So I have managed to move the infinity to different location...
We all agree .. now I can similary move the infinity to any point of discussion I want ...
The most important fact here is that Physical continuty or comprehensibility can be achieved at the so called infinity by doing transformation... without any application of new rule...
Infact this means that there is no such concept of infinity in reality and it is the limitation of our expression which makes it infinite .. and when we are not able to completely remove it from the system ...then it is the drawback of the tool....
I am computer professional and I know how such cases break the flow of logic... the continuity of a simple mathematical process gets broken down into if and then conditions...
And suddenly the Universe appears to have intelligence ....otherwise how it is able to hide the infinity...
Now I will like generalize the problem for all such cases where we have possible 0 in the denominator...
I know science has been struggling with infinities and if there is any one reason why physics has been able to partially conquer the infinity ,it is because it enforces quantum limits... Infact the uncertainity principle refuses to recognize zero...
Even Vaccum has something in it...
The necessity of something inside nothing is again a logical necessity of the Maths itself and not physics...
Earlier I had discussed why One Unified Theory is a logical necessity of Maths but not reality....(becuase a half truth is still false as per boolean logic)
It is true that I am not very technical in my description but I firmly believe the reality is all about common sense and it should not be confused with the approach used to understand it...
There are many more interesting ideas to share with you but please keep correcting me whenever I go wrong technically...
I hope I am able to make at least some sense ...And my end result is not zero...
As far as functions are concerned the definition has been modified to suit its own limitation ... atleast a function should return the same result on passing the same input..f(x)=y should not give me y1 ,y2 etc...for x1. Incase of limits this rule does not apply ... but we circumvent the problem by saying that limit is a finite value 'just' above(or below) x... But no one dares to ask that no matter how close someone is to the x .. it can not be x...
Maths is self enclosed and I am trying to find something in the real world which will validate it and so far I have not found anything which matches perfectly...almost everything has been reduced to probability and I wonder that one day we may wake up to see that 1+1= 2 is not working because the there was a small probability that it will not work...
I really enjoyed this discussion but have some urgent official work to complete ..
I reply to you on Monday...
