alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 1:29 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 1:07 pm
alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:56 pm
I'm sorry, Age, but I can't write a thousand-word essay in this forum to explain mathematical philosophy to you. You will need to research it for yourself.
'you' OBVIOUSLY do NOT STILL RECOGNIZE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that 'you' can NOT divide by zero.
Also, since 'you' can NOT EXPLAIN so-called 'mathematical philosophy', TO 'me', then ARE 'you' ABLE TO DEFINE the words 'mathematical' AND 'philosophy', and then JUST EXPLAIN HOW those two words COULD RELATE TOGETHER here?
If no, then do 'you' REALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT and ALLEGING here?
If yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?
alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:56 pm
But I would ask you: you obviously believe that 0/0=1 is fallacious,
'you' could NOT BE FURTHER MISTAKEN here "alan1000".
alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 12:56 pm
and thus, n/n=1 is false when applied to the number 0. What are your arguments, exactly?
I HAVE NONE BECAUSE I DO NOT NEED ANY, BECAUSE 'your' first CLAIM and BELIEF here was False AND Wrong, FROM THE OUTSET, AND TO BEGIN WITH.
I'm sorry, Age, but this has to be my final reply to your comments.
If 'this' IS 'the way' 'things' HAVE TO BE TO, and FOR, 'you' "alan1000", then 'this' is certainly okay with, and for, me.
But since I have ALREADY SHOWN that 'you' can NOT divide by zero, and 'you' OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET SHOWN otherwise, then 'this' CERTAINLY EXPLAINS WHY 'this' WILL BE 'your' FINAL reply to my comments.
alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 1:29 pm
I can only recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy", which attempts to explain the whole subject in terms which a lay person with a reasonably good education can understand.
I have ALREADY RECOMMENDED that if 'you' want to CONTINUE ON BELIEVING and CLAIMING that zero COULD BE divided by zero, then 'you' EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY. 'you' COULD even USE 'an argument', if 'you' so WANTED TO.
BUT, as of 'now' 'you' have FAILED COMPLETELY TO SHOW or EXPLAIN ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT HOW 'you' COULD divide by zero.
alan1000 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 1:29 pm
Russell, as you know, was one of the founding fathers of set theory (and number theory in general), and in partnership with A N Whitehead helped to revolutionise the study of mathematics in the earlier part of the 20th C.
BUT I NEVER KNEW 'this'.
WHY would 'you' even BEGIN TO ASSUME such A 'thing'?
What I do ALREADY KNOW, however, is that 'you' have NOWHERE SHOWN NOR EXPLAINED HOW 'you' COULD divide by zero. AND, since 'you' can NOT do 'this', what 'you' CLAIM here in 'your' opening post is just NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and/or just PLAIN False, AND Wrong.
'you' can NOT divide by zero. So, ALL of 'your' OWN proposed four positions can NOT be supported, and 'your' INABILITY TO REFUTE and/nor COUNTER 'this' PROVES my CLAIM here MORE and/or FURTHER.