Cannot divide by zero

[Animus]

So, I've been thinking about, when it is said that the self is nothing, and that reality is everything. And it is said that reality is divided by us.

In mathematics - which I'm not very good at - Unity is considered the equivalent of 1 and 1 is sometimes called "Unity".

If we think that there is essentially 1 reality, and there is no division within it, unless divided by us, then there is not 2 realities or 3 realities, but only 1, and thus 1 represents unity.

The Self, is claimed to be essentially nothing but the denominator of unity, it is zero, but it is that which divides reality?

I remember from high-school mathematics that one cannot divide by 0 and my windows XP calculator just says "Cannot divide by 0".

Most of us are taught that 1 divided by 0 is simply 0, and the expression is give "If you have 1 apple to divide amongst 0 people, how many apples does each person get?"

In this example it makes sense that the result would be 0, but when we are speaking of the conscious self as 0, and dividing unity it takes on a whole new meaning, a transcendental meaning and enters the realm of transfinite numbers.... I believe.

We can perform a calculation on 1/0 using basic maths to arrive at irrational results...

Infinity = 1/0
0*Infinity = 1 (Multiply both sides by 0)
(0+0)*Infinity = 1+0 (Add 0 to both sides)
0*Infinity + 0*Infninity = 1 (At this point, 0*Infinity could be seen simply as 0, as Infinity, or as 1, giving us 3 different answers)
1 + 1 = 1, 0 + 0 = 1, or Infinity + Infinity = 1


If, nothing is considered to be a something, in terms of the conceptual nature of the human mind, that the void we perceive overshadowing our infintesimally small dot is a something contrasting the dot, then mathematically we run into some funny business.

I could be completely wrong on this, so help is appreciated, I'm just looking at the simplified equation Unity / Self = Infinity and messing myself up over it.

[Steven Coyle]

'cause its just comfortable through a pegasus

[Animus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXUnLzNc5zg

[Manatron]

So, I've been thinking about, when it is said that the self is nothing, and that reality is everything. And it is said that reality is divided by us.

In mathematics - which I'm not very good at - Unity is considered the equivalent of 1 and 1 is sometimes called "Unity". If we think that there is essentially 1 reality, and there is no division within it, unless divided by us, then there is not 2 realities or 3 realities, but only 1, and thus 1 represents unity.

Unity could be considered the equivalent of 1, but it stays a map. The symbol [1] is not the same as the symbol [unity]. [unity] is used in different settings and therefore there are other symbols associated with it when called up in the brain. If we are the ones that divide 1 as the essential reality, then there are 3 realities. But these are not 3 realities. They are simply [3]. And this symbol can be replaced with [trinity] as in op[trinity] = trinity operational. But if [3] is interpreted as a natural number, then there are an infinite number of naturals, so the possibility exists that [trinity] becomes k[trinity]. I am saying that if the self is [1], then its subdivisions could become k[trinity] or k times configured neural geometry.

The Self, is claimed to be essentially nothing but the denominator of unity, it is zero, but it is that which divides reality? I remember from high-school mathematics that one cannot divide by 0 and my windows XP calculator just says "Cannot divide by 0".
Most of us are taught that 1 divided by 0 is simply 0, and the expression is give "If you have 1 apple to divide amongst 0 people, how many apples does each person get?" In this example it makes sense that the result would be 0, but when we are speaking of the conscious self as 0, and dividing unity it takes on a whole new meaning, a transcendental meaning and enters the realm of transfinite numbers.... I believe.

If the self is taken as [unity] and this in turn is mapped to [1] then it still does not make sense. If however, we operate on [unity] and make it [unit(y)] without losing any information, then we could take it out of the container in a safe way and get unit(y). But now [1] could be used and 1 is taken. Now, unit(y) and 1 are in the same boat. Next, if y is [trinity], then unit(y) is charged with 1. But 1 its set = [] and it is empty so there is no pre-sence. If [trinity] is [3] then it is not three. [trinity] could become [tr-init(y)]. If [3] is not three, then it is simply [tr] which initiates y if [trinity] wants to be a concrete and charged unit. If it is charged, then the set of 1 becomes [1, 1, 1] and it is still a unit(y) divided by zero because there are 0 connections or there is no mass. [tr] could stand for tree structure but it implies three structure.

If, nothing is considered to be a something, in terms of the conceptual nature of the human mind, that the void we perceive overshadowing our infintesimally small dot is a something contrasting the dot, then mathematically we run into some funny business.

Everything has maps and can have other maps. What if the self is the whole as in something more than the sum of its personalities. What if this "something more" transcends time ? If the self is focused outside of space-time continuum, then we could not perceive its existence and yet we feel balanced at times when we are alone. When we are in our rooms by ourselves reflecting the "day of personalities". Then we are aware of ourselves. So there must be something that transcends space-time, that is higher than our self ? I don't think so because if there would be something, then the self is experienced as subdivided and this is rarely the case in balanced individuals. So personality-life is unbalanced and variant. But we could interpret this "something more" as an extension of our self in the realm of imagination. We could perceive ourself in meditation in the year 2110. If this would be the case, then it is not a matter of time. It would be a matter of space before we realize that this picture of ourselves in meditation is who we really are. It is the same person that could be in a room in 2010 reflecting on the day. But there is some kind of dual awareness. There is not any identification with the reflections that pass by when we are reflecting in SELF. If this then is the case, then these personality charasteristics that pass before the minds eye are observed from the future in a sense. In this state, one realizes the codes of the trinities and one does not realize them as in identification. But, identifications have their purpose also. If this is done consciously like diving in the personalities, then you could let some message behind in the dual space that beeps you back while you dream. That is, when you experience or identify with the reflections of the day. This is like nurturing personalities or feeding them your SELF essence or the mental particles. It is the concept of the MOTHER.

The true self is in meditation, and the self is aware because awareness is 3D. Reflections are 2D before the minds eye. The self observes these (in the beginning only) and has the choice to integrate some information. Later, the meditation deepens and the operating system functions at rapid speed. The brain is on GAMMA. If this state is mastered (controlled and survived) then you can call entities from the constellation X. Of course, this is all a dream and imagination, but never underestimate the power of the imagination as a skeptic. I am talking out of experience. Things can be connected in your brain in ways beyond current imagination. Healthy skepticism is necessary (at least for me).

It could also come to this: If there are 4 individuals in a room, then there are 4 times 4 bodies in 4 times 4 rooms + objects. One perceived universe by one trinity A blends or fuses with the other observed universe by trinity B and so on and on...

[jufa]

Neither can you divide by one (1). This means you are one and therefore what book, lecture, person, or words which do not demonstrate you, cannot divide you into two lives of living in the moment.

Thoughts may appear to possess a power over you, but then you would have to remember thoughts are because you think them, and therefore you have the power of your will over them.

Nothing is divided in life's oneness, even the collective whole of the universal human mentality is a collective one, not a divided one.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Manatron]

Some mean for the division of zero could be another definition. In abstract algebra and ring theory, you could find techniques for doing it. It all depends on the manipulation and use of axioms or group axioms. Mathematics is like art. One teacher could say; you have to base your motives on past experience and all the crap. If one would be interested in engineering, then this person must use mathematics as a tool. If one wants to become the best engineer, then this would be possible after graduate. This could provide new mathematics. I think that this person would still be on a side-track.

For pure mathematics, there are no heuristics. There aren't errors one can make. Thus the fundamental trial-and-error interpretation is dual. If one has this kind of awareness while attempting to reach understanding; yes ! yes ! yes ! shit ! yes ! shit ! yes ! shit ! shit ! and so on...then one day this person might construct a great machine. But these are not new abstract machines. One could say that the spirit of the machine is abstract, but it is still intermingled with the metal and the wires. The engineer however, can pick up some of the virtues of abstract space, but he is no flyer. He is afraid of missing the earth and its inhabitants. He is half materialist and half mathematician. In pure and disrupted mathematics, there are no errors. The only errors that are perceived are no errors, but indicators. the concept "error" creates true error. It is this true error, that is in the chaotic field with a contour escaping the fluidic order of the projected and sublime idea. I say "projected" but i do not mean "manifestation in the physical after time t". I am pointing to pattern recognition in general. Look at Leonhard Euler for example. This man was able to partially externalize his memory into space. This is a vague notion, but it becomes clear when one view tells that "matter" is a configuration that can induce isomorphism with neural network. This man saw symbols flying everywhere (i personally believe an image flowed at 10 frames per second while in the waking state), and at the same time in his mind some integration configured some psychoses because the world is not totalitarian. There is no linear way of learning pure mathematics. A teacher could say; you have to make (true) excercises or you'll never learn. Well, this is true to some extent, but therefore incomplete and bullshit. Maybe this man is a worldly man only trying to tell these things to himself using another as reflector or one who is able to give meaningful feedback. Maybe this teacher lost an inverse symbol. These kind of teachers are not good. If you want to learn mathematics, then you simply stop learning it and start to meditate. Then afterwards...you can end studying mathematics because the beginning lies in the future. Everybody understands it on their own level. If one wants to invent, then the invention is only the one. I say the beginning lies in the future...but this can only be true if one can remember his or her own call from another time. What do you think is happening when you talk to a photograph of yourself from a few days ago ? You can hear yourself unconsciously because there is a reflection of this younger you into the future using yourSELF as an axis. This information that has been sent has harmonics and so it seems that you are actually projecting something into the future using past references. If someone wants to solve a problem, then you solve one problem and at the same time another is also solved, but on a different harmonic of SELF. All the answers are in your higher self in meditation, and not in someone else sharing your favorite meal.
Mathematics is about scanning, integration, re-scanning, re-integration, re-re-scanning, re-re-integration,... and it is not about scanning, integration, expression because if it would be a process similar as the latter, then you would stop and do something else while pure mathematics is a matter of mysticism and esotericism. The outside world has nothing to do with it. The outside world is lost in differentiation. It only serves as a code, like if someone once threw a puzzle into the world and commanded the beings to solve it. Mathematics is the most important thing in the universe. If one dislikes it, then there is materialism present in one's mind. If one would feel kundalini rising and this person survives it, then there is no turning back to the world. There is only symbolic knowledge and errors are not errors. And if there are no errors then there is purpose.

[Manatron]

Nothing is divided in life's oneness, even the collective whole of the universal human mentality is a collective one, not a divided one.

Yes but do you really know what you are implying ? If everything is one, then the shortest distance between two nodes is a structural entity, not a line.

[Steven Coyle]

vectors enhance

[jufa]

Nothing is divided in life's oneness, even the collective whole of the universal human mentality is a collective one, not a divided one.

Yes but do you really know what you are implying ? If everything is one, then the shortest distance between two nodes is a structural entity, not a line.

So when did a line not become a structured entity being it is one line? Is not a line an object which, if not the focus point of the logic of math of any kind, then what structure is there for a beginning to claim a subject?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Manatron]

So when did a line not become a structured entity being it is one line? Is not a line an object which, if not the focus point of the logic of math of any kind, then what structure is there for a beginning to claim a subject?

Two questions have Three answers to your first three T's as your point of exit at time t:

A line is a structured entiTy, but i am talking about the notion of distance.
This brings me to the point; a line implies locality and a structure implies non-locality and this trivial point warps me to your focus point which is only defined as one of the myriads of different contractions or points of focus a human being can choose.

[Manatron]

Meditation becomes as the error of error; wholly subject to shutter speed. Mathematics is a part of pleasure. Invention has no mother, and is also a bastard. Chance is wholly real and synonymous with fate when we're interested. The self is free of purpose, free only to what it is. This type of enslavement is pleasure, is actual. Why do I harp on about eternity? We haven't yet discovered how to share our favourite meal. A case of matter configuration inducing isomorphism with neural networks as you say. The crystallization of genius---- connecting the nodes, it may actually have to be done in secret! How rare is well done? Who truly seeks centralization? Who loves themselves beyond all regret? How shall we appear, when we choose to, finally?

secret ? aiaiaiai this planet earth.... i use the term "earth" not with an expanded conscioussnes. The earth is mapped to a sphere and is studied as "earth". Geology, Botanics, Electronics..the Cybernetic triad...and so on. But yes....this planet earth...never mind.

[Steven Coyle]

earth: after death, it's just back home

[Animus]

Maybe the question would be better put: There is 1 apple, and there are no people around to take it, who has the apple?

[Manatron]

Maybe the question would be better put: There is 1 apple, and there are no people around to take it, who has the apple?

eve

[Manatron]

or

eve interpreted as e V e = e OR e and as an element of E, then there exists a reversed E as all the exponents in inversed E are recursively defined as a lot of men with apples. We get; a lot of men are throwing a lot of apples at each other.

[sonofman]

Does the universe have a name?

[sonofman]

Shakespeare, said it best" To be or not to be" that is the question. If in turn he would have used a mathematical equation. It is to think of the ultimate question! For example, God says "let there be light..." and there was light.

[Dan Rowden]

Does the universe have a name?

That would be "Universe".

[kriptodanny]

Does the universe have a name?

That would be "Universe".

Not really..Dan..that would be "Kriptodanny" ..trust me...kisses:)
http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... dy-up.html
So I composed this never heard stanza:
Behold the love story
One lollipop named Dan
One power as Danny
One is the lover
One the beloved
The awareness turns into itself
Spring is here..2 birds sing together as one
You make my heart go giddy up:)
The rest is silence...
kisses;)
To us all towns are one, all men our kin. Life's good comes not from others' gift, nor ill. Man's pains and pains' relief are from within. Thus have we seen in visions of the wise !." - Tamil Poem-

[iAmVincent]

Infinity = 1/0
0*Infinity = 1 (Multiply both sides by 0)
(0+0)*Infinity = 1+0 (Add 0 to both sides)
0*Infinity + 0*Infninity = 1 (At this point, 0*Infinity could be seen simply as 0, as Infinity, or as 1, giving us 3 different answers)
1 + 1 = 1, 0 + 0 = 1, or Infinity + Infinity = 1

This reminds of Charles Seife's "proof" that Winston Churchill was a carrot. You can get all kinds of ridiculous results if you divide something by zero and continue to use basic algebra. Although it appears that you can multiply both sides by zero and cancel out the zeros on the right hand side of your equation, you seem to be forgetting a fundamental rule that applies here: anything multiplied by zero is zero. So, 1/0 * 0 = 0. When dealing with the concept of infinity, the mathematics are not so straightforward. If you really want to see some bizarre mathematical results, I suggest you look up the work of Georg Cantor.

[cousinbasil]

A line is a structured entiTy, but i am talking about the notion of distance.
This brings me to the point; a line implies locality and a structure implies non-locality and this trivial point warps me to your focus point which is only defined as one of the myriads of different contractions or points of focus a human being can choose.

The interesting thing is that a straight line as it is commonly known may not correspond to any physical reality, and therefore may be only a structured entity. It is usually defined precisely in Euclidean 3-space, and the host of regular objects around us give us a false sense of security that a "straight line" has a reality in and of itself.

In fact, what we commonly consider physical examples of straight lines are almost invariably manufactured things, that is, manufactured by humans who believe in the mathematical definition of "the shortest distance between two points."

I do not agree that a line implies locality. Only a point does. But when we go from one point to more than one, what do we have in the intervening space?

Space itself may have an intrinsic curvature. What kind of curvature (often referred to as "positive" or "negative") is open to debate.

But consider this. If a straight line as Euclidean geometry has it actually existed, the following thought experiment has but one outcome. Suppose you drew a triangle on a flat piece of paper. The interior of the triangle would have a well-defined area. Suppose now that the triangle became much larger. You would not have a big enough piece of paper, but that would not affect the area enclosed by the triangle. The triangle is identical in shape, so each side is stretched by a factor of k. Therefore, the area enclosed would be multiplied by a factor of k-squared.

The preceding logic may in fact break down in the real world, given a large enough k-factor. If space itself has a negative curvature, then the area would have grown by a factor c where c < k-squared. (A positive curvature would result in c > k-squared.)

What has happened to our straight lines, the sides of the triangle? In the real world, they curve inward towards the center of the triangle, simply because any other kind of straight line - a "straighter" one, that is - only exists in our minds idealized constructs, not in the real, external world.

Using non-Euclidean geometry for a negatively curved 3- dimensional space, it can be shown that the area of our triangle, if we make k approach infinity, approaches a fixed value.

This is a remarkable result. It means there is a maximum size that a triangle can be. In our thought-experiment, we assumed that there is no such limit. Not only has the area grown by a factor of c where c < k-squared, but as we let k approach infinity, c approached C, where C is a constant < infinity.

[jufa]

I do not agree that a line implies locality. Only a point does. But when we go from one point to more than one, what do we have in the intervening space?

What is it which makes you state your disagreement? A line can indicate nothing else but locality, and that locality is the thinker/observer who is the locality, because the observer who can never be representive of non-locality. How is this? It is because

Life is a metaphor. It is the infinity of Itself. Never can a metaphor represent anything other than the subject of the metaphor - jufa

The metaphor is omnipresent in the mind of the thinker/observer

Space itself may have an intrinsic curvature. What kind of curvature (often referred to as "positive" or "negative") is open to debate.

How can this be when space itself can only curve into itself?

But consider this. If a straight line as Euclidean geometry has it actually existed, the following thought experiment has but one outcome. Suppose you drew a triangle on a flat piece of paper. The interior of the triangle would have a well-defined area. Suppose now that the triangle became much larger. You would not have a big enough piece of paper, but that would not affect the area enclosed by the triangle. The triangle is identical in shape, so each side is stretched by a factor of k. Therefore, the area enclosed would be multiplied by a factor of k-squared.

Good diagnostics. But consider the zero and what has cause it to be defined as a zero. The definitive factor here is the definition of the line itself. The line which forms the definition of the circle declares nothing within or without the circle that which has no structure without the definition of the circle. Yet, the outside and inside is what cause the circle to have form. You know what this means, the definition of the line and that which has cause the definition to be of the same ilk. How? that without the definition is a part of the line as that within the line. The line or circle therefore is not define in the reality of its existed of appearance, but that which is the existing cause also. So any kind of number application used to expand the line does not include the totality of that which make the line definable, thus, in reality one is always defining zero>

Never give power to anytehing a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Conservationist]

The Self, is claimed to be essentially nothing but the denominator of unity, it is zero, but it is that which divides reality?

The self is a subset of reality.

Any number divided by one is one -- if the self does the division, it's always going to come up with itself.

And then be raped by wild boars, if there's any justice in the universe (there isn't).