19 replies to this topic

[ms.srki]

See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles
https://docs.google....motdThHV0E/edit
what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

[Rlyeh]

The picture doesn't load.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Here you go Ryleh

 Capture.JPG   76.48K   27 downloads

[keithisco]

ms.srki, on 05 February 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles
https://docs.google....motdThHV0E/edit
what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

What are the Boundary Conditions for "?"

[ms.srki]

keithisco, on 06 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

What are the Boundary Conditions for "?"

there is no solution in the current mathematics :
1.3+[0]3=3
2.3+[1]3=4
3.3+[2]3=5
4. 3+[3]3=6 or 3+3=6
5.3_3Rd1(6)d2(7)+3=7
6.3_{3Rd1(6)d2(8 )}+3=8
7.3_3Rd1(6)d2(9)+3=9
8.3_{3Rd1(6)d2(10)}+3=10
9.3_{3Rd1(6)d2(12)}+3=12
(1,2,3,4) - there are several types of addition in the set N
(5,6,7,8,9) - that there are dynamic numbers, where this can add

[Timonthy]

Your link worked fine for me.

But how do you come up with that sequence for the triangles in that order?

And is there meant to be a significance to '9' being Star of Davidish?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[sepulchrave]

ms.srki, on 06 February 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

there is no solution in the current mathematics :
1.3+[0]3=3
2.3+[1]3=4
3.3+[2]3=5
4. 3+[3]3=6 or 3+3=6
5.3_3Rd1(6)d2(7)+3=7
6.3_{3Rd1(6)d2(8 )}+3=8
7.3_3Rd1(6)d2(9)+3=9
8.3_{3Rd1(6)d2(10)}+3=10
9.3_{3Rd1(6)d2(12)}+3=12
(1,2,3,4) - there are several types of addition in the set N
(5,6,7,8,9) - that there are dynamic numbers, where this can add

Sure there is. You are just defining a two-variable function f(x,y) = x(y + 1). Except instead of using sensible, numeric expressions for "y", you are are using a somewhat childish (and inconsistent) pictorial expression.

And to what end? I wasn't aware that making sequences of integers was a problem for mathematics.

[ms.srki]

sepulchrave, on 06 February 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Sure there is. You are just defining a two-variable function f(x,y) = x(y + 1). Except instead of using sensible, numeric expressions for "y", you are are using a somewhat childish (and inconsistent) pictorial expression.

And to what end? I wasn't aware that making sequences of integers was a problem for mathematics.

What is 3 (first triangle) and 3 (second triangle), what is the solution of their relationship (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12) ,in your function ,
or the general form a?b=c , what (a,?,b,c) in your function ,
---------------------

1 Mathematics Space
We'll tell mathematical space with two initial geometric object that can not
prove.
1.Natural geometric object - natural along .
2.Real geometric objects - real alongs .
1.1 Natural along
In the picture there is a natural geometric object along (AB), it has a beginning (A)
and end (B ) - this property natural long'll call point.

 w1.png   5.24K   0 downloads

1.2 The basic rule
Two (more) natural longer are connected only with points.

[sepulchrave]

I see. Is this thread just a rehash of something previously discussed (and dismissed!) in these forums?

[badeskov]

sepulchrave, on 07 February 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

I see. Is this thread just a rehash of something previously discussed (and dismissed!) in these forums?

Pretty much, Sepu, pretty much.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[AquilaChrysaetos]

NyI HaTe Math!!!! NYAAYAYAAAH!!!!!!!!!

[ms.srki]

sepulchrave, on 07 February 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

I see. Is this thread just a rehash of something previously discussed (and dismissed!) in these forums?

NO - Do you know the answer or not
--------------

2 Natural Mathematics
2.1,along , one-way infinite along the (semi-line) "1"
"1"-from any previous evidence (axioms), a new proof
Theorem-Two (more) natural longer merge points in the direction of the first AB
longer natural.

EVIDENCE - Natural long (AB, BC) are connected - we get along AC.

 w2.png   6.81K   0 downloads

Natural long (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get along AD.

 w3.png   7.83K   0 downloads

Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get along AE.

 w4.png   8.54K   0 downloads
...

Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE, ...) are connected - getting the sim-
measurement along the infinite.

 w5.png   9.46K   0 downloads

[Chrlzs]

What is the actual point of this?

Is it not possible for you to provide an abstract, an executive summary (or any sort of summary), preferably done by someone with a good grasp of English?  Pushing this stuff through Google translate is giving us nothing but gibberish, and to be honest, it looks as though you just keep doing this, over and over and over, at forums across the web, eg: here and here...

Your earlier thread here was CLOSED because you refused to make any attempt to properly discuss your incomprehensible 'set theory' or whatever the heck it is..  As was pointed out there, this isn't your blog - it's a discussion forum.

I'm guessing you are trying to say that current mathematics does not express something in the way that you wish it to.
What is the 'something'?  Why is it deficient?  What is better about your system?  How do you address the fact that you are using nomenclature that is used in mathematics for different purposes - on the other thread you refused to even acknowledge that your method was incompatible with other accepted mathematical conventions - if you cannot address that, it is worthless.

And to be specific about this thread...
Q 1. Why the triangles?  Why triangles in different colours?  Why different shaped triangles?  Why use a question mark - is that supposed to be a single constant, an expression, a variable, or is it something else entirely?
Q 2. In other words, is there a 'legend'?  Please post it with your proper summary.

In your second posting:
Q 3. What do the square brackets [] designate - is that a numeric set/matrix of some kind, a function?
Q 4. Why does item 4 have an 'or'?
Q 5. Why have you used subscript, and what does it specify?
Q 6. What is Rd, what is d?
Q 7. What do the round brackets () specifiy?

I'm almost embarrassed to have to ask that last question, but the way that symbols are being used seemingly randomly, I have no faith in what I am looking at.

If you are planning to revolutionise something, or even just criticise it or offer a supposedly shorter methodology, you need to at least learn the proper existing nomenclature, and then address any conflicts you introduce (eg using symbols or terminology that is used for something different in current maths).

I'm afraid all I see up there is close to incomprehensible.  And if you don't clearly state your case.. well, you get this (and the other) thread..

By the way, please do not answer with your usual reams of incomprehensible 'maths' or the frequent:

Quote

please calculated {sic} Z÷(10^n)=? ,and then we'll continue to talk

I know exactly what that means, and it doesn't help your case.
But you are making that case, so the onus is on you to make it comprehensible and also answer the questions.


BTW, I think we can cut this short - the answer is 42.  

[ms.srki]

Chrlzs, on 08 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Q 1. Why the triangles?  Why triangles in different colours?  Why different shaped triangles?  Why use a question mark - is that supposed to be a single constant, an expression, a variable, or is it something else entirely?

can be any polygon , place to see the connection (color) , Can I ask what it is (?) If you know the answer

Chrlzs, on 08 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Q 4. Why does item 4 have an 'or'?

3 + [3] 3 = 3, 3 +3 = 3, can be both, first by my math, the other is at the present mathematics, and both are true
else when the time comes

[Chrlzs]

ms.srki, on 08 February 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

can be any polygon , place to see the connection (color) , Can I ask what it is (?) If you know the answer
3 + [3] 3 = 3, 3 +3 = 3, can be both, first by my math, the other is at the present mathematics, and both are true
else when the time comes

That's it?  That's your response to all my (quite reasonable) questions?  You ignore most of them, ask a question rather than simply answer, and then give a WRONG example?  Good Grief.

The "3+[3] 3 = 3" business is particularly ridiculous and WRONG - First up, even though this was supposed to be a clarification, YOU GOT IT WRONG, despite it being your own example.  Look at it again - don't you mean "3+[3] 3 = 6 "..?????  Because that's what you told us earlier - it equals SIX, not three.  AND you use a non-standard nomenclature with NO good reason, it is much longer and completely unjustified.

So I think we'll just stick to the good ole 3+3=6.  3+[3] 3 = 3 just doesn't work for me.


Let me point out that I tried to help you - I asked simple questions, and also requested you give a proper summary and stop simply repeating the same stuff over and over (clearly without even checking what you write or how it got translated).

You didn't do any of that, so it is clear that you are not interested in helping anyone understand what you are trying to do - you just want to post this incomprehensible, ill-thought out, ill-conceived, un-checked and error-laden dreck as widely as you can.  You are no mathematician, and you are no teacher.  You may be quite surprised to know that I'm pretty sure I know where you were heading with this (by looking at clues you have given out at other forums), but your presentation of it is so hideously awful, you will never get anywhere.  Get help from a decent mathematician.

I'll let others comment further - I won't bother reporting you for what is essentially spam, as I think you will ensure that yourself by anything further you post.

I won't be back.