Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics

From: S. Enterprize Company (smart1234_at_aol.com)
Date: 12/28/04 

Date: 28 Dec 2004 09:02:37 GMT

>"E. E. Escultura" <escultur36@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You seem to be wandering around lost and hostile, in
>a territory whose only map exists in your own mind.

   I don't think so. I think Professor Escultura is trying to enlighten you.

>
>This is not a fruitful way to contribute to
>mathematical knowledge, though it seems to be a very
>popular one in this newsgroup, since the vast bulk
>of postings seen here, well over 95%, are either by
>or in response to individuals sharing your state of
>being entirely lost when mathematics is the topic of
>discussion, yet adamantly in love with their
>incorrect opinions.

   This isn't correct either.

>
>> I think we should start with the basics.
>
>Indeed "we" should, and that is where you need to go
>back and start over. You do not yet understand the
>most basic _vocabulary_ of mathematics.

   I think alot of the basic vocabulary of math was written a long time ago.
They didn't have the technology like we do now. Now we can go back and make the
 improvements now.

>
>> You cannot use the present axioms of the real
>> number system because two of them are false,
>> namely, the trichotomy and completeness axioms
>> (they don't deserve the label "axiom").
>
>"The axioms are false" is a meaningless noise.
>
>While you attend to that meaningless noise, your
>state of confusion will persist. Whether you take
>the trouble to learn better habits of thought is
>entirely your own choice, but meanwhile, the
>characterization of you seen here as "a crank" will

   I don't think so. He appears to me to be very intelligent. Many people tend
to try to conform to the standard form of math without question because they
either fear rejection, or they don't know enough about it to challenge it. Sure
rejection hurts, but which is better, to live happily in incorrect math, or
face rejection for the benefit of mankind that may help and improve accuracy in
the long run.

>remain appropriate, and your contributions to the
>newsgroup will remain of negative value.

   Oh, but I find his posts of positive value.
In fact, if you thought about it long enough, some of the things he has pointed
out to people, it may help you to understand better.

>
>Axioms are _true by definition_.
>
>For a well known example, plane, spherical, and
>hyperbolic geometries differ in the choice of a
>single axiom, that defining the number of possible
>lines parallel to a given line through a point not
>on that line. Each axiom contradicts the other two,
>but that doesn't make any one of them "false", they
>are merely _inconsistent_ if more than
  Oh but something inconsistent means an improvement can be made. Why would
something be right only in one area of math, and then be wrong somewhere else?

one of them
>is included in the set of axioms for a geometry, but
>entirely internally consistent geometries can be
>constructed for each choice of exactly one of them.
>
>Axioms don't fail by being "false", they fail by
>being "inconsistent as a set", something entirely
>different and with much different consequences than
>the ones you perceive and attempt to argue to be
>the case.
>
>HTH
>
>xanthian.
>
>
>
>--
>Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
>

  Well look at this again that he pointed out. Can you actually take the sqrt
of (-1)?

  Well I proposed another possible way. Split the sign inself up into
sub-levels if the sign. Like for example,

(.5_-) + (.5_-) = --

(.5_+) + (.5_+) = +

 (1_-) = -- the full negative sign

(-1) + (.5_+) = = (.5_-)

So by using this proposal,

sqrt(-1) = (1)(.5_-)

  If you square this,

where m equals the multiple additive values of the fractions of the sign
itself.

[(1)^n(.5_-)_m] =

[(1)^2 ((.5_-) + (.5_-))] = -1

What if the so called imaginary number was taken by an irrational number like
for example,
 
sqrt(-1)^.5142...

How is this shown as an imaginary number? It can be as far as I know. But if
you can say (-1)^.5 = i, what is (-1)^.5142...? You can do this. by just using
the standard form of real and imaginatary numbers, there is a whole total
region of uncharted areas in math, that really should be mapped for a more
accurate answer.

Using my proposal, it would look something like this.

 (1)(.5142..._-)

  This shows that the sign has a slightly more sub-level negativeness than,
(.5_-).

And again if we square this,

( (1)^2 ( .5142..._-) + (.5142..._-) =

   (1)(1.0284_-) = (-1)(.0284_-)

  This shows that here is a slightly more sub-level negativeness in the answer.

  Can this be mapped? I think so. In fact, the basuc rules of math can apply to
the proposal.

  I will call this new proposal of sub-level sign analysis, "The Smart Complex
Number System" (c) 2004 by Smart1234.

You may say show us a few more examples. Ok.

What if you have a situation like this?

(1)[(.5_-) + (.5_+)] = (1)( sign annihilation) = 0

    Zero has no sign of plus or minus. So any number times a given a sub-level
sign annihillation = 0

  The sign of a number has to be either positive or negative. If that number
has no sign then there is no number. So that number is annihilated.

   In sub-atomic physics, matter can be annihilated with a matter - anti-matter
collision? But what degree of the annihilation occurs? This could be
represented by the "Smart Complex Number System"

"The Smart Complex Number System" (c) 2004 by Smart1234.

  What do you think about this proposal Prof. Escultera?

  
Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=3320272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics
    ... >>You seem to be wandering around lost and hostile, ... > I think alot of the basic vocabulary of math was written a long time ago. ... Each axiom contradicts the other two, ... > This shows that the sign has a slightly more sub-level negativeness than, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... That's an elementary-school level notion of an ... > axioms as mere hypotheticals from which we can reason to consequences. ... Maybe it's the modern way of math. ... The notion of an actual infinity is false, but math itself is not able ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: A Manual of Practical Reason
    ... There is no such thing as "the" axioms of arithmetic. ... of axioms "containing a truth". ... > math facts cannot be proved within math, ... math facts" can be proved within math?). ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Alien math book
    ... Thanks for sumarium of this math book, ... Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms? ... Galois theory? ... Central limit theorem? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Alien math
    ... I often heard that math is universal, that aliens would use prime ... Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms? ... Central limit theorem? ...
    (sci.math)