Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ms.srki

Mathematics - a new basis

20 posts in this topic

The picture doesn't load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Ryleh

post-4505-0-73221900-1360063563_thumb.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 "?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

5.33Rd1(6)d2(7)+3=7

6.33Rd1(6)d2(8 )+3=8

7.33Rd1(6)d2(9)+3=9

8.33Rd1(6)d2(10)+3=10

9.33Rd1(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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

5.33Rd1(6)d2(7)+3=7

6.33Rd1(6)d2(8 )+3=8

7.33Rd1(6)d2(9)+3=9

8.33Rd1(6)d2(10)+3=10

9.33Rd1(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

post-137035-0-13810500-1360231121_thumb.

1.2 The basic rule

Two (more) natural longer are connected only with points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Pretty much, Sepu, pretty much.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

279965_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

post-137035-0-64679100-1360317820_thumb.

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

post-137035-0-80976300-1360317825_thumb.

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

post-137035-0-92657600-1360317831_thumb.

...

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

measurement along the infinite.

post-137035-0-09885500-1360317836_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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. :yes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't be back.

I don't blame you for not wanting to return to this thread, but thanks for your rebuttals!

(Of all the branches of mathematics, finite maths really seems to attracts the crazies, eh?)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame you for not wanting to return to this thread, but thanks for your rebuttals!

(Of all the branches of mathematics, finite maths really seems to attracts the crazies, eh?)

Haha! I had to come back just for that response - thanks Sepulchrave - but you should get the credit as you were one of the first to spot where he was trying to go, I think.. BTW, I've seen quite a few of your posts scattered around - impressive! I'm very glad folks like you are here, to help pretenders like me.. :D :D

Edited by Chrlzs
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND you use a non-standard nomenclature with NO good reason, it is much longer and completely unjustified.

for terms that exist in the current math I introduced a notation

.....

2.2 Numeral along, numeric point "2.1"

Theorem-character mark points on the one-way infinite

long (A, B, C, ...), replace the labels {(0), (0.1), ..., (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ), ...}

which are set circular and positionally.

Proof - is obtained by numerical along which the numerical point of {(0,00,000,

0000, ...), (​​0,1,10,11,100,101, ...), ..., (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, ...), ...}.

post-137035-0-85497600-1360401707_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are no mathematician,

TEST

to see if you are creative or reproduced mathematician

-plane geometry

what you know

-the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180°

question

-in any triangle the sum of the interior angles greater than 180° ?

all of you will say this is impossible, in my next appearance will see that it is possible

-----------------------

2.3 Natural numbers "2.2"

Theorem - There is a relationship (length) between Point in numeric (0) and

all points along the numerical.

Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numerical point (0)

the number 0

post-137035-0-12492600-1360497857_thumb.

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (1) the number o1

post-137035-0-09028400-1360497874_thumb.

Ratio (required) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2) is the number 2

post-137035-0-21715300-1360497886_thumb.

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 3

post-137035-0-11248600-1360497903_thumb.

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 4

post-137035-0-87803400-1360497924_thumb.

...

Set - all the possibilities given theorem.

The set of natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, ...}.

__________

Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)

Set - Axiom

Natural numbers -Axiom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be better suited to a blog, mathematical notes alone are not enough to constitute a viable discussion.

Closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.