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**.