Talk:Laws of Zero

This is an essay, an opinion, as given by the author, though some other editors have worked on it a little. Conclusions may be presented that are outside of mainstream understanding, as if this were a logical deduction from first principles. That is acceptable in a subpage that presents the essay as attributed opinion. It is acceptable if the essay becomes an object of study and criticism. There are a number of ways to handle this and comply with Wikimedia Foundation neutrality policy. I am, here, leaving the page in mainspace for a time, though it may be moved to a subpage of a mathematics resource. The author has created a family of essays and has, as well, injected his ideas in other resources. His essays may be ultimately be linked through a category. At the moment, most of his work has been moved into his user space, and it has been blanked by him without explanation, as he blanked this resource at one time. (See for a prior blanking.

In this case, I intend to discuss the essay, interspersed, and any user may add comments. If the author or anyone objects to this, there are other ways to handle this. Absent objection, this resource then becomes a discussion of the original essay, with the original being linked, unaltered from his last version, at the top. —Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

metacomments by Shadowjack
Disclosures[edit]

I was topic-banned on en.wikipedia, on the topic of Cold fusion, due to alleged tendentious editing. As this matter was before ArbComm, I realized that there was a business opportunity in the field, providing materials and designs for wide replication of a widely-publicized experiment (original paper) that showed the production of energetic neutrons at very low levels from cold fusion cells of a certain type, and so I began to develop an inexpensive experimental design, and am already offering the raw materials for sale at lomaxdesign.com/coldfusion. While I am committed to neutrality, this activity obviously creates a conflict of interest, which should be noted. I am now "community banned" on Wikipedia. I am a user in good standing on all other WMF wikis. —Abd ([[User talk:Abd|discuss]

Shadowjack response to user Abd.

Very grateful to User Abd. Fully aware of above disclosure.

The answer is no. And in the sense of meaning no, not yes. But don't let that stop you.

Partly the reason the answer is no, is because there is money on it. There is money on wikiversity. There is money on the music industry, on the perfect syllogism, on the formulas of the golden ratio. For example Disney uses Phi in the y of Disney.

Meaning that I agree with what I have said. And if you disagree with what I have said, then it is your money, not mine. So you can do it, but I wouldn't.

Do not ask for any more. Please do disagree with any small or large part of what I have said, if you do so for the purpose of proving some permanent better statement. I am not worried about the deformation of the articles that must occur as this happens, given the original documentation is intact.

Much of what I have written is either entirely original, or an entirely original presentation of someone else's work. It has been written creatively, in real time so that the Shadowjack articles coincide with the date 26.1.13 and the Glimmerguard articles coincide with the date 31.3.13.

Since I have written in real time, most of what I have written could be better presented. But that is not what I mean. I intend for the information to be passed to people who do understand what it is and why it is. They would rather it not be made pretty. For this purpose the 26.1.13 and 31.3.13 documents are satisfactory.

I do not intend that this information becomes mainstream. I do expect that it will find its way to people who would not in the normal way of things be educated in this system.

For example Oxford logic. Oxford logic as I have stated it, rooted in the syllogism of Aristotle is no longer fashionable or favoured. Therefore it is not normally available. This will not go the other way. As time goes by, given the type of logics that are commonly available to people learning computer programming, the classical logic described here would become even less well understood.

So I have presented a very correct pattern of logic including fifty six detailed formulas written by Aristotle, invented before the Roman Empire existed. It should be no less important to every educated person of any ethnic background or religion than learning the mathematics times tables.

Maybe you have to be very clever to understand the syllogism logic sytem. But that is not true.

Learning it is not more difficult than learning the mathematics times tables. So if you can remember before you knew your times tables and how difficult they are to learn, it is not more difficult than that.

You can go to other sources to learn some of the system I have described. But you cannot go to a public source that I have not studied.

I have written in such a way that you cannot fail to learn the matter, if you carefully read the information and give it time. So a sensible person of less strong intellect could learn the entire system of logic given some work over a timescale of two years.

The one condition that must be satisfied in some sense, is that wikiversity is not the single receptacle for the given information, which is what the two primary documents satisfy. So then it is quite okay for wikiversity to be one of the receptacles for the information.

Other than that we are on a timescale. It may be already satisfied that if wikiversity was put out of business tomorrow my information is already safe. Which implies it is no longer my information, nor wikiversity's information. It is other people's.

Finished now, thanks.


 * You're welcome, Shadowjack. I'm not sure what you think that Disclosure means as relevant to what we are about on this page, but, fine.


 * I also have no clue what question you are answering with No. You say, "Don't ask for more." So I suppose I'll simply make up my own question. Thanks. I thought so.


 * Everything has potential value, even a dead cat's head, in the famous story. Priceless, in fact. Probably worth even more than my cold fusion research materials business, particularly since I largely abandoned that project some years ago, because that particular experiment, though of high interest, actually means little in a practical sense. It produces a few neutrons, according to the SPAWAR researchers, but so what? There is not a lot of value in simply showing that expectations could be wrong, and critics simply make up some possible artifact (they come up with some doozies!) and dismiss it without ever actually showing error. That's been going on for two decades with cold fusion, it's one of the reasons it is so interesting to this student of Feynman.


 * I have acted to preserve the history of your edits. Pages like yours are frequently deleted, in which case only administrators would be able to see them. Pages of your authorship that are blanked in your user space might eventually be deleted on that basis. Some administrators will assume that this means you want it deleted, and *usually* such requests will be granted, unless others have also worked on them.


 * I have never learned well by memorization. So when you talk about "learning the multiplication tables* and "learning the syllogism logic system," I'm not terribly impressed, and certainly not eager to learn a pile of arbitrary symbolic relations, as defined by you, without adequate foundation but only implications.


 * Everything here is written in what would ordinarily be called "real time." Some people edit what they write, that would be the difference. The meaning of your reference to two dates is unclear, like much of what you write. Again, I could guess, but why bother?


 * Everything on Wikiversity is irrevocably released through the site license. There is no restriction on your ability to upload the same information elsewhere. You do represent that you have the right to save it here. If my work is successful, and I have every reason to think it will be, indeed, your work is safe from loss here, probably for many years. We rarely delete anything that has potential educational value. This has little to do with whether or not it is "correct." —Abd (discuss • contribs) 04:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The division operator
One of the problems with the Shadowjack essay is that he does not define his operators, and, in particular, the definition of the division operator is crucial in considering 0/0. In another essay,, Shadowjack talks about some "definitions."


 * Each definition will be provided in a simplest possible term to start with, and then as required each definition will be expanded in order to clarify the understanding that is developed.


 * 1.1=1


 * 0.0=0



Shadowjack is using a period as the multiplication operator.) He has not defined the multiplication operator; rather he has given three examples. But he presents them as definitions, so is he planning to define multiplication by presenting all the possible examples? I rather doubt it.


 * If a.b=c then c/a=b and c/b=a

Again, this is not a definition, but a deduction, probably from the definition of the division operator. The multiplication operator produces a single result with any fixed numbers. When the variables are a set, it produces sets of results. And if the variable is infinite, it produces an infinite set of results. Shadowjack seems to address the possibility of more than one answer elsewhere. But he still has not defined the division operator.


 * If 1.1=1 then 1/1=1

The problem is that natural definitions of the division operator are not defined for the divisor equal to zero.

If 0.0=0 then 0/0=0

Shadowjack has not specified the logical relationship. He appears to be reasoning by analogy. If a * a = 1, what is a? There are two answers, +1 and −1.

Using the same process, if 1*0 = 0, then 0/0 = 1. Or any other number. It is commonly said that 0/0 is undefined. I'd prefer to say that it returns the set of all numbers without limit. Either of these can be justified. What is more difficult to justify is defining it as equal to 0, and not the other possible answers. All of them satisfy the relationship that connects a*b with a*b/b.

If ∞.∞=∞ then ∞/∞=∞

Here it is assumed that infinity is a number. It's, rather, an unlimited set of numbers. N times infinity equals infinity. N plus infinity equals infinity. If infinity were a particular number, then we could subtract infinity from (infinity + 1) and get 1. We cannot. Thus infinity minus infinity returns an infinite set *which includes all the finite numbers.*

Take the set of all even integers. That's an infinite set. Now, take the set of all integers. What do we get if we divide the number of all integers by the number of all even integers. We can easily show that the answer is two. But we can also show that the answer is any number, including infinity. Shadowjack has only infinity/infinity = infinity.

(Bottom line, definitions are missing and thus deductive logic is also missing. Shadowjack is merely making assertions.)