New Elements?

[Kael Hate]

lim 1/∞ = 0
lim (-1)/∞ = 0*
lim 1/(-∞) = 0
lim (-1)/(-∞) = 0*

Thus despite the ways in which we are approaching 0, the limit is the same for all 4. Thus negative and positive versions of the "numbers" involved (besides 1) make no difference. Thus logically both 0 and ∞ are something of modular values rather than numbers with a defined positive or negative position.

Basically, all the evidence points to -∞=+∞ -0=+0 and thus, as stated, while ∞ and 0 may well be opposites, neither is positive or negative.

Thats all good if Void is 0
But Void isn't 0 its the absence of a value.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/void
–noun
8. an empty space; emptiness: He disappeared into the void.
9. something experienced as a loss or privation: His death left a great void in her life.
10. a gap or opening, as in a wall.
11. a vacancy; vacuum.

Its where there was something that now isn't. A void is a measure of the difference of what was and now isn't. It is a Negative value, it is not 0.

[Selenbrant]

I started it because of that:

Thus, the unsigned infinity is the reciprocal of zero.

I just wanted to say, that the reciprocal of infinity isnt "0" unless you use limits or rather you just can express it with limits in a other way than 1/∞.

To use and undefinable value and then apply Limit to it is pointless.

So thats not the case....
Regardless of whether it makes sense to use it here or not my statement is correct.

lim 1/n = 0
n->∞

If you dont trust me just look wiki; near infinities; first case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_limits

No matter what you divide 1 by even to an infinite amount it aproaches 0 but never reaches it.

Yes and a limit is a function to express this approaches, so its "0".

Following your detail
1/n = 0
(1/n)*n = 0*n
n/n=0
1=0

Which is implausible

If you operate just with "1/n = 0" it will automatically become invalid by ignoring "lim" and "n->∞".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)#Limit_of_a_function
Shows a good example of using limit to define a theoretical value. We know that f(1.0) is equidistant between f(x) equidistant from 1 but that point of evaluation is undefineable so they have used a Lim to return the value 2.

I already know this example... its (x+1) expanded with (x-1)/(x-1), thus the term will be undefined with "x=1". To get the limit there you replace the "1" (or rather x) with an expression that approaches "1". For example lim(1 + 1/n); n->∞.

((x+1)(x-1))/(x-1)

replace "x" with lim(1 + 1/n); n->∞.

lim(((1 + 1/n)+1)*((1 + 1/n)-1))/((1 + 1/n)-1)=2
n->∞
(1+1) * reduced to "1"=2

[Kael Hate]

...snip...

Can we say?

Lim 1/∞ = 0
and
1/∞ <> 0

[Selenbrant]

We can .. and too it will end this "stupid" discussion, although I never said "snip".   
( I dont want to say somebody is stupid.)

[Kael Hate]

We can .. and too it will end this "stupid" discussion, although I never said "snip".   
( I dont want to say somebody is stupid.)

This is what happens when people try to suggest new elements.

[Bloodshadow]

Kael, I still disagree with your definition of Void. Void is not equivalent to Loss.

[Kael Hate]

Kael, I still disagree with your definition of Void. Void is not equivalent to Loss.

The dictionary states what a Void is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/void
–noun
8. an empty space; emptiness: He disappeared into the void.
9. something experienced as a loss or privation: His death left a great void in her life.
10. a gap or opening, as in a wall.
11. a vacancy; vacuum.

And thats a negative.



How about this:
If a Void is 0, and something is lost in the Void, the void still exists but is 0 + the the thing in the void, but is no longer 0 is it?

[Selenbrant]

Anyways, this has gone off topic far enough. I'm outta here.

I think its better to close this thread.
At least for me it feels more like a disputation, than a discussing and I dont like that.
(I dont want to say you(Bloodshadow) or Kael are wrong, but it will become an "endlesss thread".)

[smuglapse]

This is what happens when people try to suggest new elements.

Sticky it as a warning to others.   

[teffy]

0 is a nonnegative number and it´s not a positive number.

Lim 1/∞= 0 is not correct.

1/∞=0 , a+∞=∞ and such things have a symbolic meaning.

∞/∞ , ∞-∞ , 0*∞ is not defined.
1/∞=0 does not mean that 0*∞=1.


 Sometimes mathematicians use 0+ and 0- to show limites from the left and the right e.g.

lim   1/n = ∞; lim  1/n  = -∞;
n->0+             n->0-

Following your detail
1/n = 0
(1/n)*n = 0*n
n/n=0
1=0

Which is implausible

You ignored a limit theorem (http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/1/limits.18/index.html),

lim n = ∞ is not a real (or complex) number.
n->∞

[Selenbrant]

I already mentioned it:

Zero is neither "+" nor "-" its the only unsigned number. The limit of 1/∞ unimportant whether "1" or "∞" is postitive or negative is 0. It will only say whether its a limit "from the right" or "from the left".

Its better not to start this "topic" (about limits) again.

[dracomageat]

Thats all good if Void is 0
But Void isn't 0 its the absence of a value.

Read up on 0. 0 is simply the absence of a value aswell. 0 is nothing. Void is nothing. Therefore Void is 0.

Its where there was something that now isn't. A void is a measure of the difference of what was and now isn't. It is a Negative value, it is not 0.

No, a void is where there is nothing, not necessarily where there was something.

Also, this logic would also suggest that 1 - 1 gives a negative answer, which we all know isn't true.

How about this:
If a Void is 0, and something is lost in the Void, the void still exists but is 0 + the the thing in the void, but is no longer 0 is it?

If we take a physical view of void and say that the thing within the void can exist there peacefully then yes, your logic holds but this is not a proper definition of a void. For an object to exist within the void, the void most exist to contain it, thereby having substance itself. In a true void the object would be within a nonexistent space, meaning it itself would be nonexistent, meaning that there would still be nothing there and that the object could never be retrieved because there was nothing to retrieve it from.