A promising theory to explain 1÷0

[rigid anchor]

good

so why do you say it has a different meaning?

1•1 = 1 is also true, why don't you point out that this has a "different meaning" as well

[pearl crane]

See its because if in a 3d volume, if one axis component is 0 (2d object) it gives volume zero and if 2 components are 0 (1d object) then still the volume is zero, overall it matter how many zeros are there hence if 2 zeros it means 1d if 1 then its 1d because if we try to knkw the dimension directly it would be just zero anyways

[pearl crane]

Because i dont need it for my purpose

[rigid anchor]

yes, you are indeed arguing in circles

[pearl crane]

^

[rigid anchor]

ok here's how it really works

something that you call a 2d object, is still a 3d object in 3 dimensional space

[pearl crane]

why is that?

[rigid anchor]

and you are restricting to a very small subclass of objects with arguments like "it has one axis component 0"

[pearl crane]

Ofc i am

because i am dealing with pure dimensional object

Not just negligiblily small enough thickness to call it 2d

[rigid anchor]

if your ambient space is 3d, then every object (as a subset) is 3d as well

[pearl crane]

okay?

so?

[rigid anchor]

one of many

[pearl crane]

^

[rigid anchor]

but let's talk some basics again

techie gave you a proof for a result that contradicts your results

[pearl crane]

^

[pearl crane]

nonono stop

[rigid anchor]

your goal should be to find your mistake

[pearl crane]

stop right there

I know my mistake

Mistake is i didnt give the exact ideas

The exact situation

I didnt define it well

[rigid anchor]

that's a problem, but not the problem

[pearl crane]

tbh

[rigid anchor]

contradictory results cannot coexist, it doesn't matter how well or how poorly your explain your theory

[pearl crane]

tbh that problem wasnt even contricting because actually when i revised my theory i am not actually giving 1/0 a new value but rather explaining whats the fundamental cause that gives the value 1/0

[rigid anchor]

but 1/0 doesn't have a well defined value

so again, find what's wrong in your work

[pearl crane]

i know it doesnt have?

[rigid anchor]

this would be really simple if you knew some basics of logic

[pearl crane]

well can u stop doubting on my knowledge because its not good for my stress frankly saying

[rigid anchor]

you're like a text robot, you just generate stuff that's "probably" true in your own mind

but you lack the ability to self correct

[pearl crane]

on what basis are u saying that?

[rigid anchor]

honestly? by this alone

[pearl crane]

um

humans makes mistakes but whats important is to correct them

[rigid anchor]

I have no doubts, I know you don't have formal training, so I know you know very little (which is fine), but the bigger problem is you refuse to learn

[pearl crane]

what makes u think i dont learn?

[rigid anchor]

you've had several opportunities to course correct during this discussion, but you have some deeply embedded superiority complex tucked away in your head that just won't allow you to let false ideas go

[pearl crane]

I cant just instantly do what the other person tells me when i worked hard in it, ill take some time and then proceed thats what is learning

[rigid anchor]

I can respect the hustle, but your focus has been misplaced

[pearl crane]

Thats probably the last valuable thing u said and didnt even clear me when i asked before telling me i am not eager to learn

efforts are but after learning but i think u are unseeing that

[rigid anchor]

and that brings me to references

if you learned this, then there has to be a source for it

[pearl crane]

Everything doesnt have a well defined reference

[rigid anchor]

spoken like a true plagiarist 😄

[pearl crane]

I came here again after tomorrow not to prove my theory again

[rigid anchor]

you cannot have a correct proof for it

that's what you refuse to learn

[pearl crane]

But to get an agreement on this

[twilit kraken]

Rules are meant to be broken, even the ones of mathematics!!!!

[pearl crane]

I do because i feel i failed to convey the things going in my mind to u, and when i succeed with that and then if u tell me that i am wrong then i will consider all ur words

But for now i will just work on correcting it and refining it

[tranquil linden]

Yes you exactly can. When you've "worked hard" building a giant edifice of nonsense, you should abandon it the instant you figure out that it's nonsense.

[rigid anchor]

I don't really need you to convey them to me, you already claimed a false statement is true, that's all I need to disregard your theory

[pearl crane]

Thats an inhuman approach

[tranquil linden]

If humans were so great, they wouldn't build giant edifices of nonsense to begin with.

[pearl crane]

I will say that again and again till i feel that what i am trying to tell youve got it

[rigid anchor]

you can keep on saying it however many times you want

if your theory proves something that is known to be false, then your theory is inconsistent

[pearl crane]

only if the part of u having a better understanding about it is complete

[rigid anchor]

this is independent of me, your or any observer

[pearl crane]

A person cannot prove something wrong or right if they dont have the clear understanding about its purpose

[rigid anchor]

that is false

[pearl crane]

Good night

[tranquil linden]

"Purpose" is completely irrelevant. A mathematical statement is true or false as a matter of pure logic.

[rigid anchor]

After you've studied some propositional logic and predicate logic, you should look into something called "axiomatic systems". We can prove and disprove statements that have entirely no meaning, not to mention nobody has a clue about their purpose.

[ebon badge]

what happened now

[vivid viper]

From what I read, Vendetta is opening up a little
But they haven’t made anything rigorous yet, and everything is still wordsoup

[ebon badge]

sad

[vivid viper]

Oh well

[pearl crane]

I tried making this part more understandable

@rigid anchor please review

[pearl crane]

• i am rewriting the condition again to make it better

[pearl crane]

here

[rigid anchor]

one can safely stop reading here

"this undefined quantity arises when a quantity is divided by zero"

1. and undefined quantity does not arise
2. we can't divide by zero

[pearl crane]

So when i say an undefined quantity arise when we divide by zero in mathematical operations then i am wrong?

[rigid anchor]

yes

you have assumed something false

so your argument is valid whatever the conclusion is

but that doesn't make the conclusion true

you can only derive true statements from true statements

that's a basic property of classical logic

[pearl crane]

Nono i am confused

make me understand how i am wrong

[rigid anchor]

it is true that 1/0 is undefined, therefore we cannot divide by 0 in the first place, 1/0 being undefined means that this sequence of symbols has no meaning in the first place

but you assume it has meaning, your assumption is false

so you can say whatever you want past this point, and your argument is valid

[pearl crane]

When i say that we divide, in this case we are performing division unknowingly about the fact its practically not possible

[rigid anchor]

you can only divide by nonzero numbers

[pearl crane]

So can i instead of saying divided by zero can i say try to divide by zero? That way we achieve the inderminate form while agreeing to that fact that this division is not possible

[rigid anchor]

no

what you can do is the following

suppose 1/0 is defined and let x = 1/0 be a real number..

but then you run into the problem pointed out by techie

[pearl crane]

hmmm

Specifically where i am wrong?

[rigid anchor]

contradictions cant be allowed, so you have to accept that 1/0 is at the very least not a real number

[pearl crane]

I am not saying its a real number bruh

[rigid anchor]

you are implicitly assuming it, because you do calculations with it exactly like with real numbers

[pearl crane]

But are we sure about the fact that doing calculations must never give such indefinite values?

[rigid anchor]

yes

both addition and multiplication of real numbers are algebraic operations

this means that the sum and product of two real numbers is always a real number

[pearl crane]

but what happens if somehow such value is obtained while doing the calculation

[rigid anchor]

provided your work is correct, it will never happen

and if it does, your task is to find where you made a mistake

[pearl crane]

^

[pearl crane]

It will happen if we perform the divide by zero thing

ur point is that we restrict to do that

[rigid anchor]

that's where you messed up

we can't divide by zero

[pearl crane]

ur point is we restrict to do that not only because it gives an indefinite value but its not practical to do it

[rigid anchor]

at best, you are giving a circular argument

"assume we can divide by zero, therefore we can divide by zero"

this is a tautology

[pearl crane]

^

[rigid anchor]

it's not about practicality

we simply can't do it, the laws of the arithmetic do not allow for it

[pearl crane]

The laws of arithmetics doesnt allow ofc because its not practical am i correct w that?

[rigid anchor]

look up any 1=0 proof online for an example, if you want

[rigid anchor]

no

practicality is not in consideration in the first place

it's not important

[pearl crane]

I have a proof to correct this

but only if u consider 1/0 as what i told

a higher dimensional quantity relative to a lower one

See the point is

@rigid anchor

ure misinterpreting it

My intention is something else

[rigid anchor]

that is irrelevant

neither your or my intentions have any effect on arithmetic

[pearl crane]

Its that i am finding "what is that mistake that causes us to obtain 1/0" a more general and indirect one

[pearl crane]

Its not about arithmetics

[rigid anchor]

yes it is

[pearl crane]

U are taking my words more literal

My intention is to answer that "what is that mistake that causes us to fall onto 1/0"

[rigid anchor]

false assumptions

or at least one false assumption

[pearl crane]

Its not an assumption

[rigid anchor]

yes it is

your entire premise is filled with assumptions

[pearl crane]

its not even an assu ption

dont question and understand what i am telling or else it'll be false to u throughout

[rigid anchor]

this is how logic works

as soon as your work contradicts arithmetic, I have to look for mistakes

in your defense, we have to have assumptions

[pearl crane]

1/0 wasn't supposed to arise in calculations but at some places like calculating the strength of spacetime curvature at the centre of a blackhole it does arise, now it doesnt have to do with it its illogical or logical

The question is less about whether its correct or incorrect

Its more about why did it had to arise

[rigid anchor]

correctness is ALWAYS relevant

[pearl crane]

I edited it

[rigid anchor]

you are missing so much basic training, it's nigh impossible to convince you

setting up astrophysics strawmen isn't helping your case either

[rigid anchor]

what makes you think it did? are you certain you have correctly understood the theory or its predictions?

[pearl crane]

the predictions are all what gives me this motivation

[rigid anchor]

your interpretation of the predictions*

[pearl crane]

My predictions matches the outcomes of string theory

[rigid anchor]

oh brother, now you claim to know string theory too?

just stop

you already struggle with basic arithmetic and logic, don't make claims like you can navigate in something as complicated as astrophysics or string theory

[pearl crane]

I took help of chatgpt

[rigid anchor]

slam dunk..

[rigid anchor]

bad idea

[pearl crane]

Why

[rigid anchor]

you have no knowledge of the topic to even evaluate whether gpt gives you correct information

[pearl crane]

What i did was ask formulae from chatgpt and directly perform the method of my equation

chatgpt doesnt give wrong formulae?

[rigid anchor]

it does and it is very capable of giving incorrect proofs

but you wouldn't know that, because you don't know how to check it

[pearl crane]

hmmm

how can i check then

the formulae

[rigid anchor]

by learning the subject yourself

[pearl crane]

but i cant do that

its sort of ridiculous to learn it at this age just to obtain the formulae

[rigid anchor]

is that what you think math is about?

coming up with formulae?

[pearl crane]

no but yes

but the formulae are of physics

[rigid anchor]

were you planning to credit gpt at any point in your article?

[pearl crane]

why would i?

[rigid anchor]

.

[pearl crane]

i would have given the references tho

but i wouldve obtain the formulae from a better place

And refered to them

I used gpt to make it easier?

[rigid anchor]

but not necessarily correct

and that's your problem

[pearl crane]

i have time to correct

its not the end afterall?

[rigid anchor]

what if it can't be salvaged?

the final conclusions won't change, you are still in contradiction with arithmetic

[pearl crane]

what if i believe that my core idea that is already under contridictions and it can barely be salvaged?

[rigid anchor]

that is very likely true

and if that's what you believe, why would you continue working on it?

[pearl crane]

i dont loose hopes

i know i will because i will

[pearl crane]

@rigid anchor please help out here

I remade it

[pearl crane]

🥺

@rigid anchor

[rigid anchor]

"simply observed" ?

you claim GR gives rise to quantities like 1/0?

it does not

these are not observations about the theory, but rather your interpretations

I will not spend time on fighting any more of your strawmen

[pearl crane]

@rigid anchor one final question before u leave

I made interpretations about 1/0 being a transition to higher dimension but it is wrong because 1/0 cannot possibly arise at anyway

Then what if i change my concept

And use limits such that lim x tends to 0 where f(x) is 1/x

So rather than fractional ratios imma try with limits

that way i might obtain a tendency to transist instead of complete transition

I was wrong

I remember when i first time made the theory i used limits

that time i came here and they told me the same thing

That 1/0 is not possible but forgot

And made a potentially good work into a crap....

@rigid anchor what do u think? Is revising this theory with limits instead of ratios better than just quitting?

[twilit kraken]

f(x) = 1/x is a common and simple example of why division by zero is undefined. What even is the point of that?

[rigid anchor]

i know very little about your theory or your goals, I don't know how you should proceed

[torpid gazelle]

Hrrr drrr 1/0 is defined because general relativity has asymptotes but is overall well defined (and other ramblings of the mentally insane)

[rigid anchor]

https://tenor.com/view/crazy-shake-stewie-gif-5450737313358591447

[torpid gazelle]

Next up: residue thm

[pearl crane]

@torpid gazelle (goo goo ga ga)

[cinder tendon]

Wow this convo

After stopping tech literate said “ironically yes lol”

I just realized that maybe theory of computation that I took as a computer science student and the propositional logic and automata are actually important

I didn’t know that logic was that important in research and math

I mean.. I always sucked at math tbh :P

since I was a kid but now after reading @rigid anchor replies I now get why my math profs were so enthusiastic about teaching us proofs and what does everything fundamentally mean whether it was calculus or linear algebra or number theory

[pearl crane]

hi

[cinder tendon]

Hello

[pearl crane]

what u doing here?

[cinder tendon]

Nothing I was reading this thread cause the title caught my interest

[pearl crane]

so what did u see here?

[cinder tendon]

Math battle that is beyond my comprehension

I didn’t even take real numbers and I’m in uni

My country’s edu system is a bit trash

[pearl crane]

well they would call it a battle against a strawman

[pearl crane]

oh

[cinder tendon]

Well.. tbh not that trash but still doe, like compared to Asian countries especially during elementary to high school period is less than they take

It is only that I entered IGCSEs and took only math AS I don’t know complex or real or imaginary number

Even doe I would be interested to learn about it and solve some exercises

[pearl crane]

Maybe i wouldnt have heard so much if i used limits in my theory

The story would have been different

[cinder tendon]

But

Here is a thing

I have heard about this 1/0 debate before

And the work arounds people had to do

I simply define a solution to this problem in my mind as one of two possible solutions:

1. let us say that you have an apple,
   One apple to be exact denoting the “1” as a number and you have you “0” people to divide it upon

Like imagine you are walking up to the air with no living being around you and you are holding an apple you want to distribute?
The answer would be 1 you still have one apple and no people to distribute it upon

Or

Second possibility is 0 which doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you mean “0” as in “there is no body that I will be able to give this apple to” hence a “false”

That’s is how I perceive it as a humble monke brain that ain’t a math geek

But to be honest that “1” is also not really an answer, it is a remainder

You still didn’t distribute the apple you had

[rigid anchor]

while useful, this is still only an intuition based on the real world

it leads you to think 1/0 doesn't make sense, but it's not a disproof

[cinder tendon]

Yeah

You are right

On a logical form this is true but when it comes to world of math everything is variable and depends on your world

[rigid anchor]

the so called mainstream math is based on ZF axiomatics, often also including the axiom of choice

so our worlds coincide

assuming our framework is consistent, we can't reach mutually exclusive results

[rigid anchor]

arithmetic is just a tiny part, math is first and foremost about proof

..at least nowadays

[tranquil linden]

That limit doesn't exist.

[pearl crane]

shut up this time i am perfectly correct on this

that limit exists

[tranquil linden]

No it doesn't.

[pearl crane]

Yes it does.

[rigid anchor]

which limit?

[tranquil linden]

No, it doesn't.

[pearl crane]

It certainly does.

[tranquil linden]

$\lim_{x \to 0}\frac{1}{x}$

[obsidian gale]

Techie Literate

[rigid anchor]

doesn't exist

$$\lim _{x\to 0} \frac{1}{x^2} = +\infty$$

[obsidian gale]

aL

[rigid anchor]

this limit exists, for example

[tranquil linden]

Well, no.

[rigid anchor]

$$\lim _{x\to 0+} \frac{1}{x} = +\infty$$

[pearl crane]

Both the limits exist.

[rigid anchor]

and this

[obsidian gale]

aL

[pearl crane]

ohhh

[rigid anchor]

but not when x approaches 0 from arbitrary direction

[tranquil linden]

Technically speaking a limit that "goes to infinity" doesn't "exist" per se.

[pearl crane]

okay so i needa specify direction

[pearl crane]

You need to learn some limits.

[rigid anchor]

yea fair enogh, there are no cauchy sequences

[rigid anchor]

you do, im afraid

[pearl crane]

Me?

Atleast not completely you corrected me anyways

[rigid anchor]

you with no mathematical training are in no position to tell people who clearly know more about mathematical analysis to learn limits

[pearl crane]

They were wrong

[tranquil linden]

Prove it.

[pearl crane]

They just denied it

[pearl crane]

Prove what

[tranquil linden]

Prove that I'm wrong.

[pearl crane]

I mean i meant this

[rigid anchor]

wallowing in denial is a waste of time

these limits are not the same

[pearl crane]

Wrong in what?

[pearl crane]

I know

I just messed up a bit

[tranquil linden]

The thing you fucking said I'm fucking wrong about.

[pearl crane]

I just didnt said it literally

[pearl crane]

What did you say, say again properly

[rigid anchor]

please just stop pretending you understand the theory, we can tell you're full of shit

[tranquil linden]

Forget about your math credentials, you have no grounds to insult anyone else's intelligence when you literally cannot follow a fucking conversation.

[pearl crane]

See dont get mad about me not specifing 0^+ or 0^- okay? I just asked in general dont be so rigorous abt it

[rigid anchor]

if we lose rigor, we have nothing

[pearl crane]

First tell me your opinion, if i was wrong then what was correct?

[tranquil linden]

This is something no real mathematician would ever say.

[pearl crane]

You couldve just corrected instead of called me wrong straight away

[rigid anchor]

his or anyone else's opinion is irrelevant

[tranquil linden]

You've said so many wrong things I have no fucking clue which one in particular you're talking about.

[rigid anchor]

that's what I did, but you chose to double down

[pearl crane]

You are forgeting about the fact that i am no mathematician and just a learner except you are the one teaching here so do it mindfully if u do

[rigid anchor]

and yet you are making claims about mathematics

[pearl crane]

I am not arguing about that i am just not happy with this other guy's way of talking, like does he expect me to be a mathematician? He might be better than me but he is not good at teaching abt it to others and i will insult him for that

[pearl crane]

I made it clear at first that i am just a teenager

[rigid anchor]

do you believe that's a valid defense?

[tranquil linden]

In order to learn, you have to admit you don't know. To learn from me, you have to admit I do know. You've already failed miserably at both of these.

[pearl crane]

Thats absolutely a valid defense because i came here to learn and debate about it

Not to prove it right here

[rigid anchor]

we can resume the conversation in a few years, then you can't cop out

[tranquil linden]

No you didn't. You have no intellectual humility.

[pearl crane]

No, what your purpose was to just humble me rather than helping me

[rigid anchor]

what you want to learn about has taken people years, don't expect us to be able to summarise analysis in a handful lines of text for you

there's a reason why math textbooks are looooooong

[pearl crane]

When did i say i expect yall to summarise?

You gave your time i am happily satisfied with it

[tranquil linden]

You literally came in here claiming to "explain 1/0", then responded to a proof that no such thing exists by disagreeing that 0 + 0 = 0.

[pearl crane]

but some people are here just to humble and trying to show that theyre very intelligent infront of a kid

[rigid anchor]

when you are clearly wrong about something, you need to be told

[pearl crane]

What you know were the 2 words "explain 1/0" and completely ignored every other thing

[tranquil linden]

I can't teach you if you assume you know better than me.

[pearl crane]

I never made such assumptions

You felt it because you assumed it on me

If you were so confident abt urself over me why did u even let that happen?

rubbish

[rigid anchor]

if you didn't make this assumption, then we wouldn't be having this drawn out conversation

[flat bane]

please don't be rude to your helpers

[pearl crane]

he aint helping

he was most of the time trying to humble me

Because he thought that i am assuming to be smarter

[flat bane]

well they are stating facts

[pearl crane]

They did

[flat bane]

they were here helping for days

[pearl crane]

But what did i say? They mostly humbled me unlike the other helpers

[rigid anchor]

you choose to be difficult

[pearl crane]

i chose to be difficult?

[pearl crane]

Wrong, they just get between conversations, drop their statements and tell me to prove them wrong and start humbling me

[rigid anchor]

in your defense, if you say you've been contemplating this idea for two years, I can empathise with how you feel when someone tells you it's wrong

[pearl crane]

Is it called help?

[tranquil linden]

You're asserting that I'm wrong, and we do prove our assertions in math!

[pearl crane]

Ive realised that

But what i asked was to improve it with limits

As i sent the msg above

[rigid anchor]

I keep coming back to it, but you are lacking basic knowledge in logic

there are no improvements to be made

[pearl crane]

But they just say 'no' because they feel its the only easier reply just because they fucking assume and i rhink myself to be better than them?

[pearl crane]

I think u didnt see the msg

[rigid anchor]

yes I did, you are still hung up on this idea of giving 1/0 meaning

it has none

[pearl crane]

Not really

1/0 is no more the point

[rigid anchor]

if you say so

[pearl crane]

its about 1/x lim x tends to 0^+/-

[tranquil linden]

What about it?

[rigid anchor]

and the significance

what conclusions do you make of infinite limits?

[pearl crane]

That you wont understand because you never cared ro know the whole point of my theory and closed ur eyes on it after u saw the word 'a number divided by 0'

[rigid anchor]

I keep telling you, if you make a false assumption, then you can write whatever you want as a conclusion

he can close his eyes or not, it wouldn't change anything

see how we keep coming back to basic properties of logic?

logic seems kind of important, you should learn it

[pearl crane]

I before related 1/0 as a number obtained when a higher dimensional quantity is observed relative to lower dimension (dont ask me Explaination but yeah when i assumed 1/0 as a number i proved it on that basis) so if i make the limit as tends to that 1/0 thing (by what i said now abt 1/x thing) that would represent a tendency to obtain a higher dimensional quantity wrt to lower one

ik it sounds like a wordsoup

But pls understand

[rigid anchor]

it is wordsoup until you define what "higher dimensiopnal quantity with respect to lower dimensional quantity" means, for starters

[pearl crane]

Ive rold u that many times

'Told'

[rigid anchor]

and if it was well defined, I wouldn't keep asking

[pearl crane]

Ive sent the images too

[pearl crane]

I tried defining it in the images i sent

The base concept one

[pearl crane]

^

[tranquil linden]

I before related 1/0 as a number
Which it isn't.

[rigid anchor]

the only part I understand is n-volume

this is n-dimensional lebesgue measure, basically

and I think what you are getting at is that "a line has 0 area", "a subset of a plane has 0 volume" etc etc

but so what?

[pearl crane]

What is a subset?

[rigid anchor]

if a sheet of paper is your plane, then a subset of that plane would be any cutout

or the entire sheet itself

and it is true that its 3-dimensional lebesgue measure is zero

[pearl crane]

Yes so i took a method where we represent it as a ratio of the plane with its subset

and call this ratio as "the value of the plane 'with respect to'/'relative to' tgat subset"

[rigid anchor]

here's a problem

a plane is not a number

[pearl crane]

But the quantity associated with the plane is thats why i used the concept of n-volume

[rigid anchor]

so area of the plane?

[pearl crane]

because that could be the most fundamental quantity that could be associate with that plane

[pearl crane]

yes

[rigid anchor]

ok, so it would have to be finite, but we can work with that

[pearl crane]

So according to that i called 0 as "a lower dimensional plane wrt a higher dimensional subset" i said lower dimensional because for the ratio to be 0, the plane should be 0 too and for that to happen it the plane would have to be either a line or a point making the any of the axis components zero and hence the n-volume zero and the subset still be a plane sheet

[rigid anchor]

"the plane should be 0 too" lost me again

[pearl crane]

*the n-volume of the plane should be 0 too

[rigid anchor]

you're running into the 1 apple between 0 kids problem again

[pearl crane]

But in a more mathematical way

[rigid anchor]

that's irrelevant, you can't do this

for example you take the unit cube relative to its base

higher dimensional quantity w.r.t lower dimensional one

it's division by 0 all over again

[pearl crane]

Its like i am trying to change the 0 magnitude subplanes inside a 1 magnitude plane into a 1 magnitude lower dimensional plane inside a 1 magnitude plane

[pearl crane]

Its like seeing how many lines or points can fit in a sheet of paper

[rigid anchor]

infinitely many

[pearl crane]

Or like how many 2d sheets can fit in a 3d cube

[rigid anchor]

infinitely many

a 2d sheet doesn't have a thickness

[pearl crane]

so atleast we know that when we are approaching to infinitely that means we are trying to fit into a larger dimension which can never happen?

[rigid anchor]

in physics terms you would be using units such as "cubic meters per square meters" which is nonsense

[pearl crane]

am i right to say that?

[pearl crane]

Its not that simple

[pearl crane]

What i tried to say was this

[rigid anchor]

this whole thing is rotten

[pearl crane]

why

[rigid anchor]

very strictly speaking 2d objects don't exist in 3d space in the first place

[pearl crane]

Exactly!

[rigid anchor]

you can make 2d objects 3d objects by giving them "0 height", in some cases

but then answering how many sheets of height 0 you can stack in a cube of height 1

is the 1/0 problem all over again

[pearl crane]

yk the formula for force of attraction?

[rigid anchor]

how or why is that even relevant now

[pearl crane]

In which F \propto 1/r^2

[rigid anchor]

why are you brining newtonian mechanics into this

[pearl crane]

trust me i am trying to explain something

of why i even got this idea

[pearl crane]

or rather take the formula of gravitional potential where we need one only mass effectively

G \propto 1/r^2

at r=0 its the point where the centre of the mass is located

So what happens to the gravitational potential when we reaches to its centre?

[rigid anchor]

that is not how it works

again, you are interpreting newtonian mechanics and reaching incorrect conclusions

[pearl crane]

wait nvm this isnt a good example

there is gauss law for that sorry that wasnt a good example

[rigid anchor]

to be specific, the centers of mass of two bodies in nature, no matter how small, will never be at 0 distance from one another

[pearl crane]

But ive heard about blackholes that it diverges to infinity when r tends to 0

[rigid anchor]

and secondly, the formula does not imply gravitational force becomes arbitrarily large

and thirdly, the gravitational force is also proportional to the masses of the bodies

[pearl crane]

Well i dont think newtonian formulae are good for this

i learnt about something called Kretschmann scalar

I used that formula for blackholes divergence

[rigid anchor]

what does all of this have to do with what you are trying to explain

there are many people who mix and match legit concepts and shoehorn them into their own "theories"

this is not unique to you

[pearl crane]

I mean i wanted to explain what happens to Kretschmann scalar when we are approaching at centre of blackhole

[rigid anchor]

that would imply you understand the theory

[pearl crane]

my theory?

[rigid anchor]

astrophysics

[pearl crane]

I dont

[twilit kraken]

I hate to be like this, but there are people out there, far more experienced and knowledgeable than you, who already worked on it decades ago.

[rigid anchor]

hard work & dedication is like kryptonite to cranks

[twilit kraken]

And being humble

[rigid anchor]

ooh..the h-word

[twilit kraken]

"World's best mathematician couldn't solve ... the impossible conjecture ... but I likely can. And if it doesn't work I'll try a different approach"

What bothers me the most is when they watch a single youtube video on a difficult problem and try to solve it, despite not understanding the actual theory behind it

And when something is too difficult they leave it out entirely

e.g. proving the Riemann hypothesis using highschool algebra

[rigid anchor]

well, he hasn't made claims of solving any of the millenium problems ..yet

[tranquil linden]

Then stop fucking acting like you do. Stop acting like you should or can "explain" shit abour things you admit you don't understand.

[torpid gazelle]

In that case the response is to post the vixra signup link and close the thread 😍

[twilit kraken]

who is that?

[torpid gazelle]

John Gabriel of new calculus fame

[pearl crane]

You are not speaking to your wife so watch your mouth

[pearl crane]

I am impressed if someone did that before. Can you show me their work btw?

[pearl crane]

i feel doomed rn

[twilit kraken]

Seriously? Who talks down to their wife like that?

Maybe you shouldn't focus on maths, but being a decent human, you troglodyte.

[pearl crane]

i thought u were writing something informative

[pearl crane]

oh so now you will think that its my mindset for some wife?

i would ask

why would you think i would say that to my wife? Just because i said that phrase?

I suggest you to not judge my personality on the basis of what i belief for others okay?

[twilit kraken]

Yes, even thinking of that scenario displays certain underlying moral values and beliefs.

[pearl crane]

I didnt wanted to be rude but anyways i chose to reply like that because theyre getting on my veins

[pearl crane]

That scenario could be from observed surroundings too i mean there any many possibilities

[twilit kraken]

Maybe pull your shit together and stop wasting people's time. Your theory has no basis and is absolutely pointless.

https://vixra.org/submit

[pearl crane]

well

My theory is secondary now

[twilit kraken]

To?

[pearl crane]

Answer this

[twilit kraken]

Another theory?

[twilit kraken]

A simple online search will give your the answer

It takes less than a minute.

Clearly, you don't want to make an actual effort anywhere.

[pearl crane]

Oh i will be honored if that less than a minute is given by you

because afterall you said the people worked on it before

[twilit kraken]

Lazy, once again.

You're not worthy of my time.

[pearl crane]

thats better

thank you and please leave