On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 6:08:54 PM UTC+2, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> The question was tody published there, it was going well with hundreds of visibility for the benefits of young innocent students globally as usual, such that the stalked of those old rusted brains with it may one day may sense that was a very old inherited fiction as many others as well (that had been well-exposed mainly on sci. math and by myself and few rare members as well like (JG, WM, AP also, Khnong Dong, ... the list is opened widely for everyone) where then the brain cells of those academics might somehow start functioning naturally and normally as all other creatures on this earth, but so utterly and like the case with any old century but truly even worse than that, they simply can't tolerate to see any fact due to being so involved in its industry and were completely addicted with this kind of mind drugs beside being their business, where without it they would certainly beg and cry
>
> So, one said to himself, here they can't do anything as they do there and so cowardly behind the scene such that more of additional shame is added on their meaningless existence and useless performance
>
> Note that there are many thousands of researchers and book authors and Donkeypedia writers are trying to create huge piles of new sh*tty mythematics business from zero and alike
>
> So here its again the question with an answer that would the be documented as a wonderful piece of evidence about their unlimited stupidities that would shame them perpetually for sure
>
> Where I know also that the worst kinds of the academic mainstream sheeple are gathering here under many fake names and so like
>
> So, let me pour it again here over their very sounding empty heads so that they enjoy it once being alone before a mirror
>
> ********************************************
>
> Question: Isn't there a problem basically with zero or the problems are basically with those many like zeros ( 0^0,0/0,0!, +/- 0, 0∗n,n^0,n/0, 1/0, 1^n,(0+0),(0−0)...), etc?...?...?...............>>>0000....>>oo
>
> The whole problem with zero is the following
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is the division by zero
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with zero to the power zero
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with factorial of zero
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with the division of zero by zero
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with one divided by zero
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with those three meaningless empty zero like digits (…) added after any number ….
> …..
> …..
> ……………………………….
>
> Enough myth magic please, It is the time to know its absolute fact, and stop for a while to understand that zero isn’t, in fact, any real existing number nor any number to keep blundering about aimlessly and hopelessly for sure
>
> But zero was a primitive human mind invention like a number, despite all those many old stories that describe it as the most important and wonderful discovery and greatest human knowledge ever made by human mind beings history,
>
> Since real numbers are in fact already existing being (as perpetual mathematical existing objects) to be truly discovered and never to be invented or created illegally such that you get always stacked when subjecting them to valid mathematical operations where sometimes they pass and other times drastically fail
>
> See also the analogy with already exposed silliest fiction of infinity with zero no numbers
>
> Denote infinity by double o so infinity = oo,
>
> And recall back the paradisiacal operation rules with infinity and make a comparison with zero
>
> 1) (oo + oo = oo), and (0 + 0 = 0)
>
> 2) (n*(oo) = oo), and (n*0 = 0)
>
> 3) (oo^n = oo), and (0^n = 0)
>
> 4) ((oo)*(oo) = oo), and (0*0 = 0)
>
> …………………
>
> ………………….You can add alike ……
>
> But with infinity case, we admit that infinity is no number, where as in the zero case we deny it and claim that is a number, just because the common human mind illusion that we think it is here before our eyes between positive and negative numbers, where as the negative numbers were actually considered as real numbers only because we created zero, otherwise, an object of a location as a size less point on the real number line can go right or left from that chosen location but in positive senses (actually normal sense) in a both directions, same like up and down on the chosen artificial location (xyz - coordination’s) and things would run and be still sensible and normal without all those negatives signs with their invented intrinsic complexities that were shown meaningless as infinity and zero as well, and if one is worry about some mathematical expressions like saying randomly ( 10 – 7 – 3 = 0), I can tell him to rewrite in its original unreformed shape like this (3 + 7 = 10), similarly for any case, where nothing is lost by loosing zero and the negatives (together) since that was like an extra unnecessary mathematics
>
> So to say (0) is the last elder tooth to be uprooted from normal universal and valid mathematics in order to completely purify it from all kinds of other fictions that reflected on our spoiled (logic, philosophy and pure physics as well)
>
> Truly and mathematically speaking mathematics would not lose anything by losing zero,
>
> The same like the case when one day suddenly we added infinity (and most probably because of zero) then we easily threw infinity without losing anything meaningful as those human minds invented like numbers like the irrational (non-constructible numbers)
>
> And you might be afraid how our number systems would work anymore without zero?
>
> I would like to say don’t worry at all since it would work even better and faster and it might reveal more about the hidden patterns of number properties without zero’s
>
> The old primitive Roman number system shouldn’t be at all be considered as a reasonable excuse to add zero to our number systems because we can so easily make many number systems very efficient and without zero
>
> Isn’t it truly so strange that our 10-base number system (naturally originated from our hand's fingers) that consists of 10 digits where 9 fingers are given one-digit each but abnormally one finger is given two digits as (10)? Wonders!
>
> I know that people are generally in love with the symbol zero, so we shall keep it as it is but to be as a number 10, in 10-base number system where then no empty locations for any natural number or decimal number to be represented
>
> Then let me denote the last finger by (0) to actually equal to (10), such that all hand finger is denoted with only one digit, and all numbers wood run as normal as it should be (in the 10-base number system polynomial),
>
> So, from (1 to 9), our numbers would be the same, and furthermore any number without (0) digits symbol would be the same as we knew it before in our old 10-base number system
>
> (20) would become (10), and (90) would become (80), (100) would become (90), and (1000) would become (990), so whenever you see zero in our number system, then keep it but decrees the digit to its left by one
>
> Example 1): Convert this number (23061) to your new number system
>
> Solution: (22061), how easy the trick, but why?
>
> The hint is that whenever zero digit appears in the old number system then right the same number but by decreasing the digit to its left by one
>
> Whereas numbers without zero would be equivalent in both number systems
>
> For example, in our current number system, this number (4758123698) would be the same representations in the new zeroless number system, since we make (0 = 10) as a single digit
>
> Our original number is (1 + 6*10 + 0*100 + 3*1000 + 2*10000 = 23061), but in new number system it is like this
>
> (1 + 6*10 + 10*100 + 2*1000 + 2*10000 = 23061 (in old number system) = (22061) (in new number system)
>
> Example 2): Convert (1001) to a new number system
>
> Solution: (901), think about it
>
> Now, we see nothing is lost except expressing old extinct numbers like this (0.999…)
>
> Where this rational decimal would be represented like this with illustrations
>
> 1 = .90 = .990 = .9990 = …. = .999… (n)…9990, where this is valid for any natural number (n) and (n + 1), hence valid for any natural number
>
> But since there is always the last digit of (0) which means 10, then our number (n) can’t tend to infinity in any case, and not because there is truly no infinity to go to but because the rational decimal field is also endless field and the same when converting or approximating the real existing constructible numbers to endless decimal rational, that would never replace them exactly as long as it is endless representations
>
> This, of course, must be considered as an elementary proof number (11) for the no number with endless digits ever exists like our famous fake one (0..999…)
>
> However, l did publically publish earlier a zero less binary number system with (1, 2) digits, which was as effective as ours but usually with lesser digit
>
> Regards
>
> Copyright ©, 2019
>
> Bassam Karzeddin
>
> 324 views · View Sharers
> Adding comments disabled