Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:17 pm

All "1's" are composed of a finite set of numbers in themselves where "relatively speaking" a "1" may not be the same to another "1" as the first 1 may be composed of 1/1, 2/2, 3/3 to infinity and the second one may be equal to (1±x)/(1±x), (2±x)/(2±x), (3±x)/(3±x) to infinity.


Hence number as a relativistic phenomenon (but number can dually be observed as a constant as well, which I am not arguing here) is a process of continual inversion and stems from a point zero as it is undefinable.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by TimeSeeker » Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:57 pm

If you are a relativist - there is no such thing as 1 or 0. There are things approximate to 1 and approximate to 0. But both are unattainable.

All floating point arithmetic is subject to range-precision trade-off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic

And all relativism is floating point arithmetic between two (or more) absolutes.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:33 pm

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:57 pm
If you are a relativist - there is no such thing as 1 or 0. There are things approximate to 1 and approximate to 0. But both are unattainable.

All floating point arithmetic is subject to range-precision trade-off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic

And all relativism is floating point arithmetic between two (or more) absolutes.
Then the point is the constant definer of number in these respects and we are left simultaneously with absolute truth.

philosopher
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by philosopher » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pm

Excuse me, but this is bullshit.

What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.

Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2035
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:51 am

philosopher wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pm
Excuse me, but this is bullshit.

What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.

Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
Hear, hear. Same as I, I don't think I vary significantly over time or across boundaries. Pretty constant, although I may react differently, depending on the way you reach me. And I also may act differently, depending on who you are who succeedst to reach me down there.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:39 am

philosopher wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pm
Excuse me, but this is bullshit.

What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.

Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
Rome would not exist without the roads. Your argument stems from an order of which came first: Rome or the Road? Mathematics does not give a set premise to directional qualities, even though it is dependent entirely on them.

1 does not exist independently because it requires bot equations and number lines to observe it.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativistically 1 is not a Constant

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:41 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:51 am
philosopher wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:57 pm
Excuse me, but this is bullshit.

What you basically say is that because several different arithmetic procedures = 1, 1 is relative because it can be achieved using different methods.

Although many roads lead to Rome, Rome is still the city that lies at center of Italy. The same with 1. 1 is 1 independently of how you reach it.
Hear, hear. Same as I, I don't think I vary significantly over time or across boundaries. Pretty constant, although I may react differently, depending on the way you reach me. And I also may act differently, depending on who you are who succeedst to reach me down there.
Actually you provide new arguments and change relative to any antithetical perception which comes across your path. The same applies relative to any new perspective which you find as agreeable.

I bring this up because 1 is defined as infinitely changing due to the equations which form it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests