What you are probably imagining when talking about 0 and 1 are their representatives in the “integer ring” or maybe the ring of real numbers. Both are simply definitions made by humans and in no way universal truths.
How many years have you studied mathematics? If you really believe that, it can’t be more than 2 after high-school.
Edit: better question: Can you define “equivalence relation”? I don’t want you to be creative, I want the standard definition you come across in any foundations class.
This is actually wrong. You can have an equivalence relation where 0 is equivalent to 1. Furthermore, in the Trivial Ring (that is, the ring algebra of a single element) the multiplicative identity (written as 1) and the and the additive identity (written as 0) are the same element, and thus in the context of the trivial ring 0=1. Isn’t that fascinating?
deleted by creator
Your example is wrong even in our universe lol. In the trivial ring (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_ring ), 0=1 is true.
What you are probably imagining when talking about 0 and 1 are their representatives in the “integer ring” or maybe the ring of real numbers. Both are simply definitions made by humans and in no way universal truths.
deleted by creator
How many years have you studied mathematics? If you really believe that, it can’t be more than 2 after high-school.
Edit: better question: Can you define “equivalence relation”? I don’t want you to be creative, I want the standard definition you come across in any foundations class.
The fact that time is relative disproves this already. Our understanding is limited by our ability to perceive.
This is actually wrong. You can have an equivalence relation where 0 is equivalent to 1. Furthermore, in the Trivial Ring (that is, the ring algebra of a single element) the multiplicative identity (written as 1) and the and the additive identity (written as 0) are the same element, and thus in the context of the trivial ring 0=1. Isn’t that fascinating?