Zero divided by Zero equals 0 & 1 & ∞

[Obvious Leo]

It was understood and used long before it.

I've studied mathematical philosophy extensively for many years, Scott, and I know the history of the zero perfectly well. In my comment about the Persians I was merely responding to your comments about its history in European thought. In fact the Persians inherited the zero from the Hindus and there's no suggestion that the Hindus were the inventors of it either. The Mayans and Incas also had a similar construct although they applied it somewhat differently. However a consistent thread of reasoning runs through all of these ancient schools of mathematical philosophy which links the notion of zero with nothingness and nothingness is uniformly represented as the absence of somethingness. Nothing and something are universally seen as antonymous constructs which cannot coexist.

I'm well aware of the fact that you don't share this view but I resent the suggestion that I am the one espousing some sort of unorthodox posture here. You're the one defending the minority position and the convention in philosophy is that the burden of the argument therefore lies with you. Thus far you have made no case.

[Hobbes' Choice]

That the fear of zero, as with many philosophical advances, had fostered realistic threats in the day which made the political forces utilize removing records where they could to prevent such knowledge from advancing..

What the fuck are you talking about?

And you claim to have even some historical background? If you don't like my wording, let me rephrase it, as you appear to be either feigning some stupidity that I'm granting zero some essence or something???

The FEAR was about the FACT that nothingness itself, if believed to be real, is sufficient to foster doubt about ANY possible god or gods, since these religious ideas are derived from asserting a necessary and finite existence. In other words, it leads to potential Nihilism!!

Zero, if you ever look to its history, is the equivalent of this concept. You may only interpret this as some artificial placeholder but ignore that it has real meaning. The number 100 means (1 x 10^2) + (0 x 10^1) + (0 x 10^0). These are NOT merely artificial devises. Those zeros reference a real VALUE in those places which are called REAL numbers for this reason! If you want to question the square root of -1, then you begin to have a right to assert it as imaginary with some justice. Zero was a concept thought up much earlier than it had been accepted because of those like yourself who merely ridiculed it without a willingness to bother with the logic of it.

I've studied archaeolgy, classics and Intellectual History.
History is evidence based.
Give me ONE EXAMPLE of some empirical evidence for your fantasy.

Oh no!! Shit you can't because all the evidence was mysteriously and meticulously removed by the Illuminati aliens.

[Scott Mayers]

It was understood and used long before it.

I've studied mathematical philosophy extensively for many years, Scott, and I know the history of the zero perfectly well. In my comment about the Persians I was merely responding to your comments about its history in European thought. In fact the Persians inherited the zero from the Hindus and there's no suggestion that the Hindus were the inventors of it either. The Mayans and Incas also had a similar construct although they applied it somewhat differently. However a consistent thread of reasoning runs through all of these ancient schools of mathematical philosophy which links the notion of zero with nothingness and nothingness is uniformly represented as the absence of somethingness. Nothing and something are universally seen as antonymous constructs which cannot coexist.

I'm well aware of the fact that you don't share this view but I resent the suggestion that I am the one espousing some sort of unorthodox posture here. You're the one defending the minority position and the convention in philosophy is that the burden of the argument therefore lies with you. Thus far you have made no case.

I can't force you to reason. I don't care if I was alone in my view any more than it required any other person of the past to discover something unique. Authority is NOT a proof as you seem to appeal and prefer to here. If x believes y multiplied by 6 billion x's, it doesn't make it any closer to truth than to falsity. Truth is not democratic. I've already demonstrated your absolution to your claim to authority is bogus. What more can I say?

[Obvious Leo]

Once again you misrepresent what I'm saying, a failing which reflects no credit on you, because my refutation of your nonsense is an appeal to reason and not an appeal to authority. You have consistently failed to explain why nothing and something should not be regarded as mutually exclusive constructs and you'll have a hell of a hard time doing so because these are statements of definition which are actually defined as such. You're confusing formal logic with symbolic logic and before you confuse yourself any further I strongly recommend that you read up on George Boole's laws of thought and his papers on the logical foundations of mathematics. Boolean logic is nowadays commonly regarded as the understructure of all other logics and in an information age this is shit you simply have to know. IS is not IS NOT.

[Scott Mayers]

Once again you misrepresent what I'm saying, a failing which reflects no credit on you, because my refutation of your nonsense is an appeal to reason and not an appeal to authority. You have consistently failed to explain why nothing and something should not be regarded as mutually exclusive constructs and you'll have a hell of a hard time doing so because these are statements of definition which are actually defined as such. You're confusing formal logic with symbolic logic and before you confuse yourself any further I strongly recommend that you read up on George Boole's laws of thought and his papers on the logical foundations of mathematics. Boolean logic is nowadays commonly regarded as the understructure of all other logics and in an information age this is shit you simply have to know. IS is not IS NOT.

Funny. Formal logic includes symbolic logic as it is any systematized structure that uses axioms of its system to formally connect accepted assumptions to a conclusion. But I'm certain I've even used formal logic with you before and you couldn't follow or pretended it unreasonable without a willingness to counter. I'm very familiar with Boolean logic with depth. It too is a symbolic and formal logic.

If you want to go down this avenue, then I must first ask you up front what are the minimally presumed axioms even prior to beginning any formal system traditionally?

[Obvious Leo]

If you want to go down this avenue,

I don't. I've done it before and masochism is not my gig.

[Arising_uk]

What are five twos then?

[Scott Mayers]

What are five twos then?

Easy. They are NOT Hawaiian five O's.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What are five twos then?

It is five sets each containing two.

Saying it is ten might be false - it depends.

[Arising_uk]

I thought it said they are adjectives?

[Harbal]

I imagine that, in the world of pure maths, Hobbes is right. However, in the world where most of us live our normal lives things are not quite the same. Surely the numerator represents an actual object of some sort, whereas the denominator remains an abstract number informing us of how many parts we need to divide the object into. If there is no object (0) then it is difficult to see how you could perform any arithmetic on it, being as there is no it. I have no doubt that the error in my reasoning will be pointed out to me by Mr. Hobbes in due course.

[Obvious Leo]

I imagine that, in the world of pure maths, Hobbes is right. However, in the world where most of us live our normal lives things are not quite the same. Surely the numerator represents an actual object of some sort, whereas the denominator remains an abstract number informing us of how many parts we need to divide the object into. If there is no object (0) then it is difficult to see how you could perform any arithmetic on it, being as there is no it. I have no doubt that the error in my reasoning will be pointed out to me by Mr. Hobbes in due course.

Less is always more when it comes to logic, Harbal, and there's nothing wrong with your reasoning. The nature of zero was very well understood by the great Persian philosopher/mathematicians of early Islam, but although the mathematical tools of the Persians managed to find their way into the cloistered houses of European learning after the Crusades unfortunately much of the mathematical philosophy which was intended to accompany these tools never translated quite so well. Presumably the monks felt that they needed no instruction in matters metaphysical by a bunch of godless heathen.

The Persians knew that zero was not a real number because it could be applied to no physically real referent. It was to be regarded as merely a placeholder for the empty set and not as a function in a mathematical equation. In other words to add, subtract, divide or multiply any number by zero was to do NOTHING.

In Persian mathematical philosophy zero was regarded as an unrealisable abstraction which could be thought of as representing a point halfway between plus and minus infinity. The infinities were also unrealisable abstractions which could not be applied to any physically real referent, a truth which is still ignored in mathematical physics to this very day. The Persians insisted that infinity and zero can be used to describe the way a physical system TENDS but they can make no statement about a system's actual physical state. Many centuries later Leibniz and Newton had a serious argument about this and Newton finished up winning an argument which he should have lost because he was fucking WRONG. Sadly the science of physics which Newton invented hasn't made a lick of sense ever since.

[Harbal]

Harbal, and there's nothing wrong with your reasoning.

Leo, that is most reassuring, indeed, coming from the most learned man south of the equator. But, despite your endorsement, I fear Hobbes will still find fault with it, he won't be able to prevent himself.

[Obvious Leo]

coming from the most learned man south of the equator.

The competition is weak in my part of the world, Harbal, mostly due to the hot weather and cold beer.

I fear Hobbes will still find fault with it, he won't be able to prevent himself.

Indeed Hobbes is a pedagogue with a style unique to himself and I've no doubt you're quite right.

[surreptitious57]

How many zeros in zero

As many or as few as you wish there to be
And so from one all the way up to infinity