Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics - The Smart Complex Number System -

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

Date: 28 Dec 2004 11:11:32 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.
>
>typo"Split the sign "itself" ....
>
>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
>typo: It "can't" be as far as I know.
>
>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
>
>typo: "imaginary"
>
>>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..._-)

correction: (-1)^(.5142..._-)

 sqrt ((-1)^(.5142..._-)) =

      (-1)(.7170..._-)
  
or another form,

  ( -1_-.7170...)

  -1 could have been -256 or any number, and the Smart Complex Number System
still appears to work.

>>
>> This shows that the sign has a slightly more sub-level negativeness than,
>>(.5_-).
>>
>>And again if we square this,
>>
>>( (1)^2 ( .5142..._-) + (.5142..._-) =

correction:

  sqrt (-1)^(.5142...)^.5 = ( -1_-.7170...)

  Now square this, it should return to the original form.

Correction:

   (-1)(-1_-.7170...)^2 = (-1)^.5142

>>
>> 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.
>>

  The Smart Complex Number System appears to work. The sqrt and the square of
it. returns the same values to start with.

  Please excuse the typos... .

>>
>> 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/
>>

  Let's look at:

(-256)^.5142 =

 (-1)(.7170..._-)(17.310...)

or this form

(-17.310..._-.7170)

This would be a negative number raised to a decimal or irrational number.

Let's see if it returns when you square it.

where ( inv is the inverse of)

(-1) inv(17.310..)^(.7170..._-)^2 =

(-256)^.5142

And it does work.

  So you can actually find the decimal form of a so called imaginary "i",
using The Smart Complex Number System.

  The Smart Complex Number System appears to be proven.

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

  • Yo - JohnH
    ... mathematics, from the classical to the contemporary. ... presents math as an eternally fixed array of computations, ... Latin squares, the irrationality of the square root of two, the ... percent probability I?ll get a six in the next 12 rolls of this die,? ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2
    ... You are using a different math system. ... not a linear x linear form or a square form.. ... double the speed of the first ball on impact. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: one of my other "passions"
    ... I also like square dancing but I prefer contradancing. ... New generation of square dancers intrigued by its math concepts ... Bryant stopped them to see if they could identify which dancers were the apex of a triangle or how many diamond shapes were in one formation. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: JSH: SF: Finally, surrogate factoring
    ... So completing the square w.r.t y first yields ... There is one explicit solution for y given by solving the 4 linear ... This part would be clearer with the correction above. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: one of my other "passions"
    ... "passions" is square dancing. ... especially Standards - and square dancing are not ALL that different) ... New generation of square dancers intrigued by its math concepts ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
Quantcast