Salvijus

Then your definitions are not consistent. Just look carefully at the words you're using. "Rise by the power of zero" means to have an impact of zero value. How can you have an impact of zero value and end up with totally different result?

1 But that's not what I'm pointing at.

Another way of saying. If you have 100 apples. And you make an impact on them which is of zero value. Where did all those apples disappear and became one only?

Well then it's another logical flaw. If you say I'm going to rise 100 apples by the non existent value 0. How did those apples all disappeared and became only one?

I also had similar thoughts. Because no language can encapsulate the whole of reality. Because there are elements in reality which are beyond all definition and description. Where no language can touch. And so every system is going to fail somewhere. Probably. I'm just guessing here.

The answer must be 1 otherwise math won't be consistent. That's the justification.

If you have two apples and rise them by the power of 2 you get 2^2=4 apples (makes sense) If you have two apples and rise them by the power of 1 you get 2^1 = 2 apples (makes sense) If you have 2 apples and rise them by the power of 0 you get 1 apple. (That never happens in real life.)

I don’t know if you will be able to understand but x^0=1 doesn’t exist in nature. It's something mathematicians invented to keep the math consistent.

Physics from math? Rather math in alignment with physics. Why not?

Bingo. Mmmmm... There is one place in mathematics where when something is undefined, instead of writing 0 or leaving a blank, they write 1. To make math consistent. Maybe the mathematician here could tell you more about it. When I've talked before with a mathematician, he was able to show me how mathematicians invent the number 1 out of completely nowhere. Just to make math consistent. It's debetable that was the only way to solve the inconsistency problem imo. But debetable doesn't mean I'm right. It just means maybe there's a better model out there.

So if a new math can be made consistent. Then why my model can't be made consistent? Just because it doesn't fit into a current system doesn't mean anything. Of course it won't fit. Because everything would have to be readjusted.

Okay it's official. The world is going mad.

Bruh...it's cool. Relax All I sayed, it's that it's debateble if the current math is the most accurate representation of reality. I think that's fair thing to say. There's no need to get so worked up imo.

You also think there can't be any other way to make consistent math except for the one that exists now?

Uuuh... Gheesh... that was unexpected lol

I believe It can be made consistent tho. You would just have to adjust the rest of the math, all the formulas and all the rules and definitions to be in alignment with the new model. It feels like you're dodging to acknowledge this for some reason.

I think so too. It's debateble tho if the current math is the most accurate representation of observable reality imo.

@Ero please... I just I want to know this one question. Is it possible to make the new model be it mine or somebody else's and make it perfectly consistent. And it would have new rules and new formulas and new definitions. Is that doable or no. It's a yes or no question.

I don’t think I can do what you did. But I can try to clarify the problem I was pointing out in my own way. Suppose 2^3 * 2^-1 = 8 * 2 = 16 So this formula a^ b * a^ c = a^ (b+c) is no longer true in a new model and it either has to be discarded or readjusted to fit a new model. The problem I was pointing at was you have successfully demonstrated that a new model is not well defined but you were using old formulas to do that. My question is. What if all the formulas and rules were to be changed and readjusted to fit the new model. And create entirely new definitions. Would that work? Is there a way to make new math so to speak?

This is solid proof. So is the current model of mathematics the only model that can be consistent? There can’t be any alternative mathematics? Because for some reason there is still a speck of hope there could be a way to make the alternative model work. All the mathematical rules would need to be adjusted tho. Like this rule wouldn't work the same way anymore in a new model I presented a^ b * a^ c = a^ (b+c). And you were using the normal version of this rule for your proof. That creates a problem.

Hmmm. That's a pretty cool demonstration also. I have nothing to say. Ggwp. I wonder if it's theoretically possible to take the model I presented and make it consistent aswell? So that it would be well defined throughout all math?

If 2^3 = 2*2*2 = 8 Then, 2^-3 = 2/2/2 = 1/2 A simpler summary of my math logic. But we are told in schools that 2^-3 = 1/8. That's when I quit school and never came back (:D joking)

This is a pretty cool demonstration but I remember I was proposing an alternative way of doing math. What I said to the other mathematician was. If 2^3 = 2*2*2 ( three 2's that multiple with each other) 2^2 = 2*2 (two 2's that multiple with each other) 2^1 = 2 (one 2) 2^0 = _____ (no answer. There are nothing that multiple with each other) 2^-1 = 2 (one 2 that is in division) 2^-2 = 1 (2/2) 2^-3 = 1/2 (2/2/2) Etc. See what I mean? I thought it makes more sense like that. And then he somehow started bending things like an avatar lol.

What makes no sense in math is that x^0=1. It's just completely random lol. Although there was one mathematician here who explained how mathematicians are doing crazy mathematical gymnastics to make it so. Unfortunately I forgot his proof, haha. But it was pretty interesting. But I still left that conversation thinking there is a way to make a new math that would make more sense and be consistent aswell.

1. Reality is Total and without limit. 2. Realization and comprehension of Reality has degrees. The statement that absolute is absolute. And the statement that there are levels of realization don't contradict each other. These two statements are both true simultaniously.