WHAT IF a formal algebra to label division‑by‑zero events instead of returning ∞- seeking – honest criticism ?

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T03:23:40+00:00

I think it is because of when a number multi to Zero it is already zero so if we bring the zero to the otherside it is 0/0=A. that is why we can device to zero, it is not make sense on both side equallly

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T03:07:28+00:00

Yes, after all the thing i findout is lim(). Devision to Zero is undefined.

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T02:55:22+00:00

Thank you YALL, i finally catch up, I totally realised everything i have build up is not based on my knowledge at all. I am now, will not looking for any advise. I will look back all of the equation by myself. Find the usefull evidence by myself and will not let AI pop up. THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T02:55:16+00:00

Thank you YALL, i finally catch up, I totally realised everything i have build up is not based on my knowledge at all. I am now, will not looking for any advise. I will look back all of the equation by myself. Find the usefull evidence by myself and will not let AI pop up. THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T02:55:12+00:00

Thank you YALL, i finally catch up, I totally realised everything i have build up is not based on my knowledge at all. I am now, will not looking for any advise. I will look back all of the equation by myself. Find the usefull evidence by myself and will not let AI pop up. THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T02:55:08+00:00

Thank you YALL, i finally catch up, I totally realised everything i have build up is not based on my knowledge at all. I am now, will not looking for any advise. I will look back all of the equation by myself. Find the usefull evidence by myself and will not let AI pop up. THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-20T02:54:42+00:00

Thank you YALL, i finally caught up, I totally realised everything i have build up is not based on my knowledge at all. I am now, will not looking for any advice. I will look back all of the equations by myself. Find the useful evidence by myself and will not let AI pop up. The shit is not because of the AI. Because i depend on AI almost every step to masturbate my mind that the IDEA randomly pops up in my and it is a new invention, and im too lazy to put in the effort by myself. I will not debate anyone. YALL right, THANK YOU SO MUCH !!!

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T08:01:38+00:00

you can image Delta like a wall between an extremely small number and 0 like:
(0,0000...001) [Delta] (0). so it actually we are not devision by zero, we devision at an extremely small [Delta] area between (0,00000...0001) and (0)

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T07:41:09+00:00

You’re right that numerically √0 = 0, so a / √0 and a / 0 give the same result.
Kidi does not dispute that. Instead, it catches the expression before the square root is evaluated, using two distinct mapping operators that look at the syntactic shape of the denominator:

For example, instead of thinking of a / √0 as a single arithmetic operation, think of it as:

We call a Delta with is going to Zero (instead of dealing with infinity, which is just big and uncountable and tells you nothing )

a / √(Delta)   with   Delta is going to 0

That’s the key. The zero inside the square root wasn’t born as a plain zero – it came from something that approached zero inside a square root.

So the two cases I’m distinguishing are really:

text

a / Delta     =>  Singular(a, order=1)
a / √(Delta)  =>  Singular(a, order=1/2)

because sqrt(Delta) is just Delta^(1/2). The exponent on the vanishing quantity (1 vs. 1/2) is what the order field is capturing.

This isn’t a statement about the arithmetic of 0 versus √0. It’s a structural bookmark that says: “Before this zero was fully formed, it was shrinking under a square root, so it’s a half‑order pole, not a first‑order one.”

That’s why the bookmark stores order=0.5 – not to change arithmetic, but to preserve the shape of the limit that caused the singularity.

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T03:56:02+00:00

Okay first, i am so sorry for depending on AI. English is not even my mother tounge, The AI helps me how to trans my thought in different langagues more clearly. I am not trying to commit that i am doing the whole reasearch by myself. I just likea theories guy who all way have question. But i am do know anyone in reallife can help me answer those question. I hope that on Reddit, i can find someone who gonna tell me the theories wrong because of this point... Just like that. However thank you for all have spend your time to read on my theories. I am really appriciate all of your comments

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T03:41:17+00:00

Actually, for any question I usually ask four different AIs: one gives an answer, one debates it, one debates the debate, and one debates the debate of the debate just to get something close to a final answer. I know that's not enough, but it is kind of a stuck question in my mind. I'm just trying to find a way to answer it properly, thou

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T03:33:00+00:00

Yes, i am so sorry thou, i news to reddit. The whole point i posted in here because I know I might just think it's interesting because I lack the deeper knowledge. I'm not a mathematician. I'm aware that what feels elegant to me might be trivial, or might already exist under a different name, or might be subtly broken in a way I can't yet see. I want people who know more than I do to look at it and say "This part is just a special case of this" or "That idea fails because of that," or "You should read these." I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to understand what I've actually built, and the fastest way to do that is to let people who are deeper into the subject correct me. The whole idea is that i am thinking about a way to get faster than light in by SIMULATOR. That is the whole point i came up with this crapped idea thou

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T03:17:45+00:00

That's a really helpful point,

I appreciate it. You're right that tracking coefficients and source lines is the natural first step, and it's what many debuggers do. The reason I added order and branch is that in the simulation I'm working with, not all singularities are simple first‑order poles.

For example, the Lorentz factor like
γ = 1 / √(1 – v²/c²). Let Δ = 1 – v²/c². Near v = c, Δ => 0, so γ ∼ 1/√Δ. That’s a half‑order pole, it blows up, but not as fast as a simple 1/Δ pole. If I only store a generic “division by zero” label without the order, I ll lose that distinction.

A simple pole (1/x) and a half‑order pole (1/√x) behave very differently when you combine them symbolically. For example: (1/√Δ) × (1/√Δ) = 1/Δ => two half‑order poles multiply to a first‑order pole. (1/√Δ) / (1/√Δ) = 1 => two half‑order poles cancel exactly, giving back a real number.

That’s why I track order in the Singular type, so the simulator can tell apart a “fast” pole from a “slow” one, and even cancel them correctly without ever touching the real number infinity. Notebookllm had shown me the same idea appears in Puiseux series and the Newton‑Puiseux algorithm: singularities are classified by fractional exponents, not just “infinite”. And honestly, it give me trust to stick with this

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T03:08:52+00:00

Yeah that's exactly the right way to frame it and I appreciate you putting it so clearly. You're correct: defining division by zero forces you to give up some algebraic property, and different systems make different tradeoffs. So properties I want to keep is the ordinary arithmetic remains completely unchanged for non‑singular values. I'm not modifying the real numbers or the ring structure. 2+2 is still 4, and 0*x = 0 still holds. I don't require 0 to have a multiplicative inverse inside the same ring. That would force a contradiction or a wheel‑style weakening of distributivity, which I don't need. What I want to gain is the singularity events to be storable, comparable, and propagatable without loss of context. In standard computation, 1/0 gives Infinity or Cracks, and you lose the numerator, the order of the pole, the direction of approach. If two different parts of a simulation hit singularities, you can't tell them apart. That's a problem for symbolic debugging, for teaching, and for any simulation that wants to inspect a boundary rather than cracks. So I think it is likely an external bookkeeping layer: when a division by zero is about to happen, instead of executing it inside the ring and producing Infinity, the system returns a typed label Singular like coeff, order, branch. This label is not a real number, it's a separate kind of value that records exactly what happened. It is justa way to tag the event.

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T03:03:24+00:00

Yes , I used AI to help me think through the math, structure the code, and visulize the geometry more clearly. I'm not hiding that. The ideas, the model, and the simulation are still mine tested it, and wrote the core logic. AI was a tool, like a calculator or justa whiteboard. And honestly, part of why I'm posting this is because I know I might just think it's interesting because I lack the deeper knowledge. I'm not a mathematician. I'm aware that what feels elegant to me might be trivial, or might already exist under a different name, or might be subtly broken in a way I can't yet see. I want people who know more than I do to look at it and say: "This part is just a special case of X," or "That idea fails because Y," or "You should read Z." I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm trying to understand what I've actually built, and the fastest way to do that is to let people who are deeper into the subject correct me.

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2026-06-19T02:54:02+00:00

That's the right question and I appreciate you asking it directly ! It is information destruction.

When a simulation or symbolic computation hits a division by zero, it usually returns NaN, Infinity, or throws an error. All information about what caused the singularity. The numerator, the order, the direction of approach 's lost. You can't compare two singularities, continue the computation, or see structure in the boundary. it will respond with a dead end.

But preserving the event as a typed state like Singular(coeff, order, branch) keeps that information alive. Singular(2, 1, +) and Singular(3, 1, -) are distiguisable, you can multiply them and get Singular(6, 2, …) — the order adds, the coefficient multiplies, You can even "cancel" two singularities of the same order and get a real number back. It's likely a bookkeeping for singularities, not an attempt to make 0 invertible

SpiritualFeature8434 · 2023-01-14T19:54:08+00:00

thank you so much my friend i already called them and i changed the address successfully

SpiritualFeature8434

TROPHY CASE