0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 08/08/2019 23:18:46It was not a mathematical operation before, but I now add it to mathematical operations, which works for undefined cases.It doesn't work. It is literally a lack of a mathematical operation.

It was not a mathematical operation before, but I now add it to mathematical operations, which works for undefined cases.

No it doesn't. It gives the wrong answer. Zero multiplied by zero does not equal four.

it can't be proven wrong it can't be proven right,

Relativistic kinetic energy:K.E=mc²/√(1-v²/c²)-mc²At the speed v=c for a mass, the expression √(1-v²/c²) will equal zero:K.E=mc²/0 - mc² , K.E = 0-mc²K.E=-mc²But energyof mass m equals:E=mc² K.E=-EThe kinetic energy of a mass m moving at the speed of light c equals the energy of the mass, and that what is the kinetic energy of a photon is, the kinetic energy of a photon is its contained energy, the kinetic energy of a mass m moving at v=c is its contained energy E , i.e the energy of its mass

if I can't do the operation then...

Let me add another proof:m=m0/(1- v²/c²)if v=0 then m=0, a photon moving at the speed of light is massles.

No|If v=0 then v^2/c^2 = 0m=m0/(1- 0)m=m0/(1)m=m0

Actually limits are not included in my assumption

Lack of mathematical operation is not dividing from the first place

when a moving object with constant speed hit another object it stops, that doesn't mean it didn't move at the beginning., in fact we could know the kinetic energy of the other object from the kinetic energy of the first one.

You can't reverse the operation , These expressions are a special case , the reverse operation doesn't work for them. This is a rule for my assumption, it can't be proven wrong it can't be proven right

I presented proofs for my original assumption in the original post

when you differentiate at f=0, you get sin(2f)/f=0/0=2cos(2f)/1=2/1 = 2

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 19/08/2019 19:55:06Lack of mathematical operation is not dividing from the first place

If 4/0 is not defined it means that 4/0 can't be done

I add non-division to mathematical operations.

If not dividing = non-division they will give the same result.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 19/08/2019 19:55:06You can't reverse the operation , These expressions are a special case , the reverse operation doesn't work for them. This is a rule for my assumption, it can't be proven wrong it can't be proven rightIt can be proven wrong. In math, it is possible to rearrange equations to produce equivalent expressions. The general form x/y = z can be rearranged by multiplying both sides by y. When you do this, you get y(x/y) = yz. In the part y(x/y), the two y's cancel to give you just an x. The result is x = yz. This proves that x/y = z is equivalent to x = yz. Now, replace x with 4 and y and z with 0. You get 4 = (0)(0). This is wrong, so the equivalent expression 4/0 = 0 is also wrong.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 20/08/2019 09:20:21If 4/0 is not defined it means that 4/0 can't be doneExactly. If it can't be done, you can't get an answer.

4/0 is undefined

this can't be done but gives an answer:

√- x when x is positive can't be done , but √- x could equal a number I in which √- x=I and I²= - x

(1) You are actually dividing, in which case, by definition, you aren't using non-division, or(2) You aren't dividing and therefore aren't solving 4/0.

So I actually have a result of dividing which is non-division then dividing by zero is defined according to my idea.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 24/08/2019 14:35:00So I actually have a result of dividing which is non-division then dividing by zero is defined according to my idea.Why would you call something which is not dividing, "dividing"? Are you being deliberately confusing?

and my values satisfy five equations in physics,

1) If I'm dividing then I'm acting on something which has a result of not dividing

2) If I'm not dividing nothing should happen

but according to my definition when r=0 F =0 which is a true fact

and my values satisfy five equations in physics

An oxymoron. If you are dividing the result cannot be "not dividing". That makes about as much since me saying If I made this post then I'm acting on something which has a result of not making this post. It's completely loopy.

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 24/08/2019 16:01:39but according to my definition when r=0 F =0 which is a true factWhen was this "true fact" ever demonstrated?

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 24/08/2019 16:01:39and my values satisfy five equations in physicsBut they don't.