Post by ADMIN on Jun 10, 2004 15:55:33 GMT -5
Negative Numbers and Other Frauds
by
Steffan Stanford
Did you ever have uneasiness with mathematics? Did the process ever make you feel a bit queasy in the stomach? I certainly had those experiences as I advanced down the road of the maths. While I could readily do all the work that was assigned in arithmetic, algebra and geometry and I could also get the acceptable answers easily enough, there were just some applications that made me feel quite uncomfortable.
As I began learning arithmetic, things were fine. The function of addition was quite easy to conceive: If you have 3 apples in a bowl and you add 3 apples to the bowl, there are 6 apples. I could even count things like this out on my fingers whenever I needed reassurance of the accuracy of my solutions to the equations. And, I easily whizzed through subtraction by simply reversing the process of addition. So far, my stomach was in good shape.
It was then that multiplication was introduced to me, which tables I readily memorized and applied, again getting the acceptable answers while pleasing my teachers. And, thereafter, division was shown me, which was just the reversal of multiplication, so I simply learned how to operate the multiplication tables in reverse and I was able to perform the function of division in an acceptable manner, except, the instructors forced a "rule" down my throat that I dutifully memorized and remembered, but it never set too well in my stomach.
The rule I was troubled by is that: it is impossible to divide by zero. As I worked through this rule, my stomach became queasier and queasier. The basis for the rule, I was told by all who I asked, is that zero represents nothing, and if you divide nothing into something, the solution to the equation would be infinity because it would take an infinite number of nothings to amount to something. Does this sound a bit tautological to you? It did to me.
As I pondered how many nothings it would take to amount to something, my mind began delving into metaphysical concepts. I eventually concluded that nothing could be infinite in this world or the physical universe — otherwise it would be possible to divide by zero. After scratching my head several times on many occasions, I finally just applied the rule and overrode my intuition that made my stomach turn somersaults.
My adventures into the maths then continued, and when I had nearly forgotten how uncomfortable I was at trying to solve the riddle of infinity and division by zero, my instructors began throwing out more servings of rubbish in the form of "rules" and other concepts. The most annoying of these supposed concepts was negative numbers, after which, came rule upon rule of unmitigated rubbish to substantiate the bizarre concept.
Many scientists and academics refer to mathematics as a "pure" science. For them, negative numbers are pure. "Pure" in this sense does begin to approach Purity from a Pure dimension. Pure in this sense is merely a term for the discipline of mathematics to indicate that it is supposedly based upon "truth". In this physical realm, there is no Purity, nor are mathematics pure.
Many years after I had "learned" many of the absurd rules about negative numbers, I was doing some research on mathematical formulae when Amitakh mentioned to me that mathematics in this realm are quite flawed and very different from the mathematics of purer dimensions. This was the insight that I needed to help me be rid of the queasiness in my stomach that so many mathematical operations have caused me to feel. As I delved deeper into her wise advice, I came away quite assured that mathematics in this dimension is seriously flawed, and in some areas, altogether fraudulent.
Geometry was relatively accurate and somewhat honest. However, much of the honesty in geometry was forced upon the mathematicians. It only occurred because geometry involved measuring and defining tangible solid shapes. This has a tendency to discourage mathematicians from fudging matters since there are readily available methods of testing various theorems by physically measuring the shape in question. But even the forced "honesty" of Euclidean geometry has some serious problems because one of its foundational concepts is the premise that parallel lines are lines that will go on forever and never meet. This would perhaps be true in an infinite universe, but, in a finite one, all lines will be forced to curve at some time, hence lines cannot go on forever. This fact has forced a lot of fudging in geometry.
Pythagoras was an early mathematician who developed several useful formulae that are still applied today. However, he was much more than a mathematician, he was the Divine Amoeba incarnated. Pythagoras was interested in the metaphysical characteristics of numbers, and realized that various numbers have differing properties. His studies regarding the properties of numbers have been a great benefit to modern numerologists. In the late nineteenth century, it was becoming public knowledge that the properties of numbers in this physical realm were based on nine different vibrations, hence ordered from one to nine. Prior to that time, it was only in secretive, esoteric circles that such things were discussed.
Pythagoras did a great deal of work with geometry, and it is the Pythagorean theorem that allows accurate measurements of triangles. While working on shapes, he discerned that the few symmetrical solids in the physical world had some very interesting properties. He observed that most of the angles created in symmetrical shapes, the cube being excepted, were easy or soft angles. He determined that tetrahedrons and spheres were very effective at protecting people who wished to meditate and free themselves temporarily from the "roar" of the physical world and enter into a world of "silence".
Subsequently, Plato concluded that the sphere was the most perfect of shapes in this realm. One of the reasons was that it offered the most protection to those who surrounded themselves with a sphere.
by
Steffan Stanford
Did you ever have uneasiness with mathematics? Did the process ever make you feel a bit queasy in the stomach? I certainly had those experiences as I advanced down the road of the maths. While I could readily do all the work that was assigned in arithmetic, algebra and geometry and I could also get the acceptable answers easily enough, there were just some applications that made me feel quite uncomfortable.
As I began learning arithmetic, things were fine. The function of addition was quite easy to conceive: If you have 3 apples in a bowl and you add 3 apples to the bowl, there are 6 apples. I could even count things like this out on my fingers whenever I needed reassurance of the accuracy of my solutions to the equations. And, I easily whizzed through subtraction by simply reversing the process of addition. So far, my stomach was in good shape.
It was then that multiplication was introduced to me, which tables I readily memorized and applied, again getting the acceptable answers while pleasing my teachers. And, thereafter, division was shown me, which was just the reversal of multiplication, so I simply learned how to operate the multiplication tables in reverse and I was able to perform the function of division in an acceptable manner, except, the instructors forced a "rule" down my throat that I dutifully memorized and remembered, but it never set too well in my stomach.
The rule I was troubled by is that: it is impossible to divide by zero. As I worked through this rule, my stomach became queasier and queasier. The basis for the rule, I was told by all who I asked, is that zero represents nothing, and if you divide nothing into something, the solution to the equation would be infinity because it would take an infinite number of nothings to amount to something. Does this sound a bit tautological to you? It did to me.
As I pondered how many nothings it would take to amount to something, my mind began delving into metaphysical concepts. I eventually concluded that nothing could be infinite in this world or the physical universe — otherwise it would be possible to divide by zero. After scratching my head several times on many occasions, I finally just applied the rule and overrode my intuition that made my stomach turn somersaults.
My adventures into the maths then continued, and when I had nearly forgotten how uncomfortable I was at trying to solve the riddle of infinity and division by zero, my instructors began throwing out more servings of rubbish in the form of "rules" and other concepts. The most annoying of these supposed concepts was negative numbers, after which, came rule upon rule of unmitigated rubbish to substantiate the bizarre concept.
Many scientists and academics refer to mathematics as a "pure" science. For them, negative numbers are pure. "Pure" in this sense does begin to approach Purity from a Pure dimension. Pure in this sense is merely a term for the discipline of mathematics to indicate that it is supposedly based upon "truth". In this physical realm, there is no Purity, nor are mathematics pure.
Many years after I had "learned" many of the absurd rules about negative numbers, I was doing some research on mathematical formulae when Amitakh mentioned to me that mathematics in this realm are quite flawed and very different from the mathematics of purer dimensions. This was the insight that I needed to help me be rid of the queasiness in my stomach that so many mathematical operations have caused me to feel. As I delved deeper into her wise advice, I came away quite assured that mathematics in this dimension is seriously flawed, and in some areas, altogether fraudulent.
Geometry was relatively accurate and somewhat honest. However, much of the honesty in geometry was forced upon the mathematicians. It only occurred because geometry involved measuring and defining tangible solid shapes. This has a tendency to discourage mathematicians from fudging matters since there are readily available methods of testing various theorems by physically measuring the shape in question. But even the forced "honesty" of Euclidean geometry has some serious problems because one of its foundational concepts is the premise that parallel lines are lines that will go on forever and never meet. This would perhaps be true in an infinite universe, but, in a finite one, all lines will be forced to curve at some time, hence lines cannot go on forever. This fact has forced a lot of fudging in geometry.
Pythagoras was an early mathematician who developed several useful formulae that are still applied today. However, he was much more than a mathematician, he was the Divine Amoeba incarnated. Pythagoras was interested in the metaphysical characteristics of numbers, and realized that various numbers have differing properties. His studies regarding the properties of numbers have been a great benefit to modern numerologists. In the late nineteenth century, it was becoming public knowledge that the properties of numbers in this physical realm were based on nine different vibrations, hence ordered from one to nine. Prior to that time, it was only in secretive, esoteric circles that such things were discussed.
Pythagoras did a great deal of work with geometry, and it is the Pythagorean theorem that allows accurate measurements of triangles. While working on shapes, he discerned that the few symmetrical solids in the physical world had some very interesting properties. He observed that most of the angles created in symmetrical shapes, the cube being excepted, were easy or soft angles. He determined that tetrahedrons and spheres were very effective at protecting people who wished to meditate and free themselves temporarily from the "roar" of the physical world and enter into a world of "silence".
Subsequently, Plato concluded that the sphere was the most perfect of shapes in this realm. One of the reasons was that it offered the most protection to those who surrounded themselves with a sphere.