Is This Equation Proof of God?

[@wyattwatters172]

Awesome video! I’m not good at math and you explain everything very well so the idiots like myself can learn and understand math easier. Your passion for math and teaching transcends through your video’s I can’t wait to see the next one!

[@David1AAA]

Just Beautiful, thanks for taking the time to put this together.

[@kuyaex5240]

The next question is, how will we get to prove that e^i(pi) is -1? ps: i already learned it, i now understand how it is equal to -1

[@swffej]

This is an excellent introduction I to all these mathematical properties!

[@LearnPlaySolve]

Thank you!!

[@sciencetalk2468]

Outstanding explanation ❤️❤️

[@LearnPlaySolve]

Thank you so much for that!! 😀

[@skilz8098]

The teaching of dividing by 0 that we've all been taught I think is misleading. I say you can, however there is a caveat to it. We were taught that it is undefined. I think that's where the problem lies. The fact it is being undefined. I think it is purely defined, however, the result of the operation isn't a 1:1 mapping as you would see with in a function and since this is based on an operator with its operands, the divide by operator acting as a function would pass for all values of a/b where a and b are any number including all R and all C numbers except it will not pass the vertical line test when the denominator is 0. So for me instead of seeing division by 0 as an illegal operation and undefined, I personally think it should be considered as ambiguous. If we used the long division method we were taught in elementary school for any two integers and stopped at the decimal point and label the remainder we can use this to see a pattern as to why division by 0 is ambiguous. Consider these few basic examples: 21 / 7 = 3, 8 / 2 = 4, 69 / 3 = 23 Here every one of these division problems has a quotient that is a whole number or an integer since the divisor goes into the dividend evenly. As a fraction these are improper since the numerator is greater than the denominator. Let's look at a few other cases where the divisor doesn't go into the dividend evenly. 23 / 6, 17 / 5, 42 / 11. We can do the division here and end up with a whole number and a fractional part, however instead of performing the division all the way through, we want our answer to be in the form of the quotient and remainder form. These will evaluate to: 3R5, 3R2, 3R9 The quotient for all of these is 3. The divisors or denominators are all of different values: 6,17, 11. Yet the remainder or left over parts are different 5, 2 and 9. What does this have to do with division by 0? Well these fractions or divisions in general don't. However, it's the notation of qRv where q is the quotient, R is the notation of remainder form, and v is the value of the remainder. This is significant. Let's look at division by 0 in this form from these examples: 0/3, 0/10, 0/250. Using the above notation the quotient would be 0 and the remainder is equal to the numerator or dividend giving us 0R3, 0R10, 0R250. How does this pattern make it ambiguous? If we continue with the long division process going past the decimal point, you will always end up with the same remainder indefinitely. So everytime you divide by 0 you will always have 0RX where the process of division can be performed an infinite amount of times and you'll still have a remainder of X where X is your numerator. This infinite recursion causes all of these operations to evaluate to infinity. In other words, 0R3, 0R10, 0R25, 0Re, 0RPI, etc... will all yield their remainders without termination and because of this infinite recursion, it's not a no-op, nor is it undefined, the result is just ambiguous. Consider this approach. Think of the denominator of a fraction or the divisor as being the number of containers, cups, buckets you have, and the numerator or dividend the amount of items you are putting into those buckets evenly one at a time. We drop an item in the buckets one at a time and repeat and go back to using the first bucket after the last bucket has been reached. If there are not enough items to fill every bucket on that iteration we stop and those left overs are our remainders. From the first set of examples we had 7 buckets and 21 items. We were able to fill all 7 buckets 3 times and there were no items left over. In the second set of examples we had 6 containers and 23 items. We were able to fill all 6 buckets 3 times but we were 1 short of filling them a fourth time leaving us with a remainder of 5 items. Using this same representation when the denominator is 0. This time we have 0 buckets to fill and we have X items to fill buckets with. Here we will always have X items left over, thus division by 0 can be represented as 0RX where X is the numerator. This is not a discrete number or value. This is just the result of the operation. We divided 0 times and we still have X items left over and thus the recursion will exploded into an infinite loop. And this is why I say it is ambiguous as this also demonstrates that it is well defined. We can not treat these as values with in other operations as they can not be arguments to another function, formula or equation. Yet we can use this notation to represent the result of the performed operation. There is one special condition to X/0 giving us 0RX and that is when X = 0 as well. This is 0/0 and will yield 0R0. And this special case we know it as an indeterminate form since this operation can result in 0, 1, and infinity depending on the context in which it is used and how it is being represented. Numbers and mathematics are powerful tools, but at the end of the day, they are still only abstractions, or abstract ideas, concepts, and products of the mind. It all depends on how we choose to interpret and represent them. I never cared for the undefined version of division by 0. To me it sounds like, "oh we can't do that or we don't know how to do that so we'll just ignore it and call it undefined.". Here, I demonstrated with a little bit of intuition we can define it in a well formed, well behaved manner. And the qRv notation is the way to demonstrate that division by 0 is possible, but that the result of the operation generates infinite recursion making it ambiguous. Why ambiguous over undefined? In programming such as can be seen in the C++ language and possibly other programming languages as well, when one writes the implementation of a function, there is a declaration and a definition. Sometimes a declaration and definition can be both. If we have a function that is called and declared but never defined, this results in a compiler error that gives an undefined error. A similar error can be thrown for an undefined variable. It's been declared but there exists no definition for it. As for the ambiguous terminology, when one declares a function once and has multiple definitions of it either in one or more translation units that includes the header file with its declaration, during compile and or linking time, it will throw an ambiguous definition error. Did you mean this? Or did you mean that? I the Compiler don't know what to do because I don't know which one you meant to use. A similar error can be thrown for an ambiguous variable definition as well. Here there is a distinct difference in the meaning and intent of the words undefined and ambiguous being used just as the error types and messages are of different types. Here the operation of division by 0 is defined, it just leads to an ambiguous result as we just don't know what that result is other than having the same remainder indefinitely. Now the ambiguous part isn't by the infinite recursion alone. The ambiguity would come from making a table between q and X. q | X ------- 0 | 1 0 | 2 0 | e 0 | PI 0 | 2i + 7 Here X can be anything including 0 while q is always 0. And that is where the ambiguity lies. It's not a 1:1 mapping and the reverse or inverse of this does not produce a valid multiplication. Just food for thought!

[@skilz8098]

@@LearnPlaySolve Just because something approaches infinity doesn't make it undefined. It makes it ambiguous. It's similar to but different in how the equation of a circle (X-h)^ + (Y-k)^ = r^2 gives a well defined geometrical shape with a well defined size and area, yet does not pass as a function for it does not pass the vertical line test. You have more than 1 output for some of its inputs. This makes it ambiguous. The property of division by 0 is similar to this. What do you think a vertical line is? The linear equation y = x has a 45 degree or PI/4 angle that is above the +x-axis and below the line of y = x. It has a slope of 1. Slope is defined as (y2-y1)/(x2-x2) which can also be written as dy/dx. Since the line y = x within the 1st quadrant goes out towards + infinity any point on that line at x creates a vertical line down to the x-axis. This creates a right triangle where the angle theta is at the vertex (0,0) spanning between y=mx + b and the +x-axis. Since we have a right triangle we can then substitute dy/dx as sin(t)/cos(t). The line the line y=x that generates a 45 degree angle proves the validity of the substitution: sin(45)/cos(45) = 1. Now as we rotate this line another 45 degrees, theta becomes 90 degrees or PI/2 radians. This angle is a valid argument for the domain of both the sine and cosine functions. sin(90) = 1, cos(90) = 0. And when we have the ratio of sin/cos at 90 we end up with the fraction 1/0. Through trig substitution this is the same as tan(90). Which again I do not think of it as being undefined. I think of it as being ambiguous. The limit approaches infinity at 90 degrees and this is why there is a vertical asymptote. A vertical line is well defined just as it's orthogonal counterpart, a horizontal line. The one has a slope of 0 and the other an infinite slope. Take the vertical line where x = 6. You put six into the equation for this line and there are an infinite amount of y value outputs. It's ambiguous. I still say division by 0 as well as the tangent function at intervals of 90 degrees or PI/2 radians is ambiguous as opposed to undefined. Undefined means it doesn't have a definition. Ambiguous means for any given input there are multiple outputs making it a 1 to many relationship as opposed to a 1 to 1 or many to 1 relationship. If we take the reverse roll and look at say y = 6, here we can put in any value for x, but all of the individual outputs will yield a 6 thus making a horizontal line that has a slope of 0. The inverse of 0 isn't 1, the inverse of 0 is infinity and the inverse of infinity is 0. Think of them as the empty or null sets and the full or all sets. They are opposites.

[@LearnPlaySolve]

Dividing by zero is only ambiguous when the numerator is also zero. In that case, we don't say "undefined", we say "indeterminate". There is a difference. But there is no ambiguity when the numerator is any other number. It's simply undefined.

[@ranjitmenon1175]

The power of zero always equals to 1 if the exponent is zero then the result is 1 ,why the co related existence ends with zero, what ,if the result is 1,why the exponent is added to 1 ? means there is only 1 god correlated to its existence, in other words god is infinite sources of intelligence ,why there is no reference with infinity in this equation ? because god is infinite right in some religions ,Euler was polynomial,on his equations , during those times people only knew about 1 universe ,science has.made further advancement from that date today its multiverse ,so infinity should be added a part of the equations ,euler could only prove the existence of God ,what ,if god did not exist,we all humans could have been worst than animals ,after the discovery of multiverse ,there are multiple gods ruling each universe ,so infinity has to be an inclusion in the paradoxes of the eulers equation.

[@ranjitmenon1175]

equation needs to be updated

[@kuyaex5240]

Doesn’t the e already contain the infinite?

[@Tesla-vv3yl]

Nice great explanation

[@lucrecialetbetter2874]

We only need to know π to the 39th decimal place 3and 9 makes 12 which make 3 or in multiplying 3,9 makes 27 which goes back to 9. The "th" is end of beset hook. The 9 holes on the human body that is. That is how recycling continues or in other words reliving the past or history repeats itself. look at the number 9 it sometimes has a straight line down with the circle on the top. This number 9 has a backwards hook with the circle on the top. We can see the hooks loops turns roots and routes to destruction but we can see what not to do because we are looking in the wrong direction. Your right zero is the best number but when we get back to zero where do we go from there do we go down or do we backwards hook or do we remove the straight line down and backwards hook and just be 1/won whole continuously where is no quest no competitions no success no failures and etc. You know the whole animals are animal bodies that just be until we humans mess with them. We where made to just be as well. We cant change the past physically but can change direction. We can all go up while grounded here on earth. Trust me it will be the most amazing entire in your entire life that nothing can ever compare or compete.

[@thegrandyata]

you're insane

[@stewbaka4279]

thank you, ive been enlightened

[@ArryAller]

Excellent video!

[@LearnPlaySolve]

Thank you!

[@juliusmarco7844]

Then where is your god?

[@limitlessenergy369]

Ourself. The ones who understand have the power you do not.

[@backjack5407]

Good video, although I still don't understand how it proves God's existence

[@LearnPlaySolve]

Thank you! I don't claim that it proves or disproves anything.

[@backjack5407]

@@LearnPlaySolve ight that is true. The title more made me think this was an attempt to prove god

[@jordandesmet6593]

It clearly points towards an extremely intelligent creator. Or you could choose to believe that this resulted from random nothingness. Sounds rather boring and delusional though.

[@backjack5407]

@@jordandesmet6593 so can you prove god is real then. Lacking belief in floaty man in sky, who in most religions a pretty fu(king big asshole (Christianity homophobia, Islam sexism), isn't delusional lol

[@ItalianMappingBestMapper]

@@jordandesmet6593 that creator being humans lol, mathematics is just an invented systhem true a priori