I Really Do!

To read a discussion about this go here:
http://www.hi5.com/friend/group/displayTopic.do?groupId=96147&topicId=10826717

And here:
http://www.hi5.com/friend/group/displayTopic.do?groupId=96147&topicId=15733620

Update:  Tagged.com failed to keep the forums when they purchased hi5.com.  Everything I posted there is gone!  So the links above don't work.  Instead, you can ask me to copy & paste my posts privately (Sorry, I didn't save the discussion by other hi5 users.) or read this overview on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
NewChrissy NewChrissy
26-30, F
19 Responses Feb 12, 2010

AFTER EP SHUTS THE SITE DOWN ON APRIL 21st 2016, READERS OF THIS STORY MAY REACH ME BY SENDING A FRIENDLY (!) OR A NAUGHTY (!!) EMAIL MESSAGE TO NewChrissy@Gmail.com WITH "EPM " AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUBJECT LINE FOLLOWED BY THE NAME OF THE STORY YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT (OR OTHER SUBJECT).

ALSO, I HAVE CREATED A PROFILE ON THE APPLIESTOME.COM SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITE.

After reading the above and the comments below I am not sorry I dropped out of college ~ this stuff gives me a headache.

I saw a recent documentary trying to solve a similar issue of how to subtract a value from infinity to obtain a whole rational number. The solution to this is very similar to the division of zero. Of the earliest solutions to division of a rational number by zero is to result in an infinite set.

1 / 0 = ∞

This being only one example of infinity, not all infinities are going to be bound by zero. Example, there is an infinite set of even numbers to which zero is not mound by this set. However, zero itself can be bound as its own infinite set through negative integers verses their positive counterparts.

Σ 1 - 1 = 0; 2 - 2 = 0; 3 - 3 = 0; 4 - 4 = 0; ... Ad Infinitum

Nor is this is not bound by whole numbers:

Σ 0.9 - 0.9 = 0; 0.8 - 0.8 = 0; 0.7 - 0.7 = 0; 0.6 - 0.6 = 0; ... Ad Infinitum

So from here we generate an infinite set of all sets bound by zero, thus an infinity of all base pairs of positive integers and their negative counterparts.

∞^0 - 3 = ?

If we subtract one from the infinite set, the set is unbound to zero until we remove its counterpart to re-normalize the infinite set to again be bound by zero

∞^0 - 3

Σ
1 - 1 = 0 ;
2 - 2 = 0 ;
(3 - 3 = 0) - 3 ;
4 - 4 = 0 ;
Ad Infinitum

The negative 3 negates the positive three within the paired sets. So we need to remove the remaining negative 3 to re-balance the set to zero:

∞^0 - 3 = (-3)

Interesting use of the word "bound" as a verb instead of a noun! Thank you, I am amused.

@CFOM: There is a new & improved edition of that book for 2010:<br />
<i>http://www.universalworkshop.com/ACOM.htm</i>

Thank you. I see the same diagram on page 32 explaining the Moon's/Luna's orbit.

I don't have Crop circles and the straight lines the crop left on my thighs have faded but The Astronomical Companion by Guy Ottewell support Chrissy, with diagrams even about the Moon/Luna not revolving around the Earth/Terra

I think I like you. You tickle my mind.

I just perused one reference on Russel's paradox. It specifically states it applies ONLY to NAIVE set theory, certainly NOT all of mathematics. And, gee, if you read my last comment it would seem I was intuitively investigating such paradoxes on my own without knowing of Russel. <br />
I notice you ignored my denial of Asimov's scientific credentials and were unable to produce a single scientific paper he published [or you]. Point - freeed!!! My one IS greater than his [and presumably your] none. FYI I have an unpublished paper I keep meaning to submit from The International Journal of Theoretical Physics. I discovered almost a trite mistake, wherein a vastly convoluted and complicated mathematical statement using Jacobian Elliptical integrals had a plus where a minus should be, leading to an incorrect conclusion. This mistake and its incorrect conclusions escaped a panel of practicing theoretical physicists. Not only did I NOTICE it, I CORRECTED it [several of my chemistry and math professors were ALL stumped when I sought their help]. How do you like me now????? Yes, I AM very serious, perhaps to a fault. Perhaps not or I'd be unable to operate at a level few will grasp. Teasing is not conducive to the advancement of knowledge, even though it can be pleasant. Tickle tickle.....

Since you consider me an unremarkable tool already, what could I possibly counter that with? <br />
Since you are so insistent, I shall - sometime - investigate Russell's paradox. I disagree about math being inconsistent from this angle - once a set of axioms is accepted, the theorems springing from them by proofs USING those axioms create a consistent system. The INconsistencies arise when one compares DIFFERENT axiomatically ba<x>sed systems, the prime example of which is geometry. In Euclidean, parallel lines do not meet at infinity, while in other non-Euclidean systems they DO. On the surface this is inconsistent, but each in its own context is perfectly consistent and true.<br />
A more obscure, deeper, and cerebral example are the systems stemming from including/omitting the Axiom of Choice as a basis for set theories and what they lead to.<br />
Another, my favorite, concerns Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. For the uninitiated, it states that any self-consistent system meeting certain parameters will contain true statements that cannot be PROVED to be true within that system. The simplest yet mindbending example is given when a librarian is given the task of cataloging all the books in a library. The list itself is so long as to be considered a book, so does one include The Book of Lists in itself or omit it? FYI my Guru Geetaa Likeeta breaks the normal rule of Bibliographies by listing itself as a consulted text in the just explained spirit. Few will notice this nuance. People should BUY it for this reason if no other. It costs about the price of a large pizza with toppings which will last a day and feed the body, but Likeeta will feed the mind for a lifetime!!!<br />
Is this admitting inconsistency: I am a loving, cuddly Teddy Bear who hates everyone.

@freeed: It turns me on too! If you research it you will easily discover simple proofs that English is inconsistent (contains contradictions/paradoxes) and that Mathematics itself is inconsistent (even simple set theory -- see Russell's paradox).<br />
<br />
I love that I am inconsistent. I am comfortable fitting into an inconsistent Universe. Because that leaves the door open to miracles & singularities and other fun surprises! But I'm curious about YOU. Do you admit to being "inconsistent"? Or would you rather be "an unremarkable tool"?

OK, no crop circles or twits. BTW, Chia sprouts are supposedly VERY healthy. They tried scamming me into a pyramid distribution scheme where the mark pays $70/unit and if I get enough pyramid chumps under me I get them for as low as $15/unit.<br />
I do not consider Asimov to be a scientist and, honestly, don't KNOW his opinion on this topic [or care], so I do not accept any scientific credentials until proven otherwise. I've only published ONE actual book - Guru Geetaa Likeeta [see stories] - no contest there, but how many SCIENTIFIC journals have published his ideas? I'll stand by my one being more than his and will beg your pardon IF they are numerous.<br />
Kleene-Rosser paradox? I LOVE it when you talk dirty. LOL

@freeed: I did acknowlege that Isaac Azimov writes "popular science" -- do you accept his credentials? He has published a LOT more than you have, hundreds of highly acclaimed books! Does that mean that we should accept what he says about the Earth and the Moon (as you so crudely insist on referring to them)?<br />
<br />
You said: <i>"One time you deny the moon orbits earth, then "freely admit" that it does. maybe that logical disconnect escapes twits, but not me."</i><br />
<br />
I have no problem with "logical disconnect", in fact I embrace it in the form of λ-calculus (and its inspirational progeny, Functional Programming), which derives its great usefulness from the fact that it is inconsistent. Take away the ability to produce contradictory results and you so vastly weaken its expressive power that you are left with an unremarkable tool. The Kleene–Rosser paradox expresses something fundamental about the way important things such as computation & decidability & recursion work in the Universe. And about how we can know that we know something. It's a <i>deeeeeeep</i> truth, Man!<br />
<br />
Taken against all of that I can put up with a little controversy about what orbits or revolves around what. And whether Luna is more properly called a "moon" or a "planet". (It all comes down to your definitions anyway, the math doesn't change.) I can believe either to be true at different times. And maybe even both at the same time! I can do that, just try to stop me and see what happens!! Pluto, I'm coming after YOU next!!! ;-)<br />
<br />
(But I do have a problem with twits.)<br />
<br />
Thank you for calling me your "wannabe pioneer" and a "good example" and "dangerous". I like that! You can have a hug & maybe I'll even let you kiss me!!!<br />
<br />
I'm not at all "very cross" with you, even though you did lump me together with "them" when talking about having "The Government" "shut them up"! I know you don't really mean it. I can tell that my teasing is frustrating & vexing you. You are so serious and I like to have fun!<br />
<br />
http://www.chia.com/images/stories/fruit/kittensmall.jpg<br />
But please don't force me to join the ranks of crop circle believers! They scare me. I used to have a chia pet on my kitchen counter but when it started getting crop circles each morning I had to throw it out!! Spooky!!! No Sir, I do NOT want tiny UFOs flying around in my home while I am sleeping!!!! (Do you?)<br />
<br />
;-) :-p :-p :-p

"The orbit of the Moon is very nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.05) with a mean separation from the Earth of about 384,000 km, which is about 60 Earth radii. The plane of the orbit is tilted about 5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic plane.<br />
<br />
Revolution in Orbit<br />
The Moon appears to move completely around the celestial sphere once in about 27.3 days as observed from the Earth. This is called a sidereal month, and reflects the corresponding orbital period of 27.3 days The moon takes 29.5 days to return to the same point on the celestial sphere as referenced to the Sun because of the motion of the Earth around the Sun; this is called a synodic month (Lunar phases as observed from the Earth are correlated with the synodic month). There are effects that cause small fluctuations around this value that we will not discuss. Since the Moon must move Eastward among the constellations enough to go completely around the sky (360 degrees) in 27.3 days, it must move Eastward by 13.2 degrees each day (in contrast, remember that the Sun only appears to move Eastward by about 1 degree per day). Thus, with respect to the background constellations the Moon will be about 13.2 degrees further East each day. Since the celestial sphere appears to turn 1 degree about every 4 minutes, the Moon crosses our celestial meridian about 13.2 x 4 = 52.8 minutes later each day." - Web reference.<br />
Copernicus is a bit stale for a current discussion of orbits. I shan't waste my time any further chasing down rogue references [if Asimov even denies the moon's motion. Anyway, isn't he an author, not a scientist.?].<br />
There were reasons for demoting Pluto after the discovery that there were hundreds of similar bodies. It was tidier to meld one into a larger class than to expand another class [planets] a hundred fold to include them. But to speculate Mercury and Venus may be next is ____ [insert derogatory of your choice]. I wrote my Lagrange Points story if you feel equal to reading it concerning Pluto. BTW I found it easy enough to cut and paste the above, something you were too lazy to do when I requested it of your brilliant diatribe on dividing by zero. You are a wannabe pioneer, but also a good example that a little knowledge can be dangerous. One time you deny the moon orbits earth, then "freely admit" that it does. maybe that logical disconnect escapes twits, but not me. The coupling of the fact of SOLAR eclipses with that of lunar is proof enough for any but the stubborn that the moon orbits the Earth.<br />
Tell us your scientific/mathematical credentials and perhaps warrant another look, otherwise you join the ranks of the crop circle believers - interesting diversion but false. In my PM to you I alluded to my friend who said "The Government" was kidnapping scientists to shut them up about the certain destruction of Earth last year by a rogue planet and grew very cross, as you likely are now, when disagreed with. She'd be just as vexed if I reminded her of her foolishness now. "Cast not thy pearls before swine lest they turn and render you asunder".<br />
Let me know when you publish your paper on dividing by zero. I AM a published scientist.

You mean "current" mainstream science. Scientists have said all sort of things about moons & orbits & planets throughout history. Copernicus got in trouble for what he dared to say about the orbits of the Moon and the other planets. Until recently Pluto was a "planet" and maybe Mercury or even Venus won't be one for much longer.<br />
<br />
Try adding "Isaac Asimov" to your web search. He wrote several popular science articles about this. Some of that material is included in his various books about the Moon: search for [Asimov moon] on Amazon.com.

NC-I have verified the approximately doubled gravitational attraction of the sun on the moon as opposed to that of the earth on the moon. This does not preclude the orbit of Luna around Terra . It is generally accepted that the smaller orbits the larger but I suppose as a stretch one could say the earth orbits the moon [every study the Theory of Relativity? - the fr<x>ame of reference is first specified then the physics is applied]. By your reasoning the sun orbits the Earth from a certain point of view as The Catholic Church once insisted.<br />
My definition of orbit is that of mainstream science - no web search denies the moon orbits the earth.

@freeed: Of course eclipses occur. That doesn't mean that Luna orbits Terra. That decision depends on your definition of "orbit" -- and I freely concede that some definitions say that Luna orbits Terra. It also depends upon your point of view. Seen from Terra, Luna rises & sets and basically behaves like a moon. From the point of view of Luna it is Terra that rises & sets. From the point of view of the Sun, they both behave like planets as they dance around their center of gravity. (By the way, "the Moon" is the only satellite which is attracted by "the Sun" more strongly (actually about twice as strongly) than it is by the planet it "orbits". Which brings me back to my main point about that.)

NC - IF Luna NEVER were further away from Sol, so that Terra was between them, there would be no such event called Lunar Eclipse, would there? This is not new or maybe even interesting, but it is true and proves the moon does orbit the Earth. Sorry again.<br />
I do agree that the "illegal" square root gives rise to imaginary numbers. I have a full semester studying the calculus of complex variables - no one discouraged me [actually they DID in chemistry but that just pissed me off to the point of making it my undergraduate major].

@freeed: You are missing the point, and obviously you haven't read the hi5 discussion. When I divide by zero I refuse to accept the "not defined" result. So I'm not dividing by zero in the same way you are, or at least not in the same domain. I never claimed that domain to be the Integers, or even the Reals.<br />
<br />
Whenever a well-defined operation results in an undefined answer (and leads to unacceptable/unexpected results such as those you pointed out), then rather than simply calling the operation "illegal" and the results "wrong" and ignoring the issue, the correct response is to enlarge the domain to include the answer along with adding any other necessary mathematical apparatus you were missing before to make it all consistent again.<br />
<br />
Middle School math teachers say that division by zero is "illegal", and High School or College math teachers say that distributing the square root operation over a fraction with a negative denominator is "illegal" when instead they should be showing how making them work out leads to Complex numbers & operations and so on.<br />
<br />
For me this is one of the possible bridges between simple Arithmetic and Higher Mathematics and children are being routinely denied the chance to cross over it! Ignorant teachers insist that brilliant young minds suppress their own mathematical intuition that something is missing or wrong and that there really should be (and in fact there is!) a way to make it legal. That practice is shameful.<br />
<br />
I am reminded of when I was in the 2nd Grade (I was seven years old). The substitute teacher wrote a bunch of subtraction problems on the board, including "2 - 5 =". When no one answered that one I raised my hand and she called me to the board.<br />
<br />
I wrote the answer down and was shocked when she ridiculed me in front of the entire class saying "No Chrissy, that kind of problem doesn't have an answer!" and they all laughed at me! Then when I tried to explain about negative numbers she insisted I was wrong and we got into a heated argument.<br />
<br />
That ended with my being issued a discipline slip and getting sent to the Principal's office. I was so mad I could spit!!! Stomp, stomp, stomp, stomp all the way down the hall, with both hands clenched into tight little fists. I should have slammed the door open when I got to the front office but I didn't actually do that.<br />
<br />
I wonder what my face looked like? I know I was crying big tears and couldn't talk at first because I was panting & shaking & sobbing too much when the Principal asked me what was wrong.<br />
<br />
All I could do was to throw the wadded up slip of pink paper down on his desk with what (I hope) was clearly an attitude of utter disgust & outrage.<br />
<br />
Even at that age I didn't like being told what I had to do.<br />
<br />
"Chrissy, you HAVE to keep your clothes on." "No I don't, and you can't make me! You're a <i>prude</i>!"<br />
<br />
And I HATED being told what I couldn't or shouldn't do!<br />
<br />
"Chrissy, good girls don't enjoy being spanked." "Well then maybe I'm not a good girl. Maybe I wanna be a <i>bad</i> girl!"<br />
<br />
"Chrissy, you can't go around kissing the boys and letting them touch you!!!" "Yes I can! And maybe I <i>will</i> just because you said I can't!"<br />
<br />
Don't tell me I can't subtract a big number from a small one. And don't tell me I can't divide by zero. I will find a way even if I have to go to College and major in Math to do it!<br />
<br />
As for Luna & Terra, Luna's orbit is ALWAYS concave to Sol. So is Terra's, for that matter. There is NO point in their orbits when Terra pulls Luna further away from Sol so that Luna loops around Terra.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, ALL of the other Solar planets do in fact do that to EACH & EVERY ONE of their moons! They are clearly satellites orbiting around their respective planets. <br />
<br />
Instead, the intertwined orbits of Luna & Terra trace out a roughly spiral course as they move in tandem around Sol, almost as if they were the two components of a binary planet. (And we could/would be a binary planet if Luna had only slightly greater mass, such as containing a little bit more iron at its core.)<br />
<br />
Yes, I've heard all of the counter arguments which rely on choosing other definitions for "moon" and "orbit" & "planet" in order to support other equally valid conclusions. Don't waste your time telling them to me unless you think you have an interesting new point of view.<br />
<br />
Personally I find it amusing that the only body we named "The Moon" (almost) isn't one, while there is no question that all of the other natural satellites are in fact "moons".

Division by zero IS illegal and I spent a good half hour answering you only to have my cheap, worthless copper.net dialup lose my friggin' answer, so here's a nutshelll repeat with no comment about the incorrectness about Luna not revolving Terra.<br />
<br />
4 + 4 = 8; Divide to get (4+4)/0 = 8/0, valid for any OTHER number. Break into 4/0 + 4/0 = 8/0. So far, so good, right? Now multiply one of the left terms by one in the form of, say 2/2, changing nothing and yielding (2x4)/(2x0) + 4/0 = 8/0, then simplify to 8/0 + 4/0 = 8/0. Completely simple and legal so far. Now subtract either of the left terms from the right to get 8/0 = 4/0 OR 4/0 = 0/0. Finally multiply both sides by zero to get either 8 = 4 OR 4 = 0, both false. QED. Sorry.

Division by zero is perfectly valid. If you were taught that it is "illegal" your teacher was lying to you (although probably without realizing it).<br />
<br />
And you know what else? The Sun doesn't "burn" and the Moon doesn't revolve around the Earth, it revolves around the Sun! Do the gravitational & orbital calculations yourself if you don't believe me -- I have. The Moon is attracted about twice as strongly by the Sun as it is by the Earth. Both Terra & Luna have orbits which are always concave to Sol.