User talk:Germanium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop adding original research to Wikipedia. All the content you have been adding falls under original research, since there are no reliable sources to support it. I would urge you to read up on that policy, because you have obviously put in much effort into your contributions, which will be regretfully deleted. -SpuriousQ 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "source is everywhere" is not a valid source. Have a look at WP:CITE for information about how to properly cite sources. -SpuriousQ 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's seems to do well. Afterall, the information is here isn't it?

Contents 1 The irony of truth 2 Your edit to The irony of truth 3 Gödel's incompleteness theorems 4 Citing sources 5 1/0 6 You might find this interesting 7 Walstad's conjecture 8 Warning 9 sockpuppet notice 10 Sockpuppetry case 11 Goodbye

The irony of truth

I've proposed The irony of truth for deletion as original research.. You are free to remove the proposal if you which, but I would again urge you to read the policies I have previously pointed out to you. I do not believe this article will remain if taken to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. -SpuriousQ 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

thank you for exemplfying the irony of truth. Now is there anything you've written that you'd like me to delete?

You have recently recreated or reposted material which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. Tevildo 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to The irony of truth

Your recent edit to The irony of truth (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

You have twice added a section to Gödel's incompleteness theorems which appears to be your own speculation. Please discuss your additions on the talk page for that article, and provide published sources for the theories in it. Here is an "official" message about it:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. While the Wikipedia community appreciates your obvious efforts to increase the amount of information on the site, we'd like to point out our policy against original research and for citing sources for the information you provide. This increases the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole and aids in checking the factuality of that article.

CMummert 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. CMummert 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You called me a crank and did not act in good faith. You are a bad person in my book.

Relating to your changes at 1/0, Everything, and Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish; when other remove your changes, they are doing so for a reason, and the talk pages are the appropriate place to discuss it. CMummert 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish; when I put changes I am doing so for a reason. And the talk page is for discussion, but why don't you go over to the talk page for the theory of everying and realize that nobody is discussing it. Please, if you want to discuss the true definition of 1/0 I am all game, but otherwise do not be decrontuctive to the wikipedia community which I am just as much a part of as you. I see that you are interested in mathematics, so maybe you would be a good person to actually have a discussion with. I am majoring in physics and I scored in the top %99 for math on my ACT. Looking forward to it, sincerely, germanium, aka archetype

Citing sources

Hi. If you cite reliable sources to where your material about Godel and Theory of Everything has been previously published, then it can stay in. Otherwise, it can't, because we're trying to create an encyclopedia of verifiable material, where we mean "verifiable" in the sense of "verifiable in published sources". We don't want any material that hasn't already been published. Thanks for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1/0

There are two problems with the addition to the article.

First, it really does have nothing to do with the article as such. I recommend the webcomic by the way; it's excellent and thought-provoking, especially as it progresses.

Now, should there be a dab page and a separate article on the "number"? The answer to that is no. You are working from an incorrect idea, which is that 1/0 is a number. It isn't. It's a meaningless expression that's only even possible to write because of how we represent fractions. It has no usefulness in any mathematical context, and in fact invalidates any procedure in which it appears. For example, if you're working through some algebra and you find yourself faced with an expression like , whatever you do after that will be simply wrong if you fail to notice that the divisor here amounts to 0. It indicates some error in the initial setup of the problem, an error in the algebra somewhere, or that the proposition you're trying to prove is false.

Believe me, there's so much mathematical expertise on Wikipedia -- the math related articles are among the highest quality in the encyclopedia -- that if so prominent an expression was worth an article there would already be one. Ask User:Michael Hardy, who is a professional mathematician and a prolific author of articles on mathematical subjects.

It doesn't even have much currency as a philosophical idea, largely because it is meaningless. You'll find the various schools of philosophy are fairly well-represented too, and none of their exponents have seen fit to write an article on 1/0 from that direction either. (And if they did, it would probably be a section in a more general article on some facet of that philosophy.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I note that User:CMummert is a professional mathematician too. He knows what he's talking about here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And why is it that Cmummert is a pofessional mathematician and I am not? Obviously he hasn't made the same observations I have. Did he score a %99 for math on the ACT?

People are quick to say that 1/0 is not a number or that it doesn't make sense. Those people are not very good at explaining why. Perhaps they would like to explain why 0 is a number? Why should 0/1 be defined and 1/0 isn't? How many people have actually wondered or can actually back up their arguments? -Archetype

You might find this interesting

After reading your ideas about 1/0, it seems you are getting quite close to the idea of the Real projective line. I suggest you read that article, you might find it interesting. --Tango 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the recommendation Tango. I really can't tell you how much it means to me. Somebody pointed it out to me before actually. The main difference however between my discovery of the number circle and what the Real Projective Line is is that in my understanding the number circle relates to cosmology, time, and physics, whereas the Real Projective Line is a purely mathematical construct with no grand implications. Plus on my number circle 0/1 is defined as nothing (undefined in other words) and 1/0 is defined as everything (the epitome of all definition). I don't believe that the real projective line is understood in this way. But you're right, the two are the exact same thing. It's just that I've been able to see it for what it's worth, whereas other "scientists" haven't.

Thanks again so much for the comment, sincerely, -Arcehtype

I think you're getting maths and science mixed up. Science uses maths, but maths doesn't have a physical interpretation. It's completely abstract. Maths says "If you assume these axioms, then this, that and the other are true." It doesn't make any statements about the universe, and can't do so. The real projective line (and projective geometry in general) is useful for all kinds of things, in particular it simplifies statements about geometry - for example, on the standard plane all lines meet at a point, except for parallel lines, on the projective plane, absolutely all lines meet at a point, parallel lines meeting at the "point at infinity". So, it's very useful in pure mathematics, and may even have applications in physics, but it doesn't tell us anything about the universe. To find out things about the universe, we have to make observations. We plug those observations into the maths, and we get predictions which we can verify. The maths alone can't tell us anything. --Tango 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I totally agree. Math can't give us anything but an abstract picture. But that's a good place to start. You have to start with first principles if you're going to arrive at a correct theory of everything. For example, in principle there is a number which represents nothing, and this is the number 0. Similarly, there should also be a number that represents everything, don't you think? The number that represents everything would be the opposite of 0. 1/0 in other words. It makes perfect sense. So in theory, 1/0 is the total amount of energy in existence.

Now as you said, this is true in a theoretical sense, but has not been proven, or disproven for that matter. THat's why I'm currently working on a way to prove it. For example, my theory puts real values to the number circle. FOr example, if 0 represents the big bang, than 1/0 represents the opposite point that we are approaching. As the universe expands more and more it brings us closer and closer. WHen we reach it is the point when the universe is expanding at greater than lightspeed across less than a planck distance. You see, that's how I've been able to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity to the number circle and make predictions. The next thing I'm doing is creating a machine which works the same way as the universe at the most fundamental level. This magnetic machine will be able to draw from the energy of 1/0 and provide limitless power. ONce this is accomplished, the theory will be pretty much proven. What do you think? I really enjoy discussing this with you, so thanks a lot for the good conversation and the honesty.

sincerely, Archetype

I disagree than 0 represents "nothing". 0 is a number, nothing more, nothing less. In physics, we model physical concepts using mathematical concepts, so you could say that we can model nothing using 0, but that's simply a use of 0, it doesn't say anything about 0 itself. The first principles you need to start with for a theory of everything are observations - see Scientific method. You start by doing an experiment, you then come up with a theory to explain your results, you then use the theory to predict the results of another experiment, you then perform that experiment and see if your theory works. You can't start the process with maths, you have to start with physics, then you can use the maths to help you understand the physics.

You are using physics to learn about maths, which just doesn't work. Maths is dependant only on the axiomatic system you choose to work with, it doesn't depend on the nature of the universe at all. 1/0 is undefined because it doesn't make mathematical sense. If 1/0 was a number, you could multiply that number by 0 and get 1 (that's what division means). However, all numbers multiplied by 0 give you 0. That's a contradiction, which means the initial assumption (1/0 being a number) is wrong. The real projective line gets round this problem by saying that 0 times infinity is undefined, which means you can meaningfully talk about 1/0, but it just moves the problem along. You can't have multiplication and division be completely well defined, if you define one difficult case, another difficult case becomes undefined. In your case, the question becomes "What is everything times nothing?", which clearly doesn't have an answer, but if everything and nothing are both represented by numbers, you should be able to multiply them.

To learn more about rapid expansion on small scales, see Big Rip. It doesn't cause any problems with the laws of physics, it just destroys all matter.

--Tango 13:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply Tango. You are very brave for talking about this with me and you have some very valid arguments. Keep talking because I have some very good answers to your questions and who knows, you might actually begin to see that it makes sense.

To answer your question, yes, if nothing and everything are both numbers you should be able to multiply them and get an answer. You can! Everthing times nothing equals... anything! By anything I mean the indeterminate number, 0/0, which can equal any number you choose. Does that make sense? So yes, generally any number times zero equals zero, but that is assuming that 1/0 is not a number. If 1/0 is a number, everything, then we can see that (0)*(1/0)=0/0

Make sense now? To answer your other question, we can figure everything out starting with the first principles of math. I'll have to tell yu about this later because I'm typing really slow because my arm is broken and I'm running out of time on this pay internet. Tell me what you think about (0)*(1/0)=0/0. Sincerely Archetype

Ok I just put in 2 more $. What I wanted to say is that the problem with always changing your theory to fit your observations is that that is what's called an ad hoc theory. Quantum mechanics is an ad hoc theory pretty much and that's why nobody understands it. Einsteins theory however was not ad hoc. Einstein made predictions and they were right (as far as we have tested, because my theory predicts that you can go faster than the speed of light if you reach a rate of acceleration that is undivided (i.e. 1/0)

In order to have a TOE, we must start with first principles of mathematics and not just use successive iterations of ad hoc theories. We must start with the first principle that everything is, or at least can be, defined. For everything to be defined, it would mean that nothing is undefined. So 0 is really what is undefined, not the opposite. In order to find a TOE we must start with the principle that 1/0 is the total amount of existence (i.e. the amount of time, energy, etc.) This would suggest that a perpetual energy source is possible for mankind to discover and use, ala zero-point energy. This is a tremendous discovery! Be back with more. running out of time again with my one arm. CHEERS!

0/0 is undefined, it can be proven to equal anything you like, which fits what you say about it equaling anything, but it isn't very useful. I'm not sure what you mean by "ad hoc theories" - all theories make predictions, otherwise they are unscientific (which is a critism that has been made against String theory). Quantum mechanics makes predictions, just as relativity does. Your view of science is similar to that held by the Ancient Greeks - that it should be based on logic and thought, rather than observation. That's why the Ancient Greeks got so much of it wrong. Science must be based on observation. Maths helps us analyse the observations, but it can't be the starting point. If your theory makes observable predictions that disagree with the predictions of currently accepted theories, then do the experiment and test the predictions. If you are right, then write it up and submit it to a journal. The important bit at first will be an experiment that produces a result in conflict with accepted theory. If you can produce that, then people will have to listen to you. Your theory may not be right, but if you can prove that existing theories are wrong, then you can start talking about your ideas and the experts can work with them. --Tango 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree, theories need to make predictions. I might have misunderstood you but I thought what you said was that you start with observations and then make a theory to explain the observations. THat's not a predictions; that's an ad hoc theory. To make a prediction, you do it the other way around. You start with a theory and then see if it's predictions are backed up by what you actually observe. That's what I'm doing. What predictions does quantum mechanics make prior to observation? As far as I know, QM was an ad hoc theory invented after the observations to explain the phenomenon. It did not predict these observations outright, only explained them after the fact. I could be wrong though.

0/0 isn't undefined but you were close. It's actually called indeterminate. 1/0 is the one you're thinking of that's said to be undefined ;but really it's defined as everything and zero is the number that is undefined. A theory of everything cannot be unless nothing is undefined, and 0 is the number that represents (the amount of) nothing. Cheers

How does a theory stand any chance of being right if it's made without reference to the real world? All theories start with observations, that's how science works. You make observations, you theorise an explanation for them, you predict further results, and then test them. All science follows that method. Quantum mechanics predicts all kinds of things - half lives of newly created elements, for example. And "undefined" and "indeterminate" are synonymous. --Tango 00:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to point out your oversite but indeterminate and undefined are different. Indeterminate means it can be equal to any other number whereas undefined is just simply undefined. There is a BIG difference. And any theory that explains things after the fact is an ad hoc theory. My theory shows that the total amount of energy is 1/0. So you see, it IS about the real world and it DOES make predictions, LOTS of predictions!! Furthermore, my theory is experimentally sound. See, my theory is better than you thought! But you don't know yet. First of all you've got to realize that indeterminate and undefined are different my friend. sincerely, Arch

Walstad's conjecture

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Walstad's conjecture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Kinu ^t/_c 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Adding deleted content to pages after it is repeatedly deleted is frowned upon here, as is recreating pages that have been deleted. It will result in a block on your account, but not in any permanent changes to the articles. CMummert 03:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia because of disruptive edits. Vandalism, including page blanking or addition of random text, spam, or deliberate misinformation; privacy violations; personal attacks; and repeated and blatant violations of WP:NPOV will not be tolerated.

Click "Show" to see the unblock request

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request. Request reason: " Will all the administrators please read these e-mail I sent to the person who blocked me and consider unblocking me, thanks in advance. Dear Steel359, I have been requested by wikipedia to contact you with regards to my being banned. I wish to be unbanned and I wish to write you this letter to express my sincere interest in contributing useful knowledge to the wikipedia. I honor the wikipedia which is a vast resource and a big triumph of the internet age and that is why I want to contribute useful information. The reason you listed for banning me is, and I quote, "out you go." Now I am being very serious and honest and always kind in my remarks and postings so I would appreciate it if you offer me the same accord. Therefore instead of making this remark of "out you go," I would prefer if you would give me a real reason, especially since you are an administrator who is supposed to represent the civility and honorability of wikipedia. That is the least you can do after I have been repeatedly ignored, banned, made fun of, and my posts reverted unjustly as I feel. Furthermore I think it is very ironic that I am ridiculed for constantly standing up for my posts while those who constantly delete my posts are somehow always right. THis seems to be unjust to me. Since you have given no serious reason why I have been banned, I shall have to assume it is because of one of the following policies: No vandalism, no original research, neutral point of view, etc. I have looked up these policies which I believe I have not violated. Allow me to give my response to all of these charges. My posts are not vandalism because I am not doing this to be a vandal. I am posting on wikipedia to inform people that they should take a second look at 1/0 and think about it with an open mind instead of just believing it is undefined as we have been wrongly taught. I do not think that is too much to ask of everybody, in fact, it is what I expect and you should expect it too. I expect people to act in good faith just as I have done. Additionally, my posts are not original research because I simply post about the matter of the fact, that 1/0 is a number that is both positive and negative, i.e. the opposite of 0. THis should be plain and simple to anybody who takes the time to consider it with a quiet and open mind devoid of prejudices and egos. Also, I post with a neutral point of view. For example, everything I post about is a direct observation. It is a simple observation that 1/0 is a number that is both positive and negative, in other words, a completely neutral number. So as you can see, everything I post is based on a neutral number, and direct observations of it with a neutral POV. Please review my response to these charges and consider unbanning me. Also read the following: Wikipedia is an awesome resource and something that I would greatly like to contribute to. My discoveries and realizations are of amazing significance which few have fully realized the extent of. Many people claim that I do not know what I'm talking about and that I obviously have no grasp of mathematics. To those people I would like to reply that I actually am quite well versed in mathematics (%99 in math on my ACT. Overall I scored a 29) and I do understand exactly what 1/0 is and why people have erroneously labeled it undefined. It is because of their fear of the unknown. 1/0 shows an amazing and contradicting, yet beautiful property: it is equal to both positive and negative infinity. This complete contradiction was beautifully predicted by Kurt Godel in his incompleteness theorem. Well that is exactly what I have discovered also and thus I can tell you that Kurt Godel was exactly right! What a delight it was to realize! 1/0 is a complete number but it is a complete contradiction as well, a fusion of positive and negative infinity. IN fact, that's what makes it complete. If 1/0 weren't a complete contradiction, it would not be what it is. Kurt Godel predicted this fact, but scientists are still ignoring it, just as they have ignored 1/0 (all of them except for Brahmagupta). My articles being constantly deleted is a symptom of this same disease, a disease that fears the unknown. However, others are not the only ones to blaim. People thinking I have no grasp of mathematics might be due to me not explaining it well enough. THat is perfectly understandable and I apologize. That is why I am asking for a second chance, to write the article about 1/0 and write it correctly so that everyone can indeed see that I do know what I am talking about. I spent to much time to not be listened to. It is plain to see once I have explained it well enough. If you would give me the second chance, I would be greatly appreciative, and would owe you a great debt, and I think it is not too much to ask. With great respect, I appreciate you considering this request, whatever the final decision. sincerely, Archetype" Decline reason: "Unfortunately you display no understanding of why your edits are not acceptable here. As long as you persist in your determination to post what clearly does amount to WP:OR, I am afraid the block will have to remain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

How is it that I display no understanding of the OR policy? You have not explained yourself, whereas I have. Evaluate 1/0 using limits and you will see that it approaches -infinity on one side and +infinity on the other side. All mathematicians agree to this and that is why they have labeled it undefined. But it's not undefined. It is what it is, a number that is absolutely both positive and negative. Therefore it is the opposite of 0. This is NOT OR. It is plain and simple to anyone who can look at the facts.

You are the one that has done the research and it hasn't been done before, that makes it original. There is nothing wrong with OR, but Wikipedia is not the place for it - academic journals are. --Tango 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would call it more of a simple realization than original research, but thanks for saying there's nothing wrong with it. It really means a lot to me. To tell you the truth though, I don't think I believe in academic journals. THey have the same pitfalls as wikipedia. I think I like everything2 better. But anyway, thanks again for what you said. I really appreciate it instead of all these unappreciative and rude people who just slam you when they don't understand what you're talking about. Peace bro

-Archetype

There is something wrong with Original Research on Wikipedia. You can't make something up yourself and use Wikipedia to promote it. Get your ideas published in an academic journal, and then your peers will review it, and then maybe it can come on Wikipedia.192.88.124.207 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything2, like Wikipedia, is not peer reviewed. Your theory needs to be reviewed by experts before anyone can trust it - that's what academic journals are all about. --Tango 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Look I don't care about wikipedia ok? I was trying to do y'all a favor, and I didn't make ANYTHING up!!! It's a simple observation dude that you could see for yourself too if you stopped being such an asshole. Academic journals are wack, just like many wikipedians I now know. ANd you want to talk about trust! Its YOU people who can't be trusted, the ones who don't trust eachother! I just made a brand new discovery yesterday. And you're going to tell me its not good enough for wikipedia or that it's not reliable. Well to hell with you too. It's your loss buddy not mine. You know it's like they say: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink

sockpuppet notice

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Germanium for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Trovatore 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye

I've tried talking to you respectfully and actually discussing your ideas, because I thought it might help you understand the problems with them, and with posting them on Wikipedia, but you are clearly unwilling to listen, so I'm going to stop talking to you. Goodbye. --Tango 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you understand the "problems with my theory" if you were not aware that indeterminate and undefined are two different things? Is your score for math on the ACT a %99? Is it an %80? Your stubborn belief that I must be wrong for whatever reason precludes your ability to think independently. I do not hold a grudge against you, but I wish you really were willing to have a conversation. Sinerely, Archetype

So tango, did you ever confirm that undefined is different than indeterminate, or was I wrong?

Yo dude, I'm still waiting on you to go do your homework and come back to me whenever you've found out whether indeterminate is different than undefined

Nobody cares anymore. -- Steel 17:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)