Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

Pages: **1**

**kumarevo****Member**- Registered: 2010-12-20
- Posts: 3

Isaac Newton

"After me, there will always be someone to set a new basis of science, which will be better than me"

I will deal with the new math, I will deal with the old math (I'll take the symbols and signs that she uses that I need).

We will have only one axiom, all other evidence and experiments, we hope to create the perfect matematiku.Ovim invite all creative people to express their ideas with the basic (MS.0) and previous evidence (MS.x), even if you have a good programmer to write software that will accompany this project.

**NATURAL MATHEMATICS**

**BASIC AXIOMMS.O. POINT. NATURAL ALONG.**

Beginning (end) is longer than the natural point. Natural along with two points, the length between points. Natural longer connecting points. Natural along the base length. There is always the first point from which everything begins (0).

**MS.1. BASIC CONNECTIONS | MS.0 |**

Number of natural longer participating in the primary relationship,

Vx-V-mark for a basic connection, x-number of connections

**MS.2. CYCLES OF BASIC RELATIONSHIPS. NATURAL LINES ARE REQUIRED | MS.1 |**

All these cycles can be finite or infinite. C = {Vx}, C-cycle

Monotonous consist of one type of primary relationship

Combined consist of several types of basic connections

**MS.3. ALONG | MS.2 |**

C = {V1} in direction from the start (0, the first natural long)

*Last edited by kumarevo (2011-01-30 20:10:49)*

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,674

Hi kumarevo;

Welcome to the forum.

I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps this quote best sums it up:

linford86 wrote:

I didn't understand anything that you wrote above. However, perhaps you could start by giving a less technical introduction to whatever you are talking about. It is unclear to me what you are even trying to do. Are you proposing a new mathematical theory, responding to existing mathematics, or some other kind of activity? What precisely is this even supposed to be?

You have posted the above on at least 7 forums. On one of those forums I believe you said that you prove that every real number is formed by the division of two integers. Unfortunately you can stop right there, there are loads of real numbers that are not formed by the division of two integers. Starting with the Irrational numbers. Or do you mean something else by your term Reals?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**kumarevo****Member**- Registered: 2010-12-20
- Posts: 3

bobbym wrote:

Hi kumarevo;

Welcome to the forum.

I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps this quote best sums it up:

linford86 wrote:I didn't understand anything that you wrote above. However, perhaps you could start by giving a less technical introduction to whatever you are talking about. It is unclear to me what you are even trying to do. Are you proposing a new mathematical theory, responding to existing mathematics, or some other kind of activity? What precisely is this even supposed to be?

You have posted the above on at least 7 forums. On one of those forums I believe you said that you prove that every real number is formed by the division of two integers. Unfortunately you can stop right there, there are loads of real numbers that are not formed by the division of two integers. Starting with the Irrational numbers. Or do you mean something else by your term Reals?

I am current studying mathematics, I came to the conclusion that it is full of axioms (not connected, the new thing should be is set axiom).

If we only have an axiom in mathematics, then the experiments are much higher than when we have many axioms. I believe that mathematics must be an experimental science (as in physics there are theories, there are experiments that confirm).

Real numbers:

1. First we define the natural numbers, then mathematical operations with natural numbers.

2. First, define the integers, then the calculation with whole numbers.

3. Historically mathematicians did not respect the previous sequence (defined as the first calculation, and did not define the real numbers, introduced a fraction (the fraction is the incomplete calculation divisions)).

Having found themselves encountered in the divorce of different axioms introduced irrational numbers and real numbers. I have given evidence that the real numbers can be given as a fraction.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,674

Hi;

Please understand that the following is heavily laced with the personal opinions of myself and the men mentioned.

That is very good rhetoric and somehow you know that I am a proponent of the new experimental math. But heavens forbid it to be anything like the mess that is called physics. Hopefully the discrete will replace the continuous and we will do a new type of math ( See David Deutsch ). But the error in your logic is clear to me. The fact that mathematics currently is overburdened with too many axioms and theorems does not lead to the conclusions that the irrationals are spurious. You must know this, you cannot represent the square root of 2 by any fraction. This is experimentally verified ( If you do not like proofs ) in numerical work.

I would suggest that rather than constructing a whole new framework, to absorb only the parts of math that you desire ( for instance Numerical Analysis ). Stopping along the way to pick up some continuous analysis, topology and set theory as the situation demands. Making sure not to over indulge in these fields.

Currently In my opinion your new framework is too top heavy with set theory and relies too much on the creation of an axiomatic system. This is not the the way of experimental mathematics. Computation is the way! I suggest you read Doron Zeilberger, Herbert S. Wilf, Jonathan and Peter Borwein, Simon Pflouffe, the Risch group, David Bailey to name but a few.

there are experiments that confirm).

Pure David Deutsch! The Mertens conjecture is true because the smallest counter example is greater than 10^300. Since there is nothing in the physical universe that size we will never need a number that large so he declares it experimentally true. Here is another the number line stops at the limit we can represent a number on a computer at present. I am not certain of his type logic.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**kumarevo****Member**- Registered: 2010-12-20
- Posts: 3

On the advice of "bobbjm Moderator" I will explain one by one MS.x

MS.0 here give a starting axiom, which defines what is the point, what is natural along, and that connection may be links between natural longer.

MS.1 theory-what we get when we when we merged the natural long-

We experiment and classify any ties existed between natural long (much longer participate in the natural connection)

MS.2. theory-what we get when we would if two (more) MS.1 merged together.

We perform an experiment to classify the merger (monotonous, combined), to distinguish this experiment we will call this the MS.1 naturally long lines

MS.3. theory - sort V1 in the direction of the starting points from the first natural longer.

We experiment and get in the illustration, this experiment we will contact along the along the long form of natural line

MS.4.theory - a starting point and all points where the connecting natural long (along v1) naming

We experiment and get the numbers**MS.4. CYCLE SIGNS. GENERAL ASSEMBLY NUMBERS-NATURAL NUMBERS | MS.3 |**

C = {V1} in the form of long, endless in. The first point (0) and the other points (A, B, C,...) in the cycle will replace ciklusnim characters (Cz-label ciklusnih characters), these characters we'll call numbers, all numbers are made up of a basic set of numbers (N-label of natural numbers) . The number represents the distance from the first point (0) to the point where the number (the last point number, except the number 0 which is the first and last point number 0))

Cz={0,1} N={0,1,10,11,100,...}

Cz={0,1,2} N={0,1,2,10,11,12,20,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3} N={0,1,2,3,10,11,12,13,20,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4} N={0,1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13,14,20,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4,5} N={0,1,2,3,4,5,10,11,12,13,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4,5,6} N={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,10,11,12,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7} N={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} N={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} N={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,...}

Cz={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A} N={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,10,11,12,...}

We will use Cz = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 , 11,12,...}

MS.5. theory - the numerical longer separate a number of

We invent a number of experiments, the experiment is called re-set**MS.5.RE-SET BASIC SET - ONE NUMBER | MS.4 |**

Re-set is when the basic set of numbers we take the number (s) without face together, and we describe them differently from the basic set of numbers. From the basic set of numbers is one re-set number .N a = a (;-sign re-set, number (numbers) that are re-set)

N; 4 = 4

Offline

**gAr****Member**- Registered: 2011-01-09
- Posts: 3,462

I only see some digits in different number systems, and words which I cannot comprahend as a sentence. Are you defining new meanings to words normal people use?

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,674

On the advice of "bobbjm Moderator"

Who listens to that guy anyway and rightfully so? I am glad that you did not listen to him either, I would not.

You just kept right on trucking so to speak. None of that as far as I can see can prove that the √2 is rational.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**John E. Franklin****Member**- Registered: 2005-08-29
- Posts: 3,561

Maybe we should consider trying to invent new number systems.

I like to take what he said, and take it as an effort, even if it is not

the answer to a new number system, the effort is worthwhile.

**igloo** **myrtilles** **fourmis**

Offline

Pages: **1**