On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 7:29:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/22/2020 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > >> When you measure something and it is so close to zero as to be >> indistinguishable from zero, then taking it to be zero is not an assumption. >> >> > *Why don't you compare the measured value with the curvature of a sphere 1 > LY in diameter, or !0^6 LY in diameter? Do you really think the curvature > would be significantly different from the measured value of the universe? I > doubt it. So, taking it to be zero, is just what you prefer, nothing more. > CMIIAW, AG* > > > No, because zero is a physically interesting value. There maybe some > unrecognized symmetry principle that makes it zero. It's unlikely that > there's some symmetry principle that makes it 1e-6. That's why physicist > look at the data as evidence for zero. Of course they may be wrong. But > it's not because they are just pulling assumptions out of thin air. > > Brent >
(from Wikipedia) *There are two zeroes*: +0 (*positive zero*) and −0 (*negative zero*) and this removes any ambiguity when dividing. In IEEE 754 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754> arithmetic, *a* ÷ +0 is positive infinity when *a* is positive, negative infinity when *a* is negative, and NaN when *a* = ±0. The infinity signs change when dividing by −0 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%88%920_(number)> instead. @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa5a8a09-0515-4702-abdc-2c7e204b3138%40googlegroups.com.
