On the previous version,
I used the less-than sign and stuff disappeared !


aRGar wrote:
>The equation shoud be 0 + 0 = 1
and not O + 0 = 1

First, it is true the letter O plus the number zero would not equal one.


For the main proposition:
less than 1 (which was rounded to zero)
+ less than 1 (which was rounded to zero)
= 1
(for equal sign, may substitute symbol for approx.)

In real life, which Harv seems to prefer,
sometimes a fraction is rounded to the nearest whole number.
Imagine a Bronze Age company which makes cans.
Pouring from the fire into rock molds can be messy, and some cans don't turn out. Partial cans are discarded by remelting them, increasing the number of burns the workers receive on their fur clothes.
Thus a quantity
A consultant suggests combining the partial cans to make various odd containers for special markets. What had been discarded (zeros) becomes a new product (ones).

Another example: in some nutty towns, a mopey person alone might not be appreciated and be considered a zero. But two mopey persons together are considered formidable, hence, the "no" becomes yes" . . . two zeros together become a "one"

Another example: two of anything which are deemed "morose" alone are combined to form something "happy."
I was given permission to make up these groundbreaking math definitions because this concept also has application at the frontiers of theoretical physics and assembling jigsaw puzzles. Two puzzling pieces (0s) each alone are worthless but when they fit together (1) you can publish a paper.

"Ek Listoy PPovum"

Mikey

• Mike, how about justifying that 0=1000000 ? - alexander - January 16, 2002 - 04:33 UTC
  • Sorry, that does not work - carefuluniverse - January 16, 2002 - 06:44 UTC
  • Seems CBS Radio Eye wants you to know your behavior is excellent - carefuluniverse - January 16, 2002 - 07:12 UTC
    • I'm so embarrassed - quiet - January 16, 2002 - 21:25 UTC
      • Me too! - yanniru - January 17, 2002 - 15:06 UTC
        • What is our precise standard for measuring quality of posts? - quiet - January 17, 2002 - 17:52 UTC
          • Mike, quality of posts are indeed way below anyone else here. - alexander - January 17, 2002 - 23:33 UTC
        • I didn't mean anything except fun with those movie citations - occupant - January 17, 2002 - 20:03 UTC
  • Okay have a nice week, "old" man - quiet - January 16, 2002 - 07:56 UTC
  • Hello??? - medvedbr - January 21, 2002 - 00:59 UTC
• Example where 1=0 (Alex requested this) - quiet - January 16, 2002 - 17:25 UTC
  • Yes, we should. Chaos does not come "from nowhere." - alexander - January 18, 2002 - 03:48 UTC