Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: conway51 on 12/01/2016 00:56:00
-
Relative Mathematics
It is the inherent nature of all things that they are a compilation of two different and distinct things. It is axiomatic that these two things are space and value. The value of any given thing being what it is, while the space is what it occupies.
It is true that, abstract or otherwise numbers are a thing, therefore they must also contain a compilation of space and value. It is an axiomatic truth that space is the labeling of quantities of dimensions. It is an axiomatic truth that value is the labeling of quantities of existence, other than dimensions.
It is an axiomatic truth that space and value exist in one of two forms. So that any given quantity of space or value is first labeled as defined or undefined. It is reasonable to say that any given number, that has had both its quantities of space and value labeled as undefined, requires no further question as to its nature. If however a given number, has had both its quantities of space and value labeled as defined, it is then necessary to further define the given quantities. That is to say what is the nature of the space and value's that are defined.
There are four axiomatic steps in the further defining of a defined quantity of space and value. First it is that, after a given quantity of space and value is labeled as defined, a symbol is given to identify the amount of quantities given. Second it is that the given amounts of defined space and value are labeled as finite or infinite. Third it is that the given amounts of defined space and value, that are finite or infinite, are labeled as small or large. Fourth it is that the given amounts of defined space and value, that are finite or infinite, small or large, are labeled as positive or negative.
It is the case that all forms of the defining of quantities of space and value, are from the perspective of our humanity. This then shows that there is a collection of only four kinds of numbers. That is there are numbers that possess an undefined space and an undefined value. Otherwise represented as a ( Uv + Us ). Such a number not requiring further defining. There are numbers that possess a defined value and a defined space. Otherwise represented as a ( Dv + Ds ). Such a number requiring further defining. There are numbers that possess a defined value and an undefined space. Otherwise represented as a ( Dv + Us ). There are numbers that possess an undefined value and a defined space. Otherwise represented as a ( Uv + Ds ).
It is reasonable to say that natural numbers have both their quantities of space and value labeled as defined. That is that a natural number is a ( Dv + Ds ). It is then through the process of further defining, that a natural number such as 2 is labeled as having ( 2Dv + 2Ds ). The symbol 2 then is the symbol identifying the amounts of quantities contained. It is then that the given quantities are labeled as finite. Otherwise represented as a ( 2DvF + 2DsF ). It is then that the given quantities are labeled as large. Otherwise represented as a ( 2DvFL + 2DsFL ). It is then that a positive is assigned to the compilation of space and value, and it is so on for any natural number.
It is also the case that fractions are labeled as a ( Dv + Ds ). That is any given fraction has both its quantities of space and value labeled as defined. So that such a number as .2 is labeled as ( 2DvFS + 2DsFS ). Then a positive is assigned to the compilation of space and value. Additionally a fractional symbol may replace the decimal symbol.
It is also the case that infinite numbers are labeled as a ( Dv + Ds ). So that such a number as 2infinite is defined as a ( 2DvIL + 2DsIL ). As well as fractional infinites such as .2infinite. Which is labeled as ( 2DvIS + 2DsIS ). Then a positive is assigned to both compilations of space and value, and it is so on for any infinite or fractionally infinite number.
Remaining are numbers that are a ( Uv + Ds ) and numbers that are a ( Dv + Us ). Such numbers do not necessarily require further defining. As an undefined quantity of space or value composites the given number. So then such numbers can only be limitedly defined relative to the given defined quantity. If then a number possess a defined value and an undefined space, the sum is then relative to the defined value. So that such a number as ( Dv + Us ) is then a 1 relative. Otherwise represented as a 1r.
If then a number possess an undefined value and a defined space, the sum is then relative to the defined space. So that such a number as a ( Uv + Ds ) is then a zero. As no quantity of value is defined, and as one quantity of space is defined. The space of zero is clearly defined on any number line. The equation ( 1 + (-1) = 0 ) proves this in that, if zero did not occupy a defined space on the number line, then the equation would equal ( -1 ), and not zero.
It is the case in multiplication and division, that neither number given is an actual number. Not in the fashion that each symbol contains both space and value. It is that one symbol is representing a value, and that one symbol is representing a space. It is the case that in multiplication the labeling of the given symbols as space or value in a specific order is not necessary. The sum yielded is always the same.
It is the case that in division the labeling of the given symbols as space or value in a specific order changes the sum that is yielded. So that as an axiom the first given symbol is labeled as value, while the second given symbol is labeled as space.
It is then that in multiplication the given value is placed additionally into the given spaces. Then all values are added in all spaces. It is then that in division the given value is placed divisionally into all given spaces. Then all values are subtracted except one.
So that in the equation ( 2 x 0 = X ), there is a given defined value of ( 2DvFL ), that is placed additionally into the given defined space of ( Ds ). Then all values are added in all spaces. This process then yields the number 2.
Where as the equation ( 0 x 2 = X ), there is a given undefined value of ( Uv ), that is placed additionally into the defined space of ( 2DsFL ). Then all values are added in all spaces. This process then yields the number zero.
So then in the equation ( 2 / 0 = X ), there is a defined value of ( 2DvFL ), that is placed divisionally into the defined space of ( Ds ). Then all values are subtracted except one. This process then yields the number 2.
Where as the equation ( 0 / 2 = X ), there is an undefined value of ( Uv ), that is placed divisionally into the defined space of ( 2DsFL ). Then all values are subtracted except one. This process then yields the number zero.
As an addition to all current field axioms these ideas are expressed as stated.
" For every A in S there exists a Z1 and Z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication or division is only representing Z1 or Z2 in any given equation. Such that Z1 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z2 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z1 for zero equals zero. Such that Z2 for zero equals 1. "
It is possible that further defining of the given defined value of a relative number, and the given defined space of a zero, is applicable and necessary. It is possible to either leave the same, or adapt exponents and logarithms. Naturally further axioms will be needed for adaption. Such as exponents of zero existing as a space representation of zero (z2). Logarithms of zero existing as a value representation of zero (z1).
It is possible to here-in re-address the idea of the continuum theory. If the defenitions for numbers and their groups, are adapted as stated, and with further exploration into the defining of ( Dv + Us ) relative numbers, ( Uv + Ds ) zero numbers, ( Uv + Us ) undefined numbers, and their placement onto the number line. The idea here being to show all numbers originating from and returning to ( Uv + Us ) on any given number line.
-
Relative Mathematics
It is the inherent nature of all things that they are a compilation of two different and distinct things. It is axiomatic that these two things are space and value. The value of any given thing being what it is, while the space is what it occupies.
It is true that, abstract or otherwise numbers are a thing, therefore they must also contain a compilation of space and value. It is an axiomatic truth that space is the labeling of quantities of dimensions. It is an axiomatic truth that value is the labeling of quantities of existence, other than dimensions.
It is an axiomatic truth that space and value exist in one of two forms. So that any given quantity of space or value is first labeled as defined or undefined. It is reasonable to say that any given number, that has had both its quantities of space and value labeled as undefined, requires no further question as to its nature. If however a given number, has had both its quantities of space and value labeled as defined, it is then necessary to further define the given quantities. That is to say what is the nature of the space and value's that are defined.
There are four axiomatic steps in the further defining of a defined quantity of space and value. First it is that, after a given quantity of space and value is labeled as defined, a symbol is given to identify the amount of quantities given. Second it is that the given amounts of defined space and value are labeled as finite or infinite. Third it is that the given amounts of defined space and value, that are finite or infinite, are labeled as small or large. Fourth it is that the given amounts of defined space and value, that are finite or infinite, small or large, are labeled as positive or negative.
It is the case that all forms of the defining of quantities of space and value, are from the perspective of our humanity. This then shows that there is a collection of only four kinds of numbers. That is there are numbers that possess an undefined space and an undefined value. Otherwise represented as a ( Uv + Us ). Such a number not requiring further defining. There are numbers that possess a defined value and a defined space. Otherwise represented as a ( Dv + Ds ). Such a number requiring further defining. There are numbers that possess a defined value and an undefined space. Otherwise represented as a ( Dv + Us ). There are numbers that possess an undefined value and a defined space. Otherwise represented as a ( Uv + Ds ).
It is reasonable to say that natural numbers have both their quantities of space and value labeled as defined. That is that a natural number is a ( Dv + Ds ). It is then through the process of further defining, that a natural number such as 2 is labeled as having ( 2Dv + 2Ds ). The symbol 2 then is the symbol identifying the amounts of quantities contained. It is then that the given quantities are labeled as finite. Otherwise represented as a ( 2DvF + 2DsF ). It is then that the given quantities are labeled as large. Otherwise represented as a ( 2DvFL + 2DsFL ). It is then that a positive is assigned to the compilation of space and value, and it is so on for any natural number.
It is also the case that fractions are labeled as a ( Dv + Ds ). That is any given fraction has both its quantities of space and value labeled as defined. So that such a number as .2 is labeled as ( 2DvFS + 2DsFS ). Then a positive is assigned to the compilation of space and value. Additionally a fractional symbol may replace the decimal symbol.
It is also the case that infinite numbers are labeled as a ( Dv + Ds ). So that such a number as 2infinite is defined as a ( 2DvIL + 2DsIL ). As well as fractional infinites such as .2infinite. Which is labeled as ( 2DvIS + 2DsIS ). Then a positive is assigned to both compilations of space and value, and it is so on for any infinite or fractionally infinite number.
Remaining are numbers that are a ( Uv + Ds ) and numbers that are a ( Dv + Us ). Such numbers do not necessarily require further defining. As an undefined quantity of space or value composites the given number. So then such numbers can only be limitedly defined relative to the given defined quantity. If then a number possess a defined value and an undefined space, the sum is then relative to the defined value. So that such a number as ( Dv + Us ) is then a 1 relative. Otherwise represented as a 1r.
If then a number possess an undefined value and a defined space, the sum is then relative to the defined space. So that such a number as a ( Uv + Ds ) is then a zero. As no quantity of value is defined, and as one quantity of space is defined. The space of zero is clearly defined on any number line. The equation ( 1 + (-1) = 0 ) proves this in that, if zero did not occupy a defined space on the number line, then the equation would equal ( -1 ), and not zero.
It is the case in multiplication and division, that neither number given is an actual number. Not in the fashion that each symbol contains both space and value. It is that one symbol is representing a value, and that one symbol is representing a space. It is the case that in multiplication the labeling of the given symbols as space or value in a specific order is not necessary. The sum yielded is always the same.
It is the case that in division the labeling of the given symbols as space or value in a specific order changes the sum that is yielded. So that as an axiom the first given symbol is labeled as value, while the second given symbol is labeled as space.
It is then that in multiplication the given value is placed additionally into the given spaces. Then all values are added in all spaces. It is then that in division the given value is placed divisionally into all given spaces. Then all values are subtracted except one.
So that in the equation ( 2 x 0 = X ), there is a given defined value of ( 2DvFL ), that is placed additionally into the given defined space of ( Ds ). Then all values are added in all spaces. This process then yields the number 2.
Where as the equation ( 0 x 2 = X ), there is a given undefined value of ( Uv ), that is placed additionally into the defined space of ( 2DsFL ). Then all values are added in all spaces. This process then yields the number zero.
So then in the equation ( 2 / 0 = X ), there is a defined value of ( 2DvFL ), that is placed divisionally into the defined space of ( Ds ). Then all values are subtracted except one. This process then yields the number 2.
Where as the equation ( 0 / 2 = X ), there is an undefined value of ( Uv ), that is placed divisionally into the defined space of ( 2DsFL ). Then all values are subtracted except one. This process then yields the number zero.
As an addition to all current field axioms these ideas are expressed as stated.
" For every A in S there exists a Z1 and Z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication or division is only representing Z1 or Z2 in any given equation. Such that Z1 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z2 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z1 for zero equals zero. Such that Z2 for zero equals 1. "
It is possible that further defining of the given defined value of a relative number, and the given defined space of a zero, is applicable and necessary. It is possible to either leave the same, or adapt exponets and logarithms. Naturally further axioms will be needed for adaption. Such as expontes of zero existing as a spacial representation of zero (z2). Logarithms of zero existing as a value representation of zero (z1).
It is possible to here-in re-address the idea of the continuum theory. If the defenitions for numbers and their groups, are adapted as stated, and with further exploration into the defining of ( Dv + Us ) relative numbers, ( Uv + Ds ) zero numbers, ( Uv + Us ) undefined numbers, and their placement onto the number line. The idea here being to show all numbers originating from and returning to ( Uv + Us ) on any given number line.
I am unclear of what you are saying, can you break it down in a few sentences without trying to be sciency?
-
Thebox
Yes of course. Thank you for your time and reply.
The entire paper may be summed up in one axiom, to be taken as an addition to all current field axioms. I can provide a link to current field axioms if you wish.
" For every A in S there exists a Z1 and Z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication or division is only representing Z1(value) or Z2(space) in any given equation. Such that Z1 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z2 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z1 for zero equals zero. Such that Z2 for zero equals 1. "
Additionally the following is a list of consequences (that I am aware of) to Relative Mathematics.
1. Allows for division by zero.
2. Reduces the number of necessary axioms in arithmetic.
3. Reduces the number of number types, ( while creating new kinds).
4. Allows for varying amounts of zero.
5. Allows for a continuum theory....(with further work).
6. Multiplication and Division are relative.
Personally I think the following is the greatest evidence for support of Relative Mathematics.
Space and Time are measured relative to a perspective(body of reference). So also the sum of multiplication and division is relative to a perspective(value or space).
-
Thebox
Yes of course. Thank you for your time and reply.
The entire paper may be summed up in one axiom, to be taken as an addition to all current field axioms. I can provide a link to current field axioms if you wish.
" For every A in S there exists a Z1 and Z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication or division is only representing Z1(value) or Z2(space) in any given equation. Such that Z1 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z2 for all A's other than zero equal A. Such that Z1 for zero equals zero. Such that Z2 for zero equals 1. "
Additionally the following is a list of consequences (that I am aware of) to Relative Mathematics.
1. Allows for division by zero.
2. Reduces the number of necessary axioms in arithmetic.
3. Reduces the number of number types, ( while creating new kinds).
4. Allows for varying amounts of zero.
5. Allows for a continuum theory....(with further work).
6. Multiplication and Division are relative.
Personally I think the following is the greatest evidence for support of Relative Mathematics.
Space and Time are measured relative to a perspective(body of reference). So also the sum of multiplication and division is relative to a perspective(value or space).
Interesting stuff and beyond my education but in saying that, I am interested in learning about your idea it sounds to me rather intriguing and different to the general science posts and ideas.
Can we start here with the meaning to this-
''Space and Time are measured relative to a perspective(body of reference).''
Are you saying that rather than Minkowski space time being measured externally of bodies, you measure it relative to a body i.e the 4 dimensions are the xyz of the body and the 4th dimension is the time of the individual body?(time dependent to the observer)
Secondly - ''The entire paper may be summed up in one axiom, to be taken as an addition to all current field axioms.''
An axiom means the truth/fact, that everyone has to agree with , i.e things fall to the ground.
So you are saying your maths are axiom's?
Thirdly the value of time is zero, anything greater than zero is history/memory.
X+Y+Z+t=0
Have you accounted for this or are you saying this?
Is your idea some sort of zero ring theory?
" For every A in S there exists a Z1 and Z2''
Is S the mass, A the inner product of the mass, and Z1,Z2 negativity and positivity/force?
-
Axioms are literally defined as a "self evident truth". Well one mans "self evident truth is often another mans" hypocrisy lol (i.e. "do things really always fall to the ground? Sometimes that don't, Somethings don't at all. Smoke) In any case the validity of my "quoted" axiom rest ( I hope ) in the philosophical arguments and axioms made in the paper. When I made the statment..."space and time are measured relative"... it is not the "space-time continuum" that I mean here. As I think Minkowski was talking of. It is that all "things" inside the "space-time continuum" are measured relative. So that If I want to know the space, or value, of X, then the answer will be relative to my body of reference and it's motion linear/nonlinear, or special and general relativity by Einstein. It is this princaple of relativity that I am carrying over to mathematics. So that all four following equations exist as true.
A x 0 = A
0 X A = A
0 X A = 0
A X 0 = 0
With declarions on each number as to "space" or "value" I can show how all four exist as true. When I use the terms "every A in S" it is a mathematical construct. It is simply saying that A = a given number in the set, and S=the given "set" of numbers. I have made no intention to discuss the value of Time.(though I will say zero is not the same as "nothing"). Only that there is a need in seperating value and space. And declaring which is which in any given equation. I hope I have answerd all your previous questions adequately.
Thanks, Conway
-
Axioms are literally defined as a "self evident truth". Well one mans "self evident truth is often another mans" hypocrisy lol (i.e. "do things really always fall to the ground? Sometimes that don't, Somethings don't at all. Smoke) In any case the validity of my "quoted" axiom rest ( I hope ) in the philosophical arguments and axioms made in the paper. When I made the statment..."space and time are measured relative"... it is not the "space-time continuum" that I mean here. As I think Minkowski was talking of. It is that all "things" inside the "space-time continuum" are measured relative. So that If I want to know the space, or value, of X, then the answer will be relative to my body of reference and it's motion linear/nonlinear, or special and general relativity by Einstein. It is this princaple of relativity that I am carrying over to mathematics. So that all four following equations exist as true.
A x 0 = A
0 X A = A
0 X A = 0
A X 0 = 0
With declarions on each number as to "space" or "value" I can show how all four exist as true. When I use the terms "every A in S" it is a mathematical construct. It is simply saying that A = a given number in the set, and S=the given "set" of numbers. I have made no intention to discuss the value of Time.(though I will say zero is not the same as "nothing"). Only that there is a need in seperating value and space. And declaring which is which in any given equation. I hope I have answerd all your previous questions adequately.
Thanks, Conway
Yes axioms are self evidently true .
I have still no idea of what your idea is trying to say. Maths is not relative to anything, maths is abstract, natural process does not need ''maths'' to work. So the relativity of maths to the relativeness of relative is irrelevant.
A*0 would be the same as A+0 and A-0 if A is zero.
If A is 1 then A*0=A and 0*A=0
why do you do it twice?
-
Thebox
Thanks for your time
Some given thing being relative has nothing to do with if the thing is abstract or empirical. They are not mutually exclusive. For example...
Space is empirical, it is relative.
Time is abstract, it is relative.
In any case....math exists to explain "natural processes". That is why these "processes" don't NEED math. Math only exists for us to communicate amongst ourselves. But if natural processes have been shown to be relative....and they have.....then the math that is used to explain/communicate these things should also be relative. For example...
It is possible to have 2 apples. It is possible to have 2 tiny apples. It is possible to have 2 large apples.
In all cases above I have the same number. The number 2. But in no cases above do I have the same value.
You ask me why I would do it twice. If you sir, or madam, hold in your hand 1 of any thing, and then multiply that thing by zero, what then is in your hand? Not zero. Likewise if you hold 1 of any thing in your hand and then divide it by zero, what then is in your hand? Not undefined. Currently math does not accurately describe the above "natural processes". I hope I am doing better at explaining this idea. I appreciate the interest.
-
empirical
How does maths not describe when you are using 0 and 1 from maths?
I believe only two true numbers ''exist'', 0 and 1, there is either something(1) or nothing(0).
We, ourselves are not relative to the Universe, so anything we can think up is not relative. The theory of relativity from me is there is no relativity.
Size . speed , distance, ''relative'' to the Earth's scale,
I am sorry I am still not quite clear of what you are saying, relative is a weak word.
-
Thebox
First of all 0 does NOT represent nothing. Not in math and not in reality. Ask any mathematician. The facts are "nothing" does not exist. There is ONLY something. Nothing is not an option to chose from. The word relative means "based on relationships". Are you then saying that you and I have no relationship with the universe? Do we not have a relationship with the Earth. Which in turn has a relationship with the Universe. Therefore through extension so do we. But that relationship needs no even mentioned. I can only see "as far" as the universe stretches, assuming I have light. So my sight is relative to the size of the universe. And I could go on. Maybe it is that your under standing of the word relative that is weak? In any case maybe we should start with pure mathematics........
What proof do you offer that zero is nothing. I sir or madam can offer a post, and links, showing that it is NOT considered nothing. For example, if zero were nothing, then explain how exponents of zero yield 1. And logarithms yielding indeterminate and not zero.
-
Thebox
First of all 0 does NOT represent nothing. Not in math and not in reality. Ask any mathematician. The facts are "nothing" does not exist. There is ONLY something. Nothing is not an option to chose from. The word relative means "based on relationships". Are you then saying that you and I have no relationship with the universe? Do we not have a relationship with the Earth. Which in turn has a relationship with the Universe. Therefore through extension so do we. But that relationship needs no even mentioned. I can only see "as far" as the universe stretches, assuming I have light. So my sight is relative to the size of the universe. And I could go on. Maybe it is that your under standing of the word relative that is weak? In any case maybe we should start with pure mathematics........
What proof do you offer that zero is nothing. I sir or madam can offer a post, and links, showing that it is NOT considered nothing. For example, if zero were nothing, then explain how exponents of zero yield 1. And logarithms yielding indeterminate and not zero.
I am banned from posting maths so I get around that with bitmap
[ Invalid Attachment ]
there is your proof
-
Thebox
I might be misunderstanding you here. It seems to me that your equation yields zero. Yes, but nowhere do I see it showing zero being equal to "nothing". If you suggest that not putting a numerical symbol next to the final "equal" sign, then you have shown that there is "no answer", not an answer of "nothing". For example ...
A/0 = undefined
A/0 = no answer
A/0 = ?
A/0 =
So then your equations "missing" value is that of "undefined", "?", not a value of "nothing".
I suppose you may rewrite if you wish where the final value is the word "nothing"......let's assume that you do. So then now explain to me how it is that we go from a sum of "0" to a sum of "nothing" with out any operations in between the "latter" two equal signs.
A "blank" is not the same as "nothing".
The space between earth and the moon is blank, but it is not "nothing"