thats probably true, that they maybe had some physical meaning, but my understanding is that right now math is not depended on any specific empirical fact. Like you could change all the empirical facts that we accept to be true right now, and math would still hold because of its axioms. In other words, I don't see any direct connection between any specific kind of empirical fact and between any specific kind of math axiom. Because if the claim is that there is a direct dependency between a specific empirical fact and a specific math axiom, then my question would be ,which specific empirical fact change would necessitate the changing or the redefining of one of the math axioms?

@Ero Hi , cool that you are here, you can clean this thread up and correct whatever bs we are talking here

Yeah that is a controversial one, because as far as I understand, mathematicians would say that math would be true regardless how the physical world works. This kind of goes back to modal logic - where we talk about certain things being possible in all possible worlds (possible here means logical possibility and the set of all physical possibility is inside the set of logical possibility - in other words, there are much more logically possible things than there are physically possible things). I personally disagree with the idea that math is empirically grounded (meaning the truth value of math propositions are not directly depended on the physical laws of this universe) . Like if we would want to go down that route, there is so much ambiguity that could be applied without the usage of extremely strict mathematical definitions (especially defining very strictly what we mean by identity). For example, I could empirically justify almost anything that would contradict basic math axioms. Like, If I would want to get silly about it, I could say 1+1=3, because empicially if two people fuck, one children will be born (and even this is not necessarily true, because sometimes 1+1=4 or more depending on what we are talking about twins, triplets or anything else) - I could even add here that 1+1=1 or 1+1=0, because when two people have sex and when one of them has a deadly STD, the other could catch that STD and then both of them could die later down the road. - and here we only talked about human sex, if we go to animals even more crazy empirical cases could be brought up that would almost all contradict basic math axioms. I can come up with other silly examples if needed, but the basic point here is that that crux of the issue seem to be how strict our definitions are and this doesn't seem to be about anything empirical. Also where did you empirically observe that 1million*1million=one trillion? - you accept a bunch of mathematical statements that you have never observed or empirically verified in the physical universe ever before - hence why this goes back to definitions imo and to inference rules that we all agree on, regardless whats going on empirically .

Yes if we agree upon math axioms then it is obvious, and it is clear that there is no internal contradiction there. But when those axioms are questioned you can't just appeal to those axioms and I don't think most people here would be able to give a satisfactory justification/explanation for the choosing process. Thats why im trying to invite math majors into this discussion, who probably have spent more time investigating this specific question than any of us here. Like could you lay out specifically the defense or the justification for the choosing/picking process for the math axioms? Like why pick or why agree upon specifically those axioms?

Yes I have, but I don't think that course really deals with the philosophical depth of the question. That course is more practical oriented rather than philosophical. Meaning seems to be much more than just about purpose and even within the context of purpose - I don't think that the course answers how to select/find a meaningful purpose. I can finish the whole course and unconsciously select for a superficial purpose , that I will drop and maybe even regret down the road. +I disagree with the underlying premise that you can just freely create meaning if you want - there seem to be some underlying principles that would be interesting to be explored that grounds what people will find meaningful in general and what kind of things are generally necessary to have a meaningful life.

I genuinely don't know what kind of answer you are looking for. When you say math is inconsistent - I don't know how to interpret that other than checking out the axioms and then checking for a contradiction that can be derived from those axioms. If you want to say "I don't know the reasons why we selected/agreed upon these specific math axioms" - I won't be able to provide an answer to that. But given what the current math axioms are,there is no contradiction that could be derived from those axioms. As a sidenote for math nerds - I know that there has to be at least one math major actualizer on this forum (if you are a guest - go ahead and register), -come here and lay out your thoughts and feel free to correct me or others if you see any incorrect or cringy things.

I don't know what you mean by "understanding" there. How many people in the world can make valid criticism of math? Not much. Just because you can do addition and subtraction and multiplication, that doesn't mean that you have a deep enough understanding to make criticisms about the foundations of math. Its frankly delusional to think that one can just google an unorthodox definition and that will be good enough to undermine the whole field of mathematics (as if no mathematicians would have thought about checking out the axioms and the definitions). - the very fact that your first thought after finding a definition is that "hmm ,maybe all mathematicians are wrong" and not "I must be misunderstanding something about math or something about an axiom or definition" shows a kind of arrogant attitude.

Cause in that case the Multiplicative Identity Axiom

by "its" are you referring to specifically this ? "So if 1x1=2 3x1=6 4x1=8"

I don't know whats that above statement in response to.

If you admit you don't have any understanding , then why make claims? And no, you didn't ask any questions - you were make claims. There is 0 question mark in your prevous response to Leo.

No it doesn't have any inconsistencies. Go study the axioms and the definitions of math please, before you are trying to make a critcism. If you don't want to drop your claim - go ahead, spell out which specific math axioms are mutually exclusive or spell out which specific math axiom is being violated.