Blog

Imagine if someone said, “2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 4.” That would sound strange, right? Math is like a set of rules that we use to understand and talk about numbers and shapes. These rules help us do things like count, build things, and even play games.

Right now, one of the most important rules in math is that when you multiply any number by zero, the answer is always zero. So, 1 times 0 equals 0. This is a very basic rule that makes a lot of other math work properly.

But let’s imagine what would happen if this rule was different and 1 times 0 did not equal 0. It would be like changing the rules of a game everyone knows how to play. Suddenly, a lot of things we know about math wouldn’t make sense anymore.

First, we’d have to change how we count and add numbers. It would be very confusing! People use math to make sure buildings and bridges are safe. If the math rules changed, it would be harder to build things that work. Scientists use math to understand how the world works. Changing math rules would make it harder to do science.

So, the idea that math could be “wrong” would mean we have to change a lot of things we know and use every day. But since math works so well for counting, building, and understanding the world, likely, the rules we use are just right the way they are.

Math isn’t wrong; it’s a smart set of rules that help us understand and do many things in life. If we had to change a basic rule, like 1 times 0 equals 0, everything would get confusing. So, it’s best to trust that these math rules are right!

The fundamental principles of mathematics are deeply ingrained in our understanding of the world. These principles allow us to count, measure, and analyze with remarkable accuracy and consistency. However, questioning whether a fundamental rule—such as 1 x 0 = 0—could be incorrect opens a doorway to exploring the very nature and reliability of mathematics.

One of the cornerstone rules in arithmetic is that multiplying any number by zero results in zero. This principle is not only intuitive but also essential for the coherence of mathematical operations. It underpins various algebraic properties, including the distributive property, which states that a(b + c) = ab + ac. If 1 x 0 did not equal 0, this foundational property would be disrupted, necessitating a complete reevaluation of how we understand multiplication and addition.

If the rule 1 x 0 ≠ 0 were to hold, basic arithmetic would face profound changes. We would need to redefine multiplication and potentially addition, leading to an entirely new system of arithmetic. This would cascade into algebra, where the manipulation and simplification of expressions rely heavily on the current properties of zero. Equations and their solutions would look drastically different, challenging the core concepts taught from early education onward.

Number theory, which delves into the properties and relationships of integers, would be thrown into disarray. Many proofs and theorems depend on the current understanding of zero and its behavior in multiplication. A redefinition of zero would invalidate or require significant modifications to these established results. Furthermore, calculus and other higher mathematical fields, which rely on limits, derivatives, and integrals, would also need to be re-examined. The consistency and predictability that mathematics offers in modeling the real world would be compromised.

From a philosophical standpoint, mathematics is often seen as a consistent and logical system. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems already highlight certain limitations within mathematical systems, but they do not suggest that basic arithmetic is incorrect. Rather, they show that within any given system, there are truths that cannot be proven using the system’s own rules. If 1 x 0 were not zero, we would need to consider whether we are operating within a fundamentally flawed or entirely different logical framework.

The hypothesis that 1 x 0 ≠ 0 challenges the very foundation of mathematics. Such a shift would necessitate a complete overhaul of arithmetic, algebra, and higher mathematical disciplines. The current structure of mathematics is built on internally consistent rules that have proven effective in modeling and understanding the world. Therefore, while it is theoretically possible to question these rules, the practical and philosophical coherence of mathematics strongly supports the correctness of principles like 1 x 0 = 0. This consistency underpins not only the abstract realm of mathematics but also its application in the real world, from everyday counting to advanced scientific research.

The statement “1 x 0 = 0” is a fundamental part of arithmetic and algebra within the context of our current number systems, specifically the real numbers and most other number systems used in mathematics. However, let’s explore the implications and possibilities if this statement were incorrect:

If we assume, for the sake of the hypothesis, that 1×0≠01×0=0, this would have profound implications for the entire structure of mathematics. Here’s what might happen:

1. Redefinition of Basic Arithmetic:
   • The entire system of arithmetic would need to be redefined. The property of multiplication by zero is fundamental to many other mathematical concepts and operations. Without it, the consistency and structure of arithmetic would collapse.
2. Impact on Algebra:
   • In algebra, the distributive property 𝑎×(𝑏+𝑐)=𝑎×𝑏+𝑎×𝑐a×(b+c)=a×b+a×c heavily relies on the fact that 𝑎×0=0a×0=0. If 1×0≠01×0=0, this property would need reevaluation, leading to a rethinking of how algebraic expressions and equations work.
3. Changes in Number Theory:
   • Number theory, which studies the properties of integers, would face significant changes. For instance, the definition and properties of zero would need to be reconsidered, and many proofs and theorems would become invalid or require major modifications.
4. Logical Inconsistencies:
   • Zero is defined as the additive identity, meaning 0+0=00+0=0. If 1×0≠01×0=0, we need a new definition for multiplication and potentially addition, leading to a complete overhaul of the logical foundations of mathematics.
5. Repercussions in Calculus and Higher Mathematics:
   • Calculus relies on limits, derivatives, and integrals, all of which assume standard arithmetic properties, including 1×0=01×0=0. The fundamental theorem of calculus and many other results would need to be reworked.

To hypothetically entertain the idea that 1×0≠01×0=0, we would need to introduce a new element or redefine existing elements to maintain consistency:

1. New Element:
   • Introduce a new element in the number system, say 𝜀ε, such that 1×0=𝜀1×0=ε, where 𝜀≠0ε=0. This element would have unique properties and would necessitate a new set of axioms and rules.
2. Modified Zero:
   • Redefine zero such that it behaves differently under multiplication. This would mean revisiting the entire foundation of mathematics and ensuring the consistency of the new definitions.
3. Non-Standard Arithmetic Systems:
   • Develop a non-standard arithmetic system where traditional properties do not hold. Such systems already exist in abstract algebra and other branches of mathematics (e.g., non-standard analysis, surreal numbers), but they coexist with and rely on the traditional number system.

If 1×0≠01×0=0, it would signify a fundamental change in our understanding of mathematics, requiring a complete redefinition of arithmetic, algebra, and much more. The current mathematical framework is built on the consistency and logical coherence of statements like 1×0=01×0=0.

If this were proven incorrect, the implications would be far-reaching, necessitating a new foundation for mathematical theory.

However, within the context of our established mathematical systems, the statement 1×0=01×0=0 is not only correct but essential for the consistency and coherence of the entire discipline.

As the auditorium filled with people waiting for the commencement ceremony, two young males of the Gen Alpha variety sat ahead of me, and I overheard their conversation.

“My terk! I haven’t seen you in along time. How are you.”

“Pebbles, man.”

“Great. I’ve been parked.”

“Yeah, life is Costco now days.”

“Tell me about it, ain’t no jar.”

“I know somedays have no swirl to them.”

“You still going with that bussin’ lit?”

“Nah, I’m all nabs.”

“That’s too bad, you two were Remy.”

“I still like her, but you gotta keep on the mute about that.”

“Why? You afraid you’ll get all feta if she finds out?”

“No, but I do think she’s all getty.”

“Well, I promise not to ooze, okay?”

“Mid, man.”

“I know, you’ve never been extra.”

“Look at the old man behind us, he looks so salad.”

The Associated Press (AP) receives support from several private foundations with progressive agendas to fund its coverage of elections and democracy, including Nikole Hannah-Jones of the “1619 Project,” which in turn gets funding from Meta (formerly Facebook), Humanity United, the Trellis Fund, the Art for Justice Fund, Open Society Foundations, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Each of the entities listed has known connections to anti-American financiers. Other supporters include the Lilly Endowment Inc., the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

The Jonathan Logan Family Foundation supports organizations advancing social justice, including the New Georgia Project, run by Stacey Abrams, and Take Back the Court, which advocates for expanding the U.S. Supreme Court to address various social and political issues. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation funds Planned Parenthood and Advocates for Youth, whose curriculum, “Rights, Respect, Responsibility” (3Rs), introduces concepts like “same-gender parents” and the idea that boys and girls can have different body parts than typically expected, starting as early as kindergarten.

The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation criticized the recent Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action, arguing it hinders colleges from addressing systemic racial inequalities. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute committed $2 billion to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in science. The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, unrelated to the Pulitzer Prize, focuses on issues like migration, social justice, and censorship under the guise of misinformation.

Report for America receives funding from the Google News Initiative, Microsoft, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Meanwhile, The Conversation in the U.K. gets funding from the Ford Foundation via the Kresge Foundation, through the Tides Foundation, associated with George Soros.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated nearly $30 million in taxpayer funding to two Nevada-based companies to bolster lithium battery production, a significant step in advancing domestic energy initiatives.

The lion’s share of the funding, approximately $19.6 million, has been designated for American Battery Technology (ABTC) in the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center. This substantial investment is to facilitate the construction of a battery recycling facility.

Meanwhile, Albemarle, near Tonopah at the Silver Peak Project, will benefit from a $9.3 million injection to expand lithium carbonate production. The initiatives align with the DOE’s Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Tax Credit, emphasizing innovation and efficiency in the energy sector.

ABTC’s milestone achievement includes the completion of construction and commissioning of its lithium hydroxide (LiOH) pilot plant, a groundbreaking development in lithium resource utilization. The pilot plant’s operation allows ABTC to showcase its processes at the Tonopah Lithium Flats Project, creating battery-grade lithium hydroxide.

Traditionally, lithium products originate from conventional resources such as hard rock spodumene materials. However, ABTC’s Tonopah Flats Lithium Project harnesses over 10,000 acres of lithium-bearing claystone resources.

Looking ahead, ABTC plans to scale up its operations, constructing a commercial-scale refinery capable of producing 30,000 tons of lithium hydroxide annually. Additionally, the company is advancing its battery recycling operations with de-manufacturing processes and chemical extraction techniques to recover battery materials.

According to a study conducted by NoDepositDaily.com, Nevada is the second-worst state for surviving a zombie apocalypse.

The study assessed various survival indicators, awarding Nevada a score of 32.05 out of 100 for its likelihood of making it through such a scenario. While the state earned a commendable ninth-place score for its low population density, it ranked last in terms of access to food.

Nevada found itself trailing only Hawaii, with its remote location considered a disadvantage due to its reliance on mainland resources for food, medicine, and weapons. California followed closely behind as the third-worst state, primarily due to dense population centers and limited access to firearms.

The study factored in weapons and security, supplies and survival resources, population density, medical services, gas and vehicle supplies, climate, access to fresh water, and food.

In contrast, Reno and Las Vegas performed relatively well in a separate analysis conducted by lawn care service site LawnLove.com. Reno was ranked as the 60th-best city for survival, earning high marks for protection and mobility but scoring poorly for hideouts due to a lack of basements. Las Vegas secured the eighth position overall, with nearby Henderson and North Las Vegas ranking lower on the list.

The study by LawnLove.com considered factors such as vulnerability, hideouts, supplies, protection, and mobility when assessing the survivability of cities in a zombie apocalypse scenario. Houston emerged as the top city for survival, while Miramar, Florida, ranked last.

Joining Nevada and California in the bottom 10 were states such as Arizona, New York, Illinois, New Mexico, Ohio, Utah, and Indiana.

Despite Nevada’s less favorable ranking in the zombie survival study, the region appears reasonably well-prepared to face various challenges throughout the rest of 2024, a zombie apocalypse notwithstanding.

Despite being headquartered in Denver, Colo., Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) continues to develop its election machine programming in Serbia, Canada, and China in violation of U.S. law. 

Dominion’s office in Belgrade, located at Rankeova 19, has been at the center of controversy as it is reportedly involved in programming the voting machines used in the U.S. The company’s practices have raised significant concerns about the legality and security of these systems.

Critics argue that Dominion’s international operations violate federal laws such as the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), which mandates stringent security controls over federal information systems. Additionally, some concerns allowing foreign entities to develop and access critical election infrastructure contravenes national security protocols.

Despite these concerns, Dominion maintains that its practices are secure. The company asserts that all software development is conducted in-house by DVS employees and is not outsourced to third parties. Chris Riggall, a spokesman for Dominion, emphasized that the software undergoes rigorous review, testing, and certification by federal, state, and local authorities.

However, the presence of overseas developers has fueled ongoing debates about the integrity of the U.S. election systems. Suzanne Mello-Stark, a forensic computer scientist at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and other experts have called for greater transparency in both software and hardware used in voting systems.

Recent job postings for senior software developers in Belgrade and reports of Dominion’s extensive operations in Serbia have raised further concerns. The use of proprietary software by election technology companies, including Dominion, has been criticized for its lack of transparency and potential vulnerabilities.

The situation is complicated further by reports of election systems in multiple states using machines that lack paper backups. Such systems, which include touch-screen voting machines with rewritable flash memory, are particularly susceptible to tampering. Experts like Daniel Lopresti of Lehigh University warn that if the firmware is tampered with, it could be nearly impossible to verify the accuracy of the election results.

The controversy surrounding Dominion is part of a broader debate about election security in the U.S. Recent elections have seen increased concern about potential hacking and the overall security of voting infrastructure, including Nevada, where the state’s highest court has again dismissed a case questioning how Washoe and Clark Counties conduct elections without regarding the evidence. The lack of standardized security measures in the two most populated counties in the state has left other county systems vulnerable to attacks.

Some states are moving towards more secure systems. Maryland, for example, has replaced touch-screen terminals with optical scanners that use paper ballots, offering a verifiable paper trail.

The Biden administration has accelerated an environmental review of a lithium mine in Nevada, drawing attention from conservationists concerned about its impact on an endangered Nevada wildflower.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently unveiled a 2,000-plus page document in a draft environmental impact statement for the Rhyolite Ridge lithium mine, a crucial element for electric vehicle batteries and a linchpin of President Joe Biden’s green energy agenda. Federal officials lauded the progress in reviewing the lithium-boron mine, portraying it as a step toward supporting responsible domestic development of critical minerals to drive the clean energy economy.

Steve Feldgus, Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, emphasized the collaborative approach between federal agencies to address environmental concerns while advancing mineral development.

However, environmentalists remain staunch in their opposition, viewing the mine as emblematic of the Biden Administration’s disregard for wildlife protections in pursuit of climate goals. Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin Director at the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the project as “greenwashing extinction,” citing potential violations of the Endangered Species Act due to threats posed to Tiehm’s buckwheat, a rare flower native to the region.

The draft environmental impact statement presents multiple options for the project, with the BLM favoring a plan that minimizes habitat destruction but still raises concerns among conservationists. Despite efforts to mitigate impacts and incorporate conservation measures, critics argue that any harm to the delicate ecosystem could have irreversible consequences for the endangered wildflower.

The contentious project is emblematic of broader tensions between conservation and green energy development and production in Nevada. With a projected 2030 worldwide increase in demand for lithium, the stakes are high for environmental protection and economic advancement.

When a husband or wife loses their spouse to death, they are known as widows or widowers. Should a child lose both of their parents, we call them an orphan.

But there is no word, no name for a parent or parents who have lost a child to death. I suggest “Angle Parent,” to fill the needed requirement.

The federal government has given the green light to Nevada’s initial plan for $416.6 million in taxpayer-funded grant money to expand access to high-speed Internet across the state.

According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Nevada’s plan outlines strategies to deliver high-speed Internet access to areas lacking coverage or connectivity. Nevada is among the first states to achieve access to funds, which are part of a broader $42.5 billion program under the Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative.

Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator, hailed the announcements as a significant step forward in closing the digital divide across the country.

“Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia have developed robust plans tailored to their specific needs, aimed at deploying dependable, cost-effective high-speed Internet service throughout their states,” Davidson stated.

With the initial plan approved, Nevada has a year to finalize its proposal. The final proposal will provide detailed strategies ensuring comprehensive coverage to all unserved and underserved areas within the state.

Local and regional solar energy initiatives in Nevada receive a significant boost with over $218 million in federal taxpayer funding, announced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant competition.

The Nevada Clean Energy Fund is the primary recipient, securing $156.1 million to advance its Solar for All initiative. The program plans to make solar energy accessible to marginalized communities by facilitating home installations and community projects.

Additionally, tribal nonprofit GRID Alternatives’ Western Indigenous Network Solar For All (WIN-SFA) will receive $62.5 million to extend solar access to thousands of Native American households. The funding prioritizes tribal communities in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.