A property of 1/0

x/0 = y

x = y * 0

x would always be 0

therefore

1/0 makes 1 = 0, (...)/0 makes (...) = 0

is this right or wrong or something else?

1dividedby0.com made a point that it is a matter of point of view / vantage point. Is this guy right? How?

Exploring Infinity v.31

Infinity is the largest number of divergent arrays of counting numbers, and it is the same figure for all of them. 

That's how I look at it

So Infinitely small is not for the number, but for the magnitude of the smallness. Which is beyond huge

---------------------------

Is infinity minus one infinity? I see no reason why infinity minus one could be infinity.

Is infinity plus one a bigger infinity than the initial infinity? The initial infinity must have been defined for it to be able to be increased in number. So they are no longer infinity

Assuming the space is infinite, is infinite km's of space smaller than infinite m's of space?

Is 1000 km of string the same with 1000 m of string? no

Is infinite km of space the same with infinite m of space? yes

So these arguments are my ways of defending my position, any response? please

-----------------------------

So the understanding of Infinity contains the element of "Uncomparable largeness" in respect to the counting number that is to be assigned to the order of magnitude.

So the key to this comprehension is to firstly always think in terms of relativity... or at least it is my most straight forward precondition/way to be able to achieve so. 

-----------------------------

Edit 23/04/2021

Ok so there was a definition problem. I still think people should distinct between limitlessness vs finite numbers that are so big they are inarticulable. These are two different things

-----------------------------

Let's define infinity as limitlessness, what is 1/infinity? I tend to not say zero as the answer, I rather say infinitely small. 

What is 1/0 then, well, when we say 2 divided by 2, we are saying 2 divided by 2 equal segments and each segments were equal to... 1 is the answer (1,1). When we say 1 divided by 3, we are saying 1 divided by 3 equal segments and each segments were equal to 0.333333... is the answer (0.333,0.333,0.333). When we say 1 divided by zero, we should be saying 1 divided by 0 equal segments and each segments were equal to 1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc. It would be an array of ORs that were stretched to who knows where, I don't know maybe (...) or infinity.

Table:

Numerator: 1

Divided by infinity of the same segments = ([infinitely small],...to the infinity)

Divided by 1/(...) of the same segments a.k.a super small segment = ([...])

Divided by 3 of the same segments = ([0.333],[0.333],[0.333])

Divided by 2 of the same segments = ([0.5],[0.5])

Divided by 1 of the same segments = ([1])

Divided by 1/2 of the same segments a.k.a half a segment = ([2])

Divided by 1/3 of the same segments a.k.a a third of a segment = ([3])

Divided by 1/(...) of the same segements a.k.a a super small fraction of a segment = ([...])

Divided by 1/infinitely_small of the same segment a.k.a an infinitely small fraction of a segment = (infinity) 

Divided by 0 of the same segment  (1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc) a.k.a irregulars

Divided by 1/0 of the same segment (I'm not sure about this but 0 is my answer for now). 

So any number divided by irregulars would yield the sum of the numbers in the array

HOWEVER: This irregular thing is kind of weird, it seems like it could contain anything anywhere...

Edit: Oh, because it's an array the answer is in it not the sum of it.

Edit: so for example you get this (nice video from Josh Hush, accessed April 2021): 
2b = b (irregulars) the irregulars' value would be 2. 

It depends on the equation, it shouldn't be just any number I feel.

-------------------------------------

Filling triangles within circles will have this behavior:

Length of the bases of the triangles = r / (Total number of triangles / 4)

So when comes to finding the area of a circle using this method, pay attention that:

The infinitesimal = 4r / The (...)

This one is wrong too... 4(2r^0.5)/The (...) ?

r' = 0.5 δ'

r'' = 0.5 δ''

r''' = 0.5 δ'''

etc

δ' = 4r/(...)'

δ'' = 4(0.5 δ')/(...)'

δ''' = 4(0.5 δ'')/(...)'

etc

So,

[1/2 * δ' r * (...)'] + [1/2 * δ'' * r' * (...)' * 1/2] + [1/2 * δ''' * r'' * (...)' * 1/2] + etc...

Now, this should go make pi if I could simplify it,

No, the arch was not half a circle. That was wrong

To Achieve Understanding v.02

I remembered a saying by Mr. Richard Saul Wurman that said, if I'm not mistaken:

Understanding is relative to the information you already know, or something like that... "You already understand information relative to what you already understand", there you go (thank you Google). 

But a concept appeared in my head about "Replace Abstraction", not only true understanding is about updating your existing ones, but also about updating your previous abstraction. So if your abstractions weren't updated then you haven't understood anything. 

So we might think that understanding should provide certainty in replacement of abstractions, but our mind proceeds towards abstractions... time follows behind wisdom. If we were to separate wisdom and knowledge as wisdom is about how to deal with the unknown and knowledge is about knowing. Then understanding should gave birth to new abstractions as well.

So it is ok to have unanswered new questions in class, or in your mind while learning, moreover it should be the climax of your understanding. Also it is incomplete to assume successful presentation if the audience didn't came up with new questions, or it is incomplete to assume that the subject has been understood if the abstractions in you weren't renewed after being exposed to new concepts. 

My Modern Dating idea

Since marriage is a lifetime contract, I think the next modern way of dating, since women have recovered their humanity... is to set up businesses together. I mean traditional dating is because women needed to stay at home for various dangers and other reasons. Now it's only right to return to business as dating. 

Marriage must be times and times more than a business that could be temporary if not profitable. So if after the business is successful then you'd know that the both of you have discovered the right synergy and on the right track for marriage. If the both of you failed but still love another, set up another business to try. 

Consciousness is a manifestation of transcendence? v.02

Could it be that to invoke consciousness means to make it able to perceive transcendence?

So once it was achieved then it was consciousness?

There might be defining relations between Antibody and Emotions

 I think our personality, our feelings could be seen through our antibody system

So this is true?

Men Provides Structure                                                           Women Provides Details

Sad again and again

There are a lot of reasons for people being hateful and making things difficult for other groups of people. Besides catering to some senses of belonging, and particular personal unpleasant experiences, the most unnecessary but real reason is:

People don't want to deal with the truth from new point of views yet/ever. 

There are more reasons but to deal with the above you got to be wise... change the way you set your ambitions, train yourself to play with the Truth. So when the Truth won't work with you, you'll know, or when the Truth want your ambition to be real, you'll know. 

People do could force their ambition through, by ignoring the countering point of views... in this case this is the case of bad history bound to repeat itself. Is this liberating? Or you just put yourself in a position where whatever you do is just machine-like for those who knew?

But when Hitler/Stalin is in power, no matter how dumb, no one's going to stop them right?

YOKOZO minna!

Who wants to be the next dictator? Is it you? Or is it you!! 

                                                                                                                                   me! me!

Well let's see, whose turn is it now... Darling, spin the wheel of zetsubouness!

Higher resolution of the thickness as 4d idea v.03

So in my facebook I wrote that 4'th dimension is thickness, an explanation could be like this:

Say a demand graph of sushi in central station would be: at $1 quantity demanded 10.000 pieces, at $30 dollars quantity demanded 100 pieces. 

But that is in the morning, in the afternoon it would be:  $1 ask 1.000 pieces, at $30 dollars 1 piece.

The same thing with supply, with respective order: at $1 bid 1 piece to $30 bid 1.000 in the morning, in the afternoon $1 bid 10 pieces to $30 bid 100 in the afternoon.

So there were 2 - three dimensional models connected to one another. 2 xyz graphs at the beginning, 1 for the outside, and 1 for the inside... the other axis, w, lets say, would be time of day. 

Could standard deviation be presented this way? It should be, but the w axis would be what? range? a bit hard to conceptualize. To understand this easier would be to conceptualize the opposite of standard deviation, which are ideas where multiple figures are definitely true given a variable. In the sushi case the variable was the time of day. 

Therefore the 3d graph of the supply and demand would have two images on the inside and on the outside. 
Based on 2, xyz lines, the inside and the outside. 
Imagine the xyz pipes instead of lines. Pipes would have the outside layer and the inside layer

------------------------------------------

An advantage of this is from the image you could decide whether to focus on what kind of innovation, marketing innovation or cost innovation. 

During busy hours for example it would be more profitable to enhance the cost efficiency of the sushi. While during working hours it would be beneficial to not be too stingy. 

My Ultimate v.02

This is the question, is prioritizing Justice always in align with prioritizing the Truth?

I found the yes answer, and it is going to be quite a bit of an answer, 

Firstly you could observe truthfully an event like when a person is telling a lie, you could observe truthfully when a person decided not to say anything, you could observe truthfully when a person is saying the truth. The Truth is more than your speech. 

However the Truth has the room to grow, 

From my point of view, the Truth is the protocol that everything follows, that there is only one true past. So when you believed in lies, that wrong perception of yours would be a gift or a fragrant present for the Truth when they are being truthfully corrected. However, since there is also momentum for wrongness, (one wrong leads to another in one way or the other) so believing in lies is dangerous and it is unattractive for those who are predetermined to dislike some of the particular problems associated with it. 

But Faith indeed is the reason for universal war. Humans and Spirits they are attracted to faith and fighting over it. The Truth wants you to believe in Him, and the anti-truth wants you to not. For "inanimate" objects, the manifestation of it is the quantum state. For observation would determine one's truthful positions or roles, while the quantum state enriches the exploration.

We know that the Truth leads to more questions, ideas, and ambitions... the discovery of the Truth creates more spaces for the Truth to explore. When one is being agnostic, one is being neutrally attractive, meaning generally attractive, popular standard of beauty. Well that is if I'm right. But, just keeping the question on without trying to solve it will attract reasons to believe in lies, lies could be believed subconsciously, and when that side of you were exposed... its likely to be ugly. Incompetence also comes with it. 

So in relation to Justice, Justice wants to make everyone able to access whatever it is that they wanted and needed whenever they do. Justice wants to make sure the availability of what is desirable and useful all the way in the future, forever. 

Sometimes telling lies could prevent deadly, crippling events. When situations unfold, people wouldn't always have the intelligence to figure out the truthful solutions at the moment. Personally, when tragedies were avoided they were all steps towards Justice. But the preservation of lies prevents truthful problem solving in the long run. 

For that the Truth is the winner and for the sake of sustainability, the need for lies will be solved. I'm not just saying that for the sake of blind ideological fanaticism or virtue signaling, but because that is the proper, the responsible state of problem solved. I wish I will always be like that 100%

The true solving of problems requires truthful assessments. And from that angle I answered that ultimately, the prioritization of Justice is in align with the prioritization of the Truth.

Another Memory Question

Does memory has something to do with multiple personality disorder?
Maybe the person has imperfect short term memory causing him/her lost grip of patterns? But since he/she has compensated it with "backup patterns" that would took over in case of a pattern had lost cause.