Maybe God is a concept that similar to a zero in mathematics

[foxxykitty27]

AsuraSyn

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

Suicidesoldier#1

AsuraSyn

foxxykitty27

And what if there is? Who knows? What makes you so sure that there isn't? Enlighten me.

In every act of human coupling billions of potential human forms are lost in even the most successful of matings. The mathematical probability that our ancestors even existed as they did, let alone found each other, survived, mated repeatedly to pass down the specific sets of genetic blueprints that formed you and I and every living human being on the earth is so infinitesimal as to be a mathematical absurdity, and yet, there are seven billion unique, specific human forms walking the earth today. The likelihood of any one of us existing at all, let alone in the form we do is less than of a seemingly impossible, or miraculous event.
Like oxygen turning into gold.
If existing at all isn't grand enough, I don't know what is.

But what if there's more to it than that; not saying there is, but what if there is?!

If there's more to reality than existence itself, any part of existence, such as you or I, can't know of it. Can't even conceive of it in a true sense because it's not part of our interactable reality.
It'd be like introducing a 2 dimensional being to the third dimensional plane. They'd fall through the first crack.

So basically what you are saying is that we cannot understand something greater if that entity exists in the first place. I literally said that.

No, I'm saying even if it does exist, it doesn't exist to us.
If it's not part of our reality, it doesn't exist to us as our reality is the totality of existence from our perspective. Maybe there is a higher level of existence, I personally think you'd have to be insane not to think so, but it's irrelevant. We can't interact with it and it can't interact with us.

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

It sounds like you're jelly. talk2hand

As well, what's 50/10? It's 5; but in figuring that out, you divided by zero.

It merely was a holding place that denoted a change in magnitude. In reality it would be denoted by a decimal, but the holding place was zero, just as if you had multiplied 50 x 10 and gotten 500.

You do not divide by zero. You divide by ten.

That is why it is 50/10.

How does one figure out the answer of 50/10?

The algorithm requires dividing by zero to find the answer. xp

One figures out the answer to 50/10 one of two ways.

One is by dividing 50 things into ten equally populated groups and seeing how many items make up each group.

The other is by cancelling out factors in prime factor form and finding the product of the result.

For example; 50 = 2*5*5, 10 = 2*5

(2*5*5)/(2*5) = 5

Now; the mistake you are making is by thinking that an absence of factors on the bottom of the cancelled out formula is the same as dividing by a value of zero. It isn't.
A division by the value of zero is an undefined operation.
You conflate "an absence" with "a numerical value of zero" quite inappropriately.

Ahh, your problem is that it being currently undefined does not necessarily mean that it can't be defined. That's what discovering what zero is for.

Additionally, when you divide by the numbers you go like

50
10

Which you then divide the 0 by the zero, and then the 5 by the zero, and then you move over a space, and divide the 0 and 5 by a 1. The thing is, that the zero there denotes the 10's place by suggesting something that is essentially negative, that is a decimal, however because we don't show the decimal cleanly, as in 5.0, we don't show it, but it still leads to a zero there. It's not unreasonable to assume then that with just a zero we'd find zero. xp

No, that is not my problem. It is undefined for several very good reasons.

That is a process of cancellation, and algorithm to calculate the division, not a division. A division by 0 is not possible there, for 0 is not a factor of the denominator.

It is undefined because it is unknown, but not it can be known, due to Occam's Lazah! blaugh

Zero is a factor of the denominator there. O.o


But in any case, there's more proofs than that, such as the fact that 1 x 0 is impossible, since you can't fit something into nothing. If you have zero shelves, as compared to 3 shelves, you don't lose what it is you were going to put on your shelf, so assuming zero, that is, the absence of something, is more or less inaccurate.

But it represents a concept, the idea that you have nothing to fit it into. And by comparison, you similarly have something to where nothing will fit in there. Thus you get, nothing, or in essence when the question asks, how many pies can you fit into the non-existent safe or shelf, or what have you, you get nothing, or none, which in terms mathematics, is represented by zero.

[Fermionic]

Suicidesoldier#1

It is undefined because it is unknown, but not it can be known, due to Occam's Lazah! blaugh

It is undefined because any fixed numerical definition you give it can be countermanded by a different algebraic process.

Suicidesoldier#1

Zero is a factor of the denominator there. O.o

No it isn't, a factor of 0 would reduce the bottom of the fraction entirely to 0. As 10 =/= 0, one can safely say both that 0 is not a factor of 10, and also that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Suicidesoldier#1

But in any case, there's more proofs than that, such as the fact that 1 x 0 is impossible, since you can't fit something into nothing. If you have zero shelves, as compared to 3 shelves, you don't lose what it is you were going to put on your shelf, so assuming zero, that is, the absence of something, is more or less inaccurate.

But it represents a concept, the idea that you have nothing to fit it into. And by comparison, you similarly have something to where nothing will fit in there. Thus you get, nothing, or in essence when the question asks, how many pies can you fit into the non-existent safe or shelf, or what have you, you get nothing, or none, which in terms mathematics, is represented by zero.

1*0 = 0, not impossible.
The concept behind this is if there are units of 1 apples, and then I take no units of apples, then I have no apples.
0 apples.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

Suicidesoldier#1

But what if there's more to it than that; not saying there is, but what if there is?!

If there's more to reality than existence itself, any part of existence, such as you or I, can't know of it. Can't even conceive of it in a true sense because it's not part of our interactable reality.
It'd be like introducing a 2 dimensional being to the third dimensional plane. They'd fall through the first crack.

So basically what you are saying is that we cannot understand something greater if that entity exists in the first place. I literally said that.

No, I'm saying even if it does exist, it doesn't exist to us.
If it's not part of our reality, it doesn't exist to us as our reality is the totality of existence from our perspective. Maybe there is a higher level of existence, I personally think you'd have to be insane not to think so, but it's irrelevant. We can't interact with it and it can't interact with us.

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

But what if he is the one?! ninja

[foxxykitty27]

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

Suicidesoldier#1

But what if there's more to it than that; not saying there is, but what if there is?!

If there's more to reality than existence itself, any part of existence, such as you or I, can't know of it. Can't even conceive of it in a true sense because it's not part of our interactable reality.
It'd be like introducing a 2 dimensional being to the third dimensional plane. They'd fall through the first crack.

So basically what you are saying is that we cannot understand something greater if that entity exists in the first place. I literally said that.

No, I'm saying even if it does exist, it doesn't exist to us.
If it's not part of our reality, it doesn't exist to us as our reality is the totality of existence from our perspective. Maybe there is a higher level of existence, I personally think you'd have to be insane not to think so, but it's irrelevant. We can't interact with it and it can't interact with us.

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

But what if he is the one?! ninja

Then it wouldn't matter, right?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

It is undefined because it is unknown, but not it can be known, due to Occam's Lazah! blaugh

It is undefined because any fixed numerical definition you give it can be countermanded by a different algebraic process.

Suicidesoldier#1

Zero is a factor of the denominator there. O.o

No it isn't, a factor of 0 would reduce the bottom of the fraction entirely to 0. As 10 =/= 0, one can safely say both that 0 is not a factor of 10, and also that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Suicidesoldier#1

But in any case, there's more proofs than that, such as the fact that 1 x 0 is impossible, since you can't fit something into nothing. If you have zero shelves, as compared to 3 shelves, you don't lose what it is you were going to put on your shelf, so assuming zero, that is, the absence of something, is more or less inaccurate.

But it represents a concept, the idea that you have nothing to fit it into. And by comparison, you similarly have something to where nothing will fit in there. Thus you get, nothing, or in essence when the question asks, how many pies can you fit into the non-existent safe or shelf, or what have you, you get nothing, or none, which in terms mathematics, is represented by zero.

1*0 = 0, not impossible.
The concept behind this is if there are units of 1 apples, and then I take no units of apples, then I have no apples.
0 apples.

Wouldn't you taking an apple be irrelevant to whether or not there are apples; and additionally, by that same concept, couldn't you then describe the absence of dividing the apples up, to take for yourself, as zero then, as well?

If it's about how many you take?


Addition or subtraction seems more akin to taking something away or what have you.

Really it's about representing what can be spread out in such a manner, since you can't really multiply and then poof 15 more apples into existence of nowhere, really.


As for the algorithm, it's a common one that divides by zero; I'm not really showing dividing by 10 so much as I am showing the methodology used by the algorithm dividing by zero, showing it's a common problem.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

foxxykitty27

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

foxxykitty27

So basically what you are saying is that we cannot understand something greater if that entity exists in the first place. I literally said that.

No, I'm saying even if it does exist, it doesn't exist to us.
If it's not part of our reality, it doesn't exist to us as our reality is the totality of existence from our perspective. Maybe there is a higher level of existence, I personally think you'd have to be insane not to think so, but it's irrelevant. We can't interact with it and it can't interact with us.

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

But what if he is the one?! ninja

Then it wouldn't matter, right?

*head esplodes*

[foxxykitty27]

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

AsuraSyn

foxxykitty27

So basically what you are saying is that we cannot understand something greater if that entity exists in the first place. I literally said that.

No, I'm saying even if it does exist, it doesn't exist to us.
If it's not part of our reality, it doesn't exist to us as our reality is the totality of existence from our perspective. Maybe there is a higher level of existence, I personally think you'd have to be insane not to think so, but it's irrelevant. We can't interact with it and it can't interact with us.

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

But what if he is the one?! ninja

Then it wouldn't matter, right?

*head esplodes*

Ha ew

[Suicidesoldier#1]

foxxykitty27

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

But what if he is the one?! ninja

Then it wouldn't matter, right?

*head esplodes*

Ha ew

I know right?

I almost didn't post it ,but I have anything but photobucket banned from viewing basically, so it isn't turned on all the time.


Kind of annoying to have crap like that in the background all the time.

But basically, that is my head.


I mean.... wut?!

WUT?! But if he's the one then... of course it matters! It is the beginning of everything!

[Fermionic]

Suicidesoldier#1

Wouldn't you taking an apple be irrelevant to whether or not there are apples; and additionally, by that same concept, couldn't you then describe the absence of dividing the apples up, to take for yourself, as zero then, as well?

If it's about how many you take?

You can say "I'm not dividing apples up". You cannot use a mathematical value of 0 to represent a lack of division of apples within the mathematical constraints of the system at hand.

Suicidesoldier#1

Addition or subtraction seems more akin to taking something away or what have you.

That's what it is.

Suicidesoldier#1

Really it's about representing what can be spread out in such a manner, since you can't really multiply and then poof 15 more apples into existence of nowhere, really.

Multiplication and division is a representation of successive proportional addition and subtraction.

Suicidesoldier#1

As for the algorithm, it's a common one that divides by zero; I'm not really showing dividing by 10 so much as I am showing the methodology used by the algorithm dividing by zero, showing it's a common problem.

No; it doesn't divide by zero. Having already stated that you are mistaken and confused, I'm not sure what else I can add to my previous response to this.

[chainmailleman]

Suicidesoldier#1

chainmailleman

Suicidesoldier#1

chainmailleman

Oh hey, another zero thread. What's the definition of zero again? I'm confused from the last few threads.....

It's a symbol in mathematics representing NOTHING! scream

Finally a straight answer.

All ur drugsz r belong to us!

You gotta wait. They just went into flowering.

[foxxykitty27]

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

Suicidesoldier#1

foxxykitty27

Please do not treat yourself as humanity's representative.

But what if he is the one?! ninja

Then it wouldn't matter, right?

*head esplodes*

Ha ew

I know right?

I almost didn't post it ,but I have anything but photobucket banned from viewing basically, so it isn't turned on all the time.


Kind of annoying to have crap like that in the background all the time.

But basically, that is my head.


I mean.... wut?!

WUT?! But if he's the one then... of course it matters! It is the beginning of everything!

If he is indeed the one and he is telling us everything is due to chance then who are we to tell him he's wrong? If it's all chance then nothing matters. That's how I see it.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Fermionic

Suicidesoldier#1

Wouldn't you taking an apple be irrelevant to whether or not there are apples; and additionally, by that same concept, couldn't you then describe the absence of dividing the apples up, to take for yourself, as zero then, as well?

If it's about how many you take?

You can say "I'm not dividing apples up". You cannot use a mathematical value of 0 to represent a lack of division of apples within the mathematical constraints of the system at hand.

No less so than saying you're not going to take any apples? O.o

Quote:

Suicidesoldier#1

Addition or subtraction seems more akin to taking something away or what have you.

That's what it is.

Suicidesoldier#1

Really it's about representing what can be spread out in such a manner, since you can't really multiply and then poof 15 more apples into existence of nowhere, really.

Multiplication and division is a representation of successive proportional addition and subtraction.

If that's the case then you can subtract and add zero and such. xp

Quote:

Suicidesoldier#1

As for the algorithm, it's a common one that divides by zero; I'm not really showing dividing by 10 so much as I am showing the methodology used by the algorithm dividing by zero, showing it's a common problem.

No; it doesn't divide by zero. Having already stated that you are mistaken and confused, I'm not sure what else I can add to my previous response to this.

Well I disagree with your proofsz; you said it was 50/10, but I'm saying within the algorithm it's dividing by zero.

[SparkyKid3000]

Suicidesoldier#1

Also I can divide by zero.

[Sugarbeary]

I love Jesus.