# AI and the singularity

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by arfa brane, Jun 9, 2017.

1. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
Why should it need to ?
Can you give an example?

3. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,696
Division by zero is plus zero. Nothing was neccessary for the creation of life. +0.

5. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
Ok, if that is proper math, then you may be right. OTOH, if 0 = (+ 0) then where does the division come in play?
Now if 0/0 = 1, then we'd have something. But of course it doesn't. The answer is always zero.

In any case I cannot see a real life scenario in nature, where 0/0 = +0 = indetermined?

Last edited: Mar 3, 2018

7. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,696
"Nothing lasts forever." That's conception. It's something that occurs to every human. For this to occur, nothing is neccessary. It may not be plus zero, but it's definitely zero.

8. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
Theoretically there are animals that do not die. Check out this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

Not unlike the slime mold, which consists of cooperative single cell polyps.

9. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
Question; what does AI have to do with "the singularity" anyway?

In it's broadest sense the singularity (universe) is an AI itself. Perhaps a better term would be " pseudo-intelligence", i.e. it functions in accordance with mathematical values and functions, but is not sentient in and of itself.

Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
10. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,696
The first creature. Starfish do not die either.

11. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
Well, thanks for your confirmation. That kinda disagrees with your post # 84, don't it?

12. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,696
1÷0 does not take forever to calculate!

13. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
It doesn't do anything in reality.
If I have one of something and I don't divide it (/0), it remains one thing.

I don't know its use in "human" theoretical mathematics, but scribbling numbers does not always translate into natural mathematical functions or expression in reality.

Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
14. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
"Nothing" can also exist only for a single instant. Then there is nothing, then there is something.

At that scale who can define Nothing? You're right, it is just a human concept.

We define Nothing as the absence of physical stuff. It tells us nothing about the possible mathematical potentials which may exist independent of the presence of physical stuff.

And the definition of Potential is ; "That which may become expessed in reality".

Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
15. ### Lookingfor...Registered Member

Messages:
43
There are two ways to interpret Counter's psychology. Nothing lasts forever, meaning nothing remains for eternity, or something will dissapate, because it will not last forever.

Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
16. ### TheFroggerValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,696
Nothing cannot exist. If there is nothing there will be nothing forever, which gives birth to something...namely forever.

17. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,892
Forever is a CONCEPT

As such it has not physicality

As such it is nothing

NOTHING maintains its NOTHINGNESS

18. ### DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,885
From Counter Post 12
From Write4U Post 33
From River Post 34
From WriteU4 Post 35[/quote]Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]

First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.

100 / 1 = 100
100 / .1 = 1000
100 / .01 = 10000

As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.

19. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 69 years oldValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,892
I thought that the fact that a number WAS a number elevated it above zero - hence it could NOT contain any zeros

Hence my logic indicates ANY attempt to divide ANY number by zero would result in zero zeros being found inside the number

There certainly is such smaller numbers contained within larger numbers as Dinosaur post shows

But a zero within a number in somewhat akin to a vaccum within a air filled room

How far apart do the air molicules for the space between them to be considered a vacuum?

With numbers no space can exist within itself to be considered a zero

20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,597
Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]

First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.

100 / 1 = 100
100 / .1 = 1000
100 / .01 = 10000

As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.[/QUOTE] We hear that mathematics are a human invention and in the case of zero it truly is. It is a demarcation point which itself has no value.
This may be useful in abstract mathematics, but does reality function that way? If something has no value of any kind it cannot be used in practical physics.

And your example demonstrates dividing values by values. But if we turn this around and use multiplication instead of division, we get;

100 x 1.0 = 100
100 x 0.1 = 10
100 x 0.01 = 1
100 x 0.0 = 0
1,000,000 x 0.0 = 0

Or if we take the opposite:
0 / 1 = 0
0 / .1 = 0
0 / .01 = 0
0 / 100 = 0
0 / 1,000,000 = 0

I see it "division" as breaking a value (number) apart into constituent parts and values.
But if I divide zero (a non-value) into any number of parts, it remains without value (zero). IMO

Last edited: May 1, 2018
21. ### RainbowSingularityValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,521
why humans feel
what drives creative thought
is free will really free will
how is evolution crafted by the nature of biology

22. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,315
It's actually much easier to prohibit division by zero, by defining division to be restricted to non-zero divisors. In fact the Euclidean division 'algorithm' (q.v.) makes this explicit.

Hence division by numerical zero is not defined (is a kind of contradiction of division itself) in any number system (although there are zero divisors in ring algebras).

Write4U likes this.
23. ### RainbowSingularityValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,521
im no mathmermagician
just ponder'n words. when zero = a degree then zero is an actual number ?
as opposed to individual numbers and then asserting a value to zero also being a number ?

thus, when zero = a value, the value is the sum not the zero ? so zero is (dont know the proper word) kinda like a named 'x' value like a place holder rather than an actual number.
philisophically musing...would this suggest that counting starts at a value rather than no value ?
thus you do not start counting by having a zero
you can only start counting by having a number, be it 1 or any other value ?