But that assumption, of how reality works, is based on the premise that reality is, has always been, and can only work that way. Maybe opposites coexist in some other concept of reality?
What you are probably imagining when talking about 0 and 1 are their representatives in the “integer ring” or maybe the ring of real numbers. Both are simply definitions made by humans and in no way universal truths.
How many years have you studied mathematics? If you really believe that, it can’t be more than 2 after high-school.
Edit: better question: Can you define “equivalence relation”? I don’t want you to be creative, I want the standard definition you come across in any foundations class.
This is actually wrong. You can have an equivalence relation where 0 is equivalent to 1. Furthermore, in the Trivial Ring (that is, the ring algebra of a single element) the multiplicative identity (written as 1) and the and the additive identity (written as 0) are the same element, and thus in the context of the trivial ring 0=1. Isn’t that fascinating?
But why?
These concepts are each defined in relation to something else. Without that something else these concepts are meaningless, absurd, and do not exist.
But that assumption, of how reality works, is based on the premise that reality is, has always been, and can only work that way. Maybe opposites coexist in some other concept of reality?
There are logical impossibilities, for example in no universe does 0 = 1, and the same is true for these concepts.
Your example is wrong even in our universe lol. In the trivial ring (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring ), 0=1 is true.
What you are probably imagining when talking about 0 and 1 are their representatives in the “integer ring” or maybe the ring of real numbers. Both are simply definitions made by humans and in no way universal truths.
There’s no math that makes 0 = 1. When you cannot see the error it does not mean there is no error.
How many years have you studied mathematics? If you really believe that, it can’t be more than 2 after high-school.
Edit: better question: Can you define “equivalence relation”? I don’t want you to be creative, I want the standard definition you come across in any foundations class.
The fact that time is relative disproves this already. Our understanding is limited by our ability to perceive.
This is actually wrong. You can have an equivalence relation where 0 is equivalent to 1. Furthermore, in the Trivial Ring (that is, the ring algebra of a single element) the multiplicative identity (written as 1) and the and the additive identity (written as 0) are the same element, and thus in the context of the trivial ring 0=1. Isn’t that fascinating?