What are the mathematical properties of ⊥ in wheel theory?
I'm talking about the value of 0/0 in wheel theory, often denoted as "⊥." What are the behaviours of operations like addition, multiplication, exponentiation, trigonometric functions, their inverses, etc when ⊥ is involved? As far as I can guess, the outputs of all operations involving ⊥ should be ⊥, but I can't prove that for all operations.
ring-theory riemann-sphere
add a comment |
I'm talking about the value of 0/0 in wheel theory, often denoted as "⊥." What are the behaviours of operations like addition, multiplication, exponentiation, trigonometric functions, their inverses, etc when ⊥ is involved? As far as I can guess, the outputs of all operations involving ⊥ should be ⊥, but I can't prove that for all operations.
ring-theory riemann-sphere
add a comment |
I'm talking about the value of 0/0 in wheel theory, often denoted as "⊥." What are the behaviours of operations like addition, multiplication, exponentiation, trigonometric functions, their inverses, etc when ⊥ is involved? As far as I can guess, the outputs of all operations involving ⊥ should be ⊥, but I can't prove that for all operations.
ring-theory riemann-sphere
I'm talking about the value of 0/0 in wheel theory, often denoted as "⊥." What are the behaviours of operations like addition, multiplication, exponentiation, trigonometric functions, their inverses, etc when ⊥ is involved? As far as I can guess, the outputs of all operations involving ⊥ should be ⊥, but I can't prove that for all operations.
ring-theory riemann-sphere
ring-theory riemann-sphere
edited Nov 18 at 22:11
user26857
39.2k123983
39.2k123983
asked Nov 18 at 15:49
ozigzagor
714
714
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Yes, the nullity element will absorb everything in all operations, similar to "NaN" in IEEE 754 floating point (except that it compares equal to itself because it is a "number", or at least equal citizen as an element of the wheel.).
For addition, it is axiomatic that
$$x + bot = bot$$
so no proof here is required. For multiplication, we note that
$$bot = 0/0 = 0 cdot /0$$
Now consider $xbot$. This equals $x (0/0)$ which by associativity equals $(x0)/0$. But from here, we cannot simply go directly here because $0x = 0$ is an identity that does not hold in wheels - after all we need $0/0 = 0cdot /0 = 0x = bot$ for $x = /0$. Instead, we have the other axiom that
$$(x + yz)/y = x/y + z + 0y$$
and we take $x = 0$ and $y = 0$ so the left side becomes
$$(0 + 0z)/0 = (0z)/0 = 0/0 + z + 0(0) = 0/0 + z = z + 0/0 = 0/0$$
Thus, of course, since it doesn't matter what we call it, we have $(x0)/0 = 0/0$ so $xbot = bot$.
That $/bot = bot$ is, of course, trivial. Thus we have proven the desired result since the full set of operations on a wheel is $+$, $cdot$, and $/$.
One way you can think of this intuitively was discussed in an earlier thread of mine here about how one could go about imagining a "topological wheel" where we put a spatial structure upon the "extended projective real wheel":
"Wheel Theory", Extended Reals, Limits, and "Nullity": Can DNE limits be made to equal the element "$0/0$"?
In particular, $bot$ (or $Phi$) could be considered here to be a sort of internal metaphor for the entire wheel itself. Thus the result of doing any operation to it is, essentially, "anything" and thus itself. Note that this also rather nicely gels with the intuitive notion of calculus of $frac{0}{0}$ as an "indeterminate form" that can take on any, and every, value. Geometrically, this also makes some sense, as you could say that "technically", the graph of the "function"
$$f(x) := frac{0}{x}$$
when $x$ is real, "should" have a vertical line at $x = 0$ just as it has a horizontal one at $y = 0$, looking at the limit as the numerator shrinks, but of course we can't allow that as it's a function so we leave the value at $x = 0$ undefined. Nonetheless, if you do go with this, it would agree conceptually also with this understanding of $Phi$, which would be what we'd get if we consider it as a function in the wheel, and moreover, geometrically such a shape is a degenerate hyperbola, which again makes sense given this is the limiting case of non-degenerate hyperbolae (namely of $f_a(x) := frac{a}{x}$ as $a rightarrow 0$). (But this also makezz mvee gvoo Pveezzgh!)
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003703%2fwhat-are-the-mathematical-properties-of-%25e2%258a%25a5-in-wheel-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, the nullity element will absorb everything in all operations, similar to "NaN" in IEEE 754 floating point (except that it compares equal to itself because it is a "number", or at least equal citizen as an element of the wheel.).
For addition, it is axiomatic that
$$x + bot = bot$$
so no proof here is required. For multiplication, we note that
$$bot = 0/0 = 0 cdot /0$$
Now consider $xbot$. This equals $x (0/0)$ which by associativity equals $(x0)/0$. But from here, we cannot simply go directly here because $0x = 0$ is an identity that does not hold in wheels - after all we need $0/0 = 0cdot /0 = 0x = bot$ for $x = /0$. Instead, we have the other axiom that
$$(x + yz)/y = x/y + z + 0y$$
and we take $x = 0$ and $y = 0$ so the left side becomes
$$(0 + 0z)/0 = (0z)/0 = 0/0 + z + 0(0) = 0/0 + z = z + 0/0 = 0/0$$
Thus, of course, since it doesn't matter what we call it, we have $(x0)/0 = 0/0$ so $xbot = bot$.
That $/bot = bot$ is, of course, trivial. Thus we have proven the desired result since the full set of operations on a wheel is $+$, $cdot$, and $/$.
One way you can think of this intuitively was discussed in an earlier thread of mine here about how one could go about imagining a "topological wheel" where we put a spatial structure upon the "extended projective real wheel":
"Wheel Theory", Extended Reals, Limits, and "Nullity": Can DNE limits be made to equal the element "$0/0$"?
In particular, $bot$ (or $Phi$) could be considered here to be a sort of internal metaphor for the entire wheel itself. Thus the result of doing any operation to it is, essentially, "anything" and thus itself. Note that this also rather nicely gels with the intuitive notion of calculus of $frac{0}{0}$ as an "indeterminate form" that can take on any, and every, value. Geometrically, this also makes some sense, as you could say that "technically", the graph of the "function"
$$f(x) := frac{0}{x}$$
when $x$ is real, "should" have a vertical line at $x = 0$ just as it has a horizontal one at $y = 0$, looking at the limit as the numerator shrinks, but of course we can't allow that as it's a function so we leave the value at $x = 0$ undefined. Nonetheless, if you do go with this, it would agree conceptually also with this understanding of $Phi$, which would be what we'd get if we consider it as a function in the wheel, and moreover, geometrically such a shape is a degenerate hyperbola, which again makes sense given this is the limiting case of non-degenerate hyperbolae (namely of $f_a(x) := frac{a}{x}$ as $a rightarrow 0$). (But this also makezz mvee gvoo Pveezzgh!)
add a comment |
Yes, the nullity element will absorb everything in all operations, similar to "NaN" in IEEE 754 floating point (except that it compares equal to itself because it is a "number", or at least equal citizen as an element of the wheel.).
For addition, it is axiomatic that
$$x + bot = bot$$
so no proof here is required. For multiplication, we note that
$$bot = 0/0 = 0 cdot /0$$
Now consider $xbot$. This equals $x (0/0)$ which by associativity equals $(x0)/0$. But from here, we cannot simply go directly here because $0x = 0$ is an identity that does not hold in wheels - after all we need $0/0 = 0cdot /0 = 0x = bot$ for $x = /0$. Instead, we have the other axiom that
$$(x + yz)/y = x/y + z + 0y$$
and we take $x = 0$ and $y = 0$ so the left side becomes
$$(0 + 0z)/0 = (0z)/0 = 0/0 + z + 0(0) = 0/0 + z = z + 0/0 = 0/0$$
Thus, of course, since it doesn't matter what we call it, we have $(x0)/0 = 0/0$ so $xbot = bot$.
That $/bot = bot$ is, of course, trivial. Thus we have proven the desired result since the full set of operations on a wheel is $+$, $cdot$, and $/$.
One way you can think of this intuitively was discussed in an earlier thread of mine here about how one could go about imagining a "topological wheel" where we put a spatial structure upon the "extended projective real wheel":
"Wheel Theory", Extended Reals, Limits, and "Nullity": Can DNE limits be made to equal the element "$0/0$"?
In particular, $bot$ (or $Phi$) could be considered here to be a sort of internal metaphor for the entire wheel itself. Thus the result of doing any operation to it is, essentially, "anything" and thus itself. Note that this also rather nicely gels with the intuitive notion of calculus of $frac{0}{0}$ as an "indeterminate form" that can take on any, and every, value. Geometrically, this also makes some sense, as you could say that "technically", the graph of the "function"
$$f(x) := frac{0}{x}$$
when $x$ is real, "should" have a vertical line at $x = 0$ just as it has a horizontal one at $y = 0$, looking at the limit as the numerator shrinks, but of course we can't allow that as it's a function so we leave the value at $x = 0$ undefined. Nonetheless, if you do go with this, it would agree conceptually also with this understanding of $Phi$, which would be what we'd get if we consider it as a function in the wheel, and moreover, geometrically such a shape is a degenerate hyperbola, which again makes sense given this is the limiting case of non-degenerate hyperbolae (namely of $f_a(x) := frac{a}{x}$ as $a rightarrow 0$). (But this also makezz mvee gvoo Pveezzgh!)
add a comment |
Yes, the nullity element will absorb everything in all operations, similar to "NaN" in IEEE 754 floating point (except that it compares equal to itself because it is a "number", or at least equal citizen as an element of the wheel.).
For addition, it is axiomatic that
$$x + bot = bot$$
so no proof here is required. For multiplication, we note that
$$bot = 0/0 = 0 cdot /0$$
Now consider $xbot$. This equals $x (0/0)$ which by associativity equals $(x0)/0$. But from here, we cannot simply go directly here because $0x = 0$ is an identity that does not hold in wheels - after all we need $0/0 = 0cdot /0 = 0x = bot$ for $x = /0$. Instead, we have the other axiom that
$$(x + yz)/y = x/y + z + 0y$$
and we take $x = 0$ and $y = 0$ so the left side becomes
$$(0 + 0z)/0 = (0z)/0 = 0/0 + z + 0(0) = 0/0 + z = z + 0/0 = 0/0$$
Thus, of course, since it doesn't matter what we call it, we have $(x0)/0 = 0/0$ so $xbot = bot$.
That $/bot = bot$ is, of course, trivial. Thus we have proven the desired result since the full set of operations on a wheel is $+$, $cdot$, and $/$.
One way you can think of this intuitively was discussed in an earlier thread of mine here about how one could go about imagining a "topological wheel" where we put a spatial structure upon the "extended projective real wheel":
"Wheel Theory", Extended Reals, Limits, and "Nullity": Can DNE limits be made to equal the element "$0/0$"?
In particular, $bot$ (or $Phi$) could be considered here to be a sort of internal metaphor for the entire wheel itself. Thus the result of doing any operation to it is, essentially, "anything" and thus itself. Note that this also rather nicely gels with the intuitive notion of calculus of $frac{0}{0}$ as an "indeterminate form" that can take on any, and every, value. Geometrically, this also makes some sense, as you could say that "technically", the graph of the "function"
$$f(x) := frac{0}{x}$$
when $x$ is real, "should" have a vertical line at $x = 0$ just as it has a horizontal one at $y = 0$, looking at the limit as the numerator shrinks, but of course we can't allow that as it's a function so we leave the value at $x = 0$ undefined. Nonetheless, if you do go with this, it would agree conceptually also with this understanding of $Phi$, which would be what we'd get if we consider it as a function in the wheel, and moreover, geometrically such a shape is a degenerate hyperbola, which again makes sense given this is the limiting case of non-degenerate hyperbolae (namely of $f_a(x) := frac{a}{x}$ as $a rightarrow 0$). (But this also makezz mvee gvoo Pveezzgh!)
Yes, the nullity element will absorb everything in all operations, similar to "NaN" in IEEE 754 floating point (except that it compares equal to itself because it is a "number", or at least equal citizen as an element of the wheel.).
For addition, it is axiomatic that
$$x + bot = bot$$
so no proof here is required. For multiplication, we note that
$$bot = 0/0 = 0 cdot /0$$
Now consider $xbot$. This equals $x (0/0)$ which by associativity equals $(x0)/0$. But from here, we cannot simply go directly here because $0x = 0$ is an identity that does not hold in wheels - after all we need $0/0 = 0cdot /0 = 0x = bot$ for $x = /0$. Instead, we have the other axiom that
$$(x + yz)/y = x/y + z + 0y$$
and we take $x = 0$ and $y = 0$ so the left side becomes
$$(0 + 0z)/0 = (0z)/0 = 0/0 + z + 0(0) = 0/0 + z = z + 0/0 = 0/0$$
Thus, of course, since it doesn't matter what we call it, we have $(x0)/0 = 0/0$ so $xbot = bot$.
That $/bot = bot$ is, of course, trivial. Thus we have proven the desired result since the full set of operations on a wheel is $+$, $cdot$, and $/$.
One way you can think of this intuitively was discussed in an earlier thread of mine here about how one could go about imagining a "topological wheel" where we put a spatial structure upon the "extended projective real wheel":
"Wheel Theory", Extended Reals, Limits, and "Nullity": Can DNE limits be made to equal the element "$0/0$"?
In particular, $bot$ (or $Phi$) could be considered here to be a sort of internal metaphor for the entire wheel itself. Thus the result of doing any operation to it is, essentially, "anything" and thus itself. Note that this also rather nicely gels with the intuitive notion of calculus of $frac{0}{0}$ as an "indeterminate form" that can take on any, and every, value. Geometrically, this also makes some sense, as you could say that "technically", the graph of the "function"
$$f(x) := frac{0}{x}$$
when $x$ is real, "should" have a vertical line at $x = 0$ just as it has a horizontal one at $y = 0$, looking at the limit as the numerator shrinks, but of course we can't allow that as it's a function so we leave the value at $x = 0$ undefined. Nonetheless, if you do go with this, it would agree conceptually also with this understanding of $Phi$, which would be what we'd get if we consider it as a function in the wheel, and moreover, geometrically such a shape is a degenerate hyperbola, which again makes sense given this is the limiting case of non-degenerate hyperbolae (namely of $f_a(x) := frac{a}{x}$ as $a rightarrow 0$). (But this also makezz mvee gvoo Pveezzgh!)
answered Nov 19 at 0:33
The_Sympathizer
7,4402245
7,4402245
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003703%2fwhat-are-the-mathematical-properties-of-%25e2%258a%25a5-in-wheel-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown