'Solving': so you mean, an equation like 2x = x - 1? (Replace each side with what you want.)

here's an equation:

1/x = 0

The solution is x = infinity - in a sense. (also x = -infinity)

As you can see, what you're saying is not clear.

No. Not that you "just have to follow" as though it's arbitrary.Your response very clearly is "That's not the way this works. There are just some rules you have to follow."

Yes, there are rules in mathematics. And if you operate in that area of mathematics, you should follow them if you want to do something that makes sense in that particular area.

Spoiler: ...

If you are inventing a new type of maths, then you can break rules and redefine stuff, and see what happens there. If you are doing that, then you should be clear about it.

Yes, I don't understand what this means. Can you explain it again?You have yet to grasp what I said about the unknown variable in the first place which is that it could be a changing thing that never stays constant which would mean it has no predictability.

In particular, what do you mean by 'an unknown variable'? Is this in the context of an equation?

Give an example or something. Like what are you actually referring to?

So, you are trying to create a new system of maths and see what happens? I mean, I can get behind that. But from your original post, it didn't look like you're saying that. It seems like you're talking about a typical equation, and then stating some things that don't work. That 'normal maths' is all built upon practical things like the patronising cow/chicken thing I described, and so that's why it's useful to use to check if what you're doing actually makes sense.This could even be a string of 0's and 1's. I mean, you even said it yourself that what I am saying is not what math is for. In short, you are focussed on the practical application of how math is useful to us rather than considering the merits of whether I am correct or not.

But if you're trying to create some new thing, by modifying some existing rules, then let's go with that.

It also seems like you're trying to combine maths and physics. E.g. when you said this "then this means that time within the equation actually passes while manipulating the equation" and I don't understand this. The solution to an equation typically has no connection to the time taken to solve it - unless time is a variable within the equation.

Perhaps that's what you mean? You want to have an equation that is both random and changes over time? f(x, t) or something.

## Bookmarks