Re: Understanding the quotient ring nomenclature

On Jun 25, 6:12 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 24, 11:43 am, Tonico <Tonic...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
............................................................

Without the pomp and color there will be little discussion. Such is
the closed nature of these topics in the biblical interpretation.
There are enough common instances of mistakes made by scientists as
much as by religionists and the two do become indistinguishable under
attitudes such as yours. I am free to express myself here and I am
grateful to be able to receive back responses here which help to
develop the bifurcation that is visible. Your response is in the realm
of the nonmathematical. I would simply argue to you that when any
supposition in any book is made that it deserves skepticism. When that
supposition has been repeated in enough books and by enough people it
does not make that supposition any more accurate. Further your own
deference to the bright minds that came before you will not serve to
further the mathematics. The development of all topics will come in
challenging what has come before. Rather this is one form of
development. The other which is the more common academic form it that
of tendrilling out to accumulate the structure to a larger extent.
This latter form of accumulation I find difficult and prefer to work
toward the roots of this structure. Best of all the attitude that
there remains something fundamental left to construct keeps the topic
lively rather than stale. These fundamental discoveries will be far
and few between yet I can prove a few that exist. See
   http://BandTechnology.com.
I do not believe that you will find the inverse cone construction nor
the polysign construction in the existing literature. Now, polysign
has been expressed in the terms of this mathematics at hand. On one
side of the coin, I can see that my own psyche could sabbotage this
math in order to keep my own construction alive. Yet while I can admit
my own attachment to the idea of polysign numbers, I see that my
presentation is already worlds simpler that the abstract algebra build
of them. I believe that I could teach a sixth grader polysign and that
in learning it their own sign errors on the reals would disappear and
their perception of complex numbers and time will bring to them a
tangibility at an early age beyond what modern mathematics can
provide.

Getting back to the subject at hand though I see no need to drag
polysign into it directly. I wonder how often you would be comfortable
invoking the freedoms that the polynomial in X brings into an existing
math? On any set one might declare such freedoms. I do sincerely
believe that this ultraset brought about through the polynomial
interpretation is questionable. Could I for instance invoke
   A[Y[X]] ?
Is this then a set larger than A[X]? I have not gone to the trouble
here of attempting this but I suppose for someone more advanced than
myself this level ought to be considered. Under my simplistic
interpretation upon specifying A this will collapse to A but through
the universalist approach this new construction is that much more
universal than the one which came before it:
   Z is in R is in C is in ... A[X] is in ... A[Y[X]] ...
Maybe that should be A[X[Y]]- I'm not really sure. Regardless I need
not believe in this construction to carry on with the subject matter.
The scholarly religionist might study the Torah and the Bible yet obey
the Koran. It is their free right to likewise construct their own book
since these previous books are merely constructions. Thus comes forth
the Bahai religion and so forth:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahai

 - Tim

 - Tim-


It is a huge pity, my boy, that you can't enjoy while standing in awe
the sight, and reading, of the above vacuous, pompous and deeply
foolish rolling of nonsenses that you wrote. If you could you cound't
be able to actually write all that appalling pile of verbal crap as
you did: your finger would refuse to type on the keyboard out of
shame.

With all due respect, I advice you to go and get some education, and
THEN try to deal with stuff which is way over your head, not to
mention aspiring to do new, revolutionary things in mathematics, you
pompous, shallow and hollow brickhead.

Regards (this time without the "dis" part, since I had a good laugh)
Tonio

Ps The nonsensical, completely irrelevant references to religions and
their books were really like the cherry over the ice cream: delicious!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Choice sequence lessons.
    ... The orthodox have "first dibs" on these ... refer to a mental construction is very old. ... older than Frege; Frege felt the need to argue against it. ... In order to say that the constructive interpretation is ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Vector Mildew drops some of his claims here on the equivalence between P4 and RxC
    ... Where lays his claims of some ultimate representation in copies of R ... you to reference their construction in any but current work. ... But they are not polysign numbers. ... and so you see that isomorphism is inherently tied to ignorance. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: House Design Details
    ... construction techniques that I was thinking of buying next week as I ... > Aside from copies of any state and local code books I agree that Francis ... some such as Graphics Standards can be extremely expensive running ...
    (comp.cad.autocad)
  • Re: intersection of parabola and line
    ... I don't remember from where comes my construction. ... class books, plus a few books about projective geometry, triangle ... directrix and going at focus. ... Thank you for motivating me to publish that page on my web site. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: "Polysign numbers"
    ... I still advise you to study group rings, Mr Golden, ... As parallel construction which has greater merit? ... dangerously close to the polysign system, ... misrepresentation of true sign generalization and emergent spacetime. ...
    (sci.math)