Comments on: Nullity http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity An amateur's outlook on computation and mathematics. Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:57:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 Comment on Nullity by: venousto http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1725 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:15:00 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1725 http://phebus.journalintime.com/forum/2006-05-02-zero 0phi=1 i^2=-1 i^2=+1 e^x=-1 http://phebus.journalintime.com/forum/2006-05-02-zero

0phi=1
i^2=-1
i^2=+1
e^x=-1

]]> Comment on Nullity by: Dr, Chen http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1282 Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:02:44 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1282 The problem was not quite solved by pythagoras. Almost, but not quite. There are 3 existential types, not just 2. 1) That which exists. 2) That which does not exist. 3) That for which existence is indeterminate. Any trivial is of the third type because “The Existence of a Trivial is Indeterminate”. This last statement can be proved quite easily. It says that given any unique object, there is no way to determine if the object is really itself, or if it is in fact a trivial clone of itself. This is indeterminate. One can exploit this existential indeterminacy of the trivials to make all kinds of unusual models. http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/ He has attempted to understand the trivial, to give it a symbol. He fails because he tried to divide by zero, all one need do is violate uniqueness. Huang The problem was not quite solved by pythagoras. Almost, but not quite.

There are 3 existential types, not just 2.

1) That which exists.
2) That which does not exist.
3) That for which existence is indeterminate.

Any trivial is of the third type because “The Existence of a Trivial is Indeterminate”.

This last statement can be proved quite easily. It says that given any unique object, there is no way to determine if the object is really itself, or if it is in fact a trivial clone of itself. This is indeterminate.

One can exploit this existential indeterminacy of the trivials to make all kinds of unusual models.

http://sciphysicsopenmanuscript.blogspot.com/

He has attempted to understand the trivial, to give it a symbol. He fails because he tried to divide by zero, all one need do is violate uniqueness.

Huang

]]> Comment on Nullity by: coturnix http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1279 Sat, 09 Dec 2006 23:47:15 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1279 <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-search.cgi?Template=combinedSearch&#38;search=nullity&#38;x=0&#38;y=0" rel="nofollow">Here are</a> some good rebuttals. Here are some good rebuttals.

]]> Comment on Nullity by: Jonathan Katz http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1240 Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:33:02 +0000 http://bit-player.org/2006/nullity#comment-1240 Maybe you should make clear that this is a shoddy example of journalism, giving too much coverage to a non-discovery by someone who seems like a crackpot? Maybe you should make clear that this is a shoddy example of journalism, giving too much coverage to a non-discovery by someone who seems like a crackpot?

]]>