Ancient Concept of 0 Identified with Infinity, NOT Nothing

Discussion of pure mathematics, applied mathematics, mathematical education, proofs, problems, and theory.
Post Reply
urban8499
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2026 3:08 pm

Ancient Concept of 0 Identified with Infinity, NOT Nothing

Post by urban8499 »

This has been something that I thought about in my head for a while and eventually was shocked to discover the following included in an amazing book on Magnetism, the purpose of this post is to see what others think about this idea and if anyone else has found information pointing to 0 being constrained by a modern understanding of it being "nothing / no-thing"

Anyone who knows about limits knows that a limit with x approaching 0 for 1/x goes to either +Infinity or -Infinity as X gets smaller and smaller (graphic by me to explain for those who don't know what I mean).
Image

The following two images were included in Ken Wheeler's "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which is available on the Internet Archive for free

For those who want to see other images and clips from this book, you can see the album I've created on Imgur: Other Graphics & Clippings from the same Book
Image
Image
The ancient mathematicians utilized two seemingly contradictory terms to denote zero: Sunya (the Void) and Purna (the Plenum, or absolute fullness). This common reference implies that all numbers, dimensions, and physical substances are virtually and potentially present within that which is without number. This is mathematically formalized as the equation: [0 = X - X] where zero is to number as possibility is to actuality. Zero is not the absence of value; it is the perfectly balanced, non-polarized, and isotropic rest-state of the entire Ether Plenum.
In the Chandogya Upanishad, this unmanifest space (Akasa) is identified as the permissive cause of all individual integration: "All these beings arise out of the space and return into the space... space is older than they, prior to them".

When Indian mathematician Bhaskara defined division by zero in the Bijaganita, he didn't arrive at an "undefined" error. He defined it as the Infinite Immovable (anante\ acyute): [X/0 = Infinity]

He proved that this infinite quantity undergoes no alteration when numbers are added or subtracted, just as there is no alteration in the Divine Mind during the emanation or resolution of worlds. This directly mirrors the sacred declaration of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "when plenum is taken from plenum, plenum yet remains".
mwtichen
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:57 am

Re: Ancient Concept of 0 Identified with Infinity, NOT Nothing

Post by mwtichen »

I've been reading a bit of Spengler's Decline of the West. If anything, this post is just confirming the idea of a world-feeling and how it differs between civilizations.
urban8499
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2026 3:08 pm

Re: Ancient Concept of 0 Identified with Infinity, NOT Nothing

Post by urban8499 »

mwtichen wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2026 12:54 pm I've been reading a bit of Spengler's Decline of the West. If anything, this post is just confirming the idea of a world-feeling and how it differs between civilizations.
An old Roman Proverb, I.e whatever the collective ("the people" in the objective and general sense) does [or ends up doing], it must be the way by which God speaks. Hence why I think that so many today do not realize that our decisions we make as a collective people quite literally set the standard by that same rule.

If the will of the people is failure to act, then those people (A Nation) objectively are defined (by themselves, not individually, but as one unified whole) as a people who fail to act

Image
mwtichen
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2026 12:57 am

Re: Ancient Concept of 0 Identified with Infinity, NOT Nothing

Post by mwtichen »

urban8499 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2026 4:13 pm An old Roman Proverb, I.e whatever the collective ("the people" in the objective and general sense) does [or ends up doing], it must be the way by which God speaks. Hence why I think that so many today do not realize that our decisions we make as a collective people quite literally set the standard by that same rule.
There are multiple "peoples". Are you suggesting that there are multiple gods responsible for their cultures and temperaments? I would think an ancient Roman would have no problem with that statement.
Post Reply