msbiljanica Posted January 9, 2012 #1 Share Posted January 9, 2012 SRDANOVA MATHEMATICS Revision of the current mathematics Marjanovic Srdan M.Biljanica 16201 Manojlovce Serbia ms.biljanica@gmail.com Introduction: I think that the current limited maths and sinful and should be reviewed with all new things that I discovered. I will explain the mathematical space with two starting points ( along the natural and real ). Natural Base: Natural along is what you see along the fig,1.Natural along has its beginning and its end , this property natural long we will contact points ( fig.2).Natural length along the ground ( natural meaning).Two more natural and longer merge points [s1]-along nature (fig. 1-a), [sn]-mathematical facts [s2]-point ( natural meaning , Fig.2 -A( B )) The points will mark capital letters along the (length) small letters Definition of - teo points A,B , the length between points AB CM (current mathematics) - does not recognize the concept of nature along , the point is not defined so that all l everything __________________________________________________ ___________ Presupposition-Natural long - merge points in the direction AB Process: P1-AB..CD..ABC(AC) to read: natural along AB to point B, is connected to the natural long CD to point C, shall be renaming of points, we get along ABC (AC) P2-ABC (AC) .. DE ..ABCD (AD) read it: along the ABC (AC) to point C, connecting with the natural long-DE to point D is done renaming of points, we get along ABCD(AD) P3-ABCD (AD) ..EF .. ABCDE(AE) ... [s3]-along (from natural long, two or more) Definition of the initial-and the last point, the length between the initial and final points. CM-I do not know the connection of natural longer, not along the natural base, but the real (the line , proof) __________________________________________________ ______________ Presupposition - All points of a longer (the infinite form) can be replaced with labels: (0), (0.1), ...,( 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ),... The process: P1-N(0)= {0,00,000,0000,...} P2-N(0,1)= {0,1,10,11,100,...} ... P10-N (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, ...} ... [s4]-numeric along [s5]-set of natural numbers N We will use N (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 ,...} Definition of-numeric along a starting point, the last point at infinity -The number 0 is the point 0 -Other numbers are longer, the first item is 0, the last point is the point of the name (number) CM-I know the term but long term numeric numeric rays (line) Natural numbers and zeros are given axiom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 9, 2012 #2 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Welcome to the forums. Can you summarise this in laymen's terms and elaborate on what it is specifically you'd like to discuss ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted January 10, 2012 #3 Share Posted January 10, 2012 My head hurts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie333 Posted January 10, 2012 #4 Share Posted January 10, 2012 SRDANOVA MATHEMATICS Revision of the current mathematics Marjanovic Srdan M.Biljanica 16201 Manojlovce Serbia ms.biljanica@gmail.com Introduction: I think that the current limited maths and sinful and should be reviewed with all new things that I discovered. I will explain the mathematical space with two starting points ( along the natural and real ). Natural Base: Natural along is what you see along the fig,1.Natural along has its beginning and its end , this property natural long we will contact points ( fig.2).Natural length along the ground ( natural meaning).Two more natural and longer merge points [s1]-along nature (fig. 1-a), [sn]-mathematical facts [s2]-point ( natural meaning , Fig.2 -A( B )) The points will mark capital letters along the (length) small letters Definition of - teo points A,B , the length between points AB CM (current mathematics) - does not recognize the concept of nature along , the point is not defined so that all l everything __________________________________________________ ___________ Presupposition-Natural long - merge points in the direction AB Process: P1-AB..CD..ABC(AC) to read: natural along AB to point B, is connected to the natural long CD to point C, shall be renaming of points, we get along ABC (AC) P2-ABC (AC) .. DE ..ABCD (AD) read it: along the ABC (AC) to point C, connecting with the natural long-DE to point D is done renaming of points, we get along ABCD(AD) P3-ABCD (AD) ..EF .. ABCDE(AE) ... [s3]-along (from natural long, two or more) Definition of the initial-and the last point, the length between the initial and final points. CM-I do not know the connection of natural longer, not along the natural base, but the real (the line , proof) __________________________________________________ ______________ Presupposition - All points of a longer (the infinite form) can be replaced with labels: (0), (0.1), ...,( 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ),... The process: P1-N(0)= {0,00,000,0000,...} P2-N(0,1)= {0,1,10,11,100,...} ... P10-N (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, ...} ... [s4]-numeric along [s5]-set of natural numbers N We will use N (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 ,...} Definition of-numeric along a starting point, the last point at infinity -The number 0 is the point 0 -Other numbers are longer, the first item is 0, the last point is the point of the name (number) CM-I know the term but long term numeric numeric rays (line) Natural numbers and zeros are given axiom You are way beyond me. I struggled in college but I have been staring at this since you put it up and it makes sense--to a point. I will need a few weeks to decipher this, at least where I can get a better grasp, LOL. Good stuff and I see your basic point but I feel like Saru. You need to clean it up for us less fortunate math pupils to clarify your point, LOL. Fun stuff, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryptozological Mascot Posted January 10, 2012 #5 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Geez guys... you don't get this? Childs play... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie333 Posted January 10, 2012 #6 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Geez guys... you don't get this? Childs play... Easy for you to say, LOL. Math is not my strong point. I just don't "get it". I need to dismember it before I see the point. I taint' that bright, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KERIK182 Posted January 10, 2012 #7 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Welcome to the forums. Can you summarise this in laymen's terms and elaborate on what it is specifically you'd like to discuss ? UMmmmm... I think the answer is 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 11, 2012 #8 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Easy for you to say, LOL. Math is not my strong point. I just don't "get it". I need to dismember it before I see the point. I taint' that bright, LOL. I think it is child's play, albeit quite obfuscated and in poor English. As far as I can tell, Mr. Biljanica is trying to create a logical constructor for the set of integers. (I.e. if we start with 1, how do we get to 2?) This isn't necessarily trivial, but it also isn't that important. Practical mathematics allows for the construction of arbitrary sets, so it doesn't really matter where the set of integers (or whole numbers, or reals, or complex numbers, or hypercomplex tensors, etc.) comes from, as long as you can explain what elements are within that set. Providing a constructor for a set is mostly just the domain of abstract number theory. As far as I can tell, the parts of Mr. Biljanica's work described here that aren't completely trivial are unexplained, unsupported, and non-rigorous, all of which are vital. I would also like to ask to Mr. Biljanica: Can you define the "nature along" (perhaps you meant "natural line"?) in a rigorous way? You say "current mathematics does not recognize the concept of nature along" - but your figure 1 shows a common-place line segment. How is your work any different than a trivial attempt at reformulating the 100-years old and much more rigorous Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead? Are you trying to formulate an internally consistent and complete logic, and if so how are you going to get around Godel's incompleteness theorem? --------- If anyone reading this forum is interested in this sort of math, please refer to the Metamath proof explorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englishgent Posted January 11, 2012 #9 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I always admire people who can do this sort of mathematics. It's all double dutch to me As long as i know how much change I should be given when I go shopping, i'm happy lol edit....one thing that always amuses me though, is the way Amercans call it 'Math' when it's 'Maths' We say 'mathematics (with an s) It's not 'mathematic' Although maths is a shortened word it still applies to all types of maths, algebra, geometry etc. ...therefore needs to be plural Edited January 11, 2012 by Englishgent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie333 Posted January 11, 2012 #10 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I think it is child's play, albeit quite obfuscated and in poor English. As far as I can tell, Mr. Biljanica is trying to create a logical constructor for the set of integers. (I.e. if we start with 1, how do we get to 2?) This isn't necessarily trivial, but it also isn't that important. Practical mathematics allows for the construction of arbitrary sets, so it doesn't really matter where the set of integers (or whole numbers, or reals, or complex numbers, or hypercomplex tensors, etc.) comes from, as long as you can explain what elements are within that set. Providing a constructor for a set is mostly just the domain of abstract number theory. As far as I can tell, the parts of Mr. Biljanica's work described here that aren't completely trivial are unexplained, unsupported, and non-rigorous, all of which are vital. I would also like to ask to Mr. Biljanica: Can you define the "nature along" (perhaps you meant "natural line"?) in a rigorous way? You say "current mathematics does not recognize the concept of nature along" - but your figure 1 shows a common-place line segment. How is your work any different than a trivial attempt at reformulating the 100-years old and much more rigorous Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead? Are you trying to formulate an internally consistent and complete logic, and if so how are you going to get around Godel's incompleteness theorem? --------- If anyone reading this forum is interested in this sort of math, please refer to the Metamath proof explorer. Thank you for clearing some of this up but either I cannot see his point or there cannot be one. Infinite, maybe. In other words there cannot be a definite because... I am still delving, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 11, 2012 Author #11 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Welcome to the forums. Can you summarise this in laymen's terms and elaborate on what it is specifically you'd like to discuss ? mathematics you learned in school are missing some parts that would be complete if you watch some processes in nature can not explain to enjoy their current mathematics, example Z÷(10^n)=? , a={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} , b={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} n=1 , Z÷10={...,(-2÷10),(-1÷10),(0÷10),(1÷10),(2÷10),...}={...,-0.2,-0.1,0,1,2,...}={Z,Z.b} n=2 , Z÷100={Z,Z.b,Z.ab} n=3 , Z÷1000={Z,Z.b,Zab,Zaab} n=4 , Z÷10000={Z,Z.b,Z.ab,Zaab,Zaaab} ... Z÷(10^n)=R , a simple proof showing that the real number was the result of divisions of two integers ______________________________________________________________________________________ Presupposition-point numbers have their The process: P1-0 = (.0) P2-1 = (.0,1) P3-2 = (.0,1,2) P4-3 = (.0,1,2,3) P5-4 = (.0,1,2,3,4) ... [s6]-point number CM-I do not know the item number _________________________________________________________________________ Presupposition-point numbers have opposite The process: P1-0 = (s.0) P2-1 = (s.0, 1) P3-2 = (s.0, 1.2) P4-3 = (s.0, 1,2,3) P5-4 = (s.0, 1,2,3,4) ... [s7]-opposite point of CM-I do not know the opposite point of _______________________________________________________________________________ I will give you the following tasks that you can not solve the current knowledge of mathematics 1.You got along 20m (a), if you find along the (a) between 10m and 15m, get c. ............... How can you write this in a shorter form: 2+10=12 , 2+15=17 , 2+16=18 , 2+20=22 , 2+23=25 2+25=27 , 2+29=31 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+37=39 2+38=40 , 2+40=42 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47 , 2+47=49 2+50=52 , 2+51=53 , 2+55=57 , 2+56=58 , 2+58=60 2+60=62 , 2+64=66 , 2+65=67 , 2+70=72 , 2+71=73 2+74=76 , 2+75=77 , 2+80=82 , 2+82=84 , 2+83=85 2+92=94 , 2+101=103 Serbian translation of google-english Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 12, 2012 #12 Share Posted January 12, 2012 mathematics you learned in school are missing some parts that would be complete if you watch some processes in nature can not explain to enjoy their current mathematics, example Z÷(10^n)=? , a={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} , b={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} n=1 , Z÷10={...,(-2÷10),(-1÷10),(0÷10),(1÷10),(2÷10),...}={...,-0.2,-0.1,0,1,2,...}={Z,Z.b} n=2 , Z÷100={Z,Z.b,Z.ab} n=3 , Z÷1000={Z,Z.b,Zab,Zaab} n=4 , Z÷10000={Z,Z.b,Z.ab,Zaab,Zaaab} ... Z÷(10^n)=R , a simple proof showing that the real number was the result of divisions of two integers No. Constructing an arbitrary real number out of an infinite series of integers does not count as "constructing reals out of integers". This has been thought of before. Obviously an arbitrary real number can be expressed in decimal (or any other) notation. However an arbitrary real number cannot be expressed in decimal (or any other) notation without complete knowledge of the generation of that real. For example, what are the digits of pi? You can calculate them based on calculus and the definition of pi, but otherwise you can't figure them out. If you want to express pi as a series of integers, you need infinite information. ............... How can you write this in a shorter form: 2+10=12 , 2+15=17 , 2+16=18 , 2+20=22 , 2+23=25 2+25=27 , 2+29=31 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+37=39 2+38=40 , 2+40=42 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47 , 2+47=49 2+50=52 , 2+51=53 , 2+55=57 , 2+56=58 , 2+58=60 2+60=62 , 2+64=66 , 2+65=67 , 2+70=72 , 2+71=73 2+74=76 , 2+75=77 , 2+80=82 , 2+82=84 , 2+83=85 2+92=94 , 2+101=103 Serbian translation of google-english I'd like to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeskov Posted January 12, 2012 #13 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No. Constructing an arbitrary real number out of an infinite series of integers does not count as "constructing reals out of integers". This has been thought of before. Obviously an arbitrary real number can be expressed in decimal (or any other) notation. However an arbitrary real number cannot be expressed in decimal (or any other) notation without complete knowledge of the generation of that real. For example, what are the digits of pi? You can calculate them based on calculus and the definition of pi, but otherwise you can't figure them out. If you want to express pi as a series of integers, you need infinite information. <snip> Indeed sepulchrave. I didn't really want to get into this (have been involved in numerous "inventive" math threads in my time at UM), but I just wanted to give you the credit you deserve. Thanks for the insightful post. And you are indeed correct, PI has a very specific definition and you need exact knowledge of that before you can put the numbers of PI down. Anybody can come up with "new math", but until the time it proves itself useful it is just imaginary. Cheers, Badeskov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 12, 2012 Author #14 Share Posted January 12, 2012 sepulchrave -I'd like to see it.-when the time comes google translation-Serbian English original Serbian - http://www.fileserve.com/file/8ecT3pr/Srđanova matematika 1-65.pdf Presupposition-numbers are comparable with each other The process: P1-two numbers (a, b ) are comparable with each other - a> b, a = b, a <b, ).(=(>,=,<) P2-three numbers (a, b, c) are comparable with each other P3-four numbers (a, b, c, d) are comparable with each other ... [s8]-comparability issues CM knows the comparability of two numbers, the comparability of three numbers (a number comparable with the numbers b and c) comparability of the other knows. __________________________________________________ _________ Presupposition-number ranges number along The process: P1-image P2-image P3-image ... [s9]-mobility of number CM does not know the number of mobility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 15, 2012 Author #15 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Presupposition-number and mobile number of a contact The process: P1-3 + (.0) 2 = 3 P2-3 + (.1) 2 = 3 P3-3 + (.2) 2 = 4 P4-3 +2 = 5, same as the current sum [s10]-addition of CM knows only one type of addition is given as an axiom ____________________________________________________________ Presupposition-No I do not have a mobile contact number, except to point The process: P1-¤3(0)2¤ P2-¤3(1)2¤ P3-¤3(2)2¤ ... Next-gap number and mobile number have no contact, except to point ... [s11]-gap numbers Gn = {¤a(b)c¤,...,¤ (b )...( d) e ¤} [s12]-gap along the _______________________________________________________________________ I will give you the following tasks that you can not solve the current knowledge of mathematics 1.You got along 20m (a), if you find along the (a) between 10m and 15m, get c.- here is part of the solution to which the current mathematics does not know (how to describe the condition numbers c (image, # 11) c=¤10m(5m)5m¤ - gap number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 18, 2012 Author #16 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Presupposition-gap number is comparable with the gap number and The process: P1-¤a(b)c¤ , a+c=z P2-¤a(b)c(d)e¤ , a+c+e=z P3-¤a(b)c(d)e(f)g¤ , a+c+e+g=z ... Bringing the number of gaps in the number of z, as it compares the number of [s13]-comparability gap of CM-comparability gap does not know the number of ___________________________________________________________________________ Presupposition-two or more of the same numbers can be written in abbreviated form The process: P1-{a, a} = af2 P2-{a, a, a} = af3 P3-{a, a, a, a} = af4 ... [s14]-the same number of frequency CM does not know the frequency of the same number _____________________________________________________________________- Presupposition-this can be written in abbreviated form -growing (a, a + b, a + b + b,..., a + b + b +...+ b ) -descending (a + b + b +...+ b, a + b + b, a + b, a) P1-abc, c = a + b, c = a + b +b, ..., c=a + b + b +...+ b-final P2-ab - infinity [s15]-srcko CM-does not know srcko ________________________________________________________________- How can you write this in a shorter form: 2+10=12 , 2+15=17 , 2+16=18 , 2+20=22 , 2+23=25 2+25=27 , 2+29=31 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+37=39 2+38=40 , 2+40=42 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47 , 2+47=49 2+50=52 , 2+51=53 , 2+55=57 , 2+56=58 , 2+58=60 2+60=62 , 2+64=66 , 2+65=67 , 2+70=72 , 2+71=73 2+74=76 , 2+75=77 , 2+80=82 , 2+82=84 , 2+83=85 2+92=94 , 2+101=103 srcko- 5550={5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50} 38350={38,41,44,47,50} 501090={50,60,70,80,90} 50792={50,57,64,71,78,85,92 sepulchrave-the first part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted January 18, 2012 #17 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So, what will be natural number between 42 and 43? Seriously, you are flooding internet with your math. Why not publish it in some math journal, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 18, 2012 #18 Share Posted January 18, 2012 ________________________________________________________________- How can you write this in a shorter form: 2+10=12 , 2+15=17 , 2+16=18 , 2+20=22 , 2+23=25 2+25=27 , 2+29=31 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+37=39 2+38=40 , 2+40=42 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47 , 2+47=49 2+50=52 , 2+51=53 , 2+55=57 , 2+56=58 , 2+58=60 2+60=62 , 2+64=66 , 2+65=67 , 2+70=72 , 2+71=73 2+74=76 , 2+75=77 , 2+80=82 , 2+82=84 , 2+83=85 2+92=94 , 2+101=103 srcko- 5550={5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50} 38350={38,41,44,47,50} 501090={50,60,70,80,90} 50792={50,57,64,71,78,85,92 sepulchrave-the first part How does that help? Your original sequence does not contain any patterns that I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 19, 2012 Author #19 Share Posted January 19, 2012 How does that help? Your original sequence does not contain any patterns that I can see. I made a mistake- 2+5=7 , 2+10=12 , 2+15=17, 2+20=22 , 2+25=27 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+38=40, 2+40=42, 2+41=43 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47, 2+47=49 , 2+50=52 ,2+57=59 , 2+60=62 , 2+64=66, 2+70=72, 2+71=73 , 2+78=80 , 2+80=82 , 2+85=87 , 2+90=92 ,2+92=94 srcko 5550={5,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50} 38350={38,41,44,47,50} 501090={50,60,70,80,90} 50792={50,57,64,71,78,85,92} _______________________________________________________________________-- 2+10=12 , 2+15=17 , 2+16=18 , 2+20=22 , 2+23=25 2+25=27 , 2+29=31 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+37=39 2+38=40 , 2+40=42 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47 , 2+47=49 2+50=52 , 2+51=53 , 2+55=57 , 2+56=58 , 2+58=60 2+60=62 , 2+64=66 , 2+65=67 , 2+70=72 , 2+71=73 2+74=76 , 2+75=77 , 2+80=82 , 2+82=84 , 2+83=85 2+92=94 , 2+101=103 -non-red range srcko 10580={10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,75,80} 16765={16,23,30,37,44,51,58,65} 299101={29,38,47,56,65,74,83,92,101} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 19, 2012 #20 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Ok, then your notation XnY is the same as writing Σi=0m X + ni where m = (Y-X)/n in "conventional math". Your notation is shorter, but I don't see why any of your work is different than "conventional math". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 20, 2012 Author #21 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Ok, then your notation XnY is the same as writing Σi=0m X + ni where m = (Y-X)/n in "conventional math". Your notation is shorter, but I don't see why any of your work is different than "conventional math". n={1,2,3,4,...} , my abc (ab) ,b-may be that positive real number ,will "conventional math" write , finite function for x=0.20.57.2 and x=7.23.535.2 - a+x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 20, 2012 #22 Share Posted January 20, 2012 n={1,2,3,4,...} , my abc (ab) ,b-may be that positive real number ,will "conventional math" write , finite function for x=0.20.57.2 and x=7.23.535.2 - a+x Sure... 0.20.57.2 = Σi=014 0.2 + 0.5i 7.23.535.2 = Σi=08 7.2 + 3.5i All you are doing is manipulating arithmetic series... this isn't very interesting or new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 20, 2012 Author #23 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Sure... 0.20.57.2 = Σi=014 0.2 + 0.5i 7.23.535.2 = Σi=08 7.2 + 3.5i All you are doing is manipulating arithmetic series... this isn't very interesting or new. I did not think the sums(final orders)(Σ) ,finite function a+x|0.20.5(_7.2_)3.535.2|=y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted January 20, 2012 #24 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I did not think the sums(final orders)(Σ) ,finite function a+x|0.20.5(_7.2_)3.535.2|=y Sorry, not quite sure I follow. Are you looking for sets then? 0.20.5(_7.2_)3.535.2 = {0.2 + 0.5x | x ∈ ℤ, 0 ≤ x < 14} ⊕ {7.2 + 3.5x | x ∈ ℤ, 0 ≤ x < 9} My general point still remains; all you are doing are arithmetic manipulations on discrete (or countably infinite) sets of integers. Russell and Whitehead already went through all this in detail. (As did many of their predecessors, but their work is probably the most complete... until Godel scuttled the entire effort.) You can introduce a new set of symbols if you want, but you aren't introducing any new meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msbiljanica Posted January 27, 2012 Author #25 Share Posted January 27, 2012 PDF- http://www.mediafire.com/?mm3e9fb73g494sp ____________________________________________________ Presupposition-Srcko can join a number not that can not be in the structure srcko Process: P1 101070 and 5 , 5_101070 P2 5520 and 22 ,5520_22 P3 75 and 25 , 75_25 P4 68 and 2 ,2_68 ... General form -abc_d , d_abc , ab_d ,d_ab... [s15]-pendant srcko CM-[s15]-does no know Note-only one number can be pendand , number two goes into a complex srcko __________________________________________________________ Presupposition-Two ( more ) srcko (pendand srcko) are combined into one unit Process: P1 106 and 118 , 106118 P2 10565 and 703 ,10565_703 P3 30360 and 45277_78 ,30360_45277_78 ... General form -abcd , abc_de ,abc_def_g ,... [s16]-two ( more) srcko CM-[s16]-does no know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts