The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: srdanova math  (Read 3816 times)

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
srdanova math
« on: 20/01/2012 11:59:31 »
questions
1.Z(10^n)=?,Z-integers
2.write in abbreviated form (if the function can be final and natural)
2+5=7 , 2+10=12 , 2+15=17, 2+20=22 , 2+25=27 , 2+30=32 , 2+35=37 , 2+38=40,
2+40=42, 2+41=43 , 2+44=46 , 2+45=47, 2+47=49 , 2+50=52 ,2+57=59 , 2+60=62 ,
2+64=66, 2+70=72, 2+71=73 , 2+78=80 , 2+80=82 , 2+85=87 , 2+90=92 ,2+92=94
3.how to solve this current knowledge of mathematics:
along a (20m) ,deleted between 10 m and 15 m (b=5m) , wet get c (image)
--yy--
Can mathematics explain the only two axiom that the rest are just evidence (experiments), if you think so join me show you Srdanova math, see you
___________________________________________________
I figure this way, from education school has 12 years, I was always the subject of mathematics and physics had the best grades, math deal amateur, studying mathematics I came to know that mathematics can be simplified and be connected (to be explained only with two axiom) and extend the mathematics that can solve math problems that present no solution.
--a1--
 Marjanovic Srdan
 M.Biljanica
 16201 Manojlovce
 Serbia
ms.biljanica@gmail.com
natural axiom
What is " nature along "?
 -nature along in figure 1
 What is "point"?
 -start (end) natural long
--a2--
 What is the " basic rule "?
 -basic rule is determined that the two ( more) longer only have to connect the points
 [Sn]-mathematical facts
 [S1]-nature along
 [S2]-point (natural meaning of)
 Definition[natural along]-two points , distance between two points
 CM (current mathematics)-[S1]-does not know , [S2]-point is not defined , so anything and everything


 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #1 on: 20/01/2012 16:46:38 »
I've looked at all 3 of your posts here, and am still unable to figure out what you are trying to introduce.

1.Z(10^n)=?,Z-integers

Are you creating a backwards scientific notation which is usually related to large numbers, and decimals?

a.b x 10n

Anyway, I would encourage writing a paragraph about what issue needs to be solved.  Then, demonstrate how it is being approached with "standard math".  Then follow it up with a description of your new system, and how it is better able to solve the problems.
Quote
2.write in abbreviated form (if the function can be final and natural)
2+5=7 , 2+10=12 ,[...]
Ok, so you're shifting digits, +2...  for some reason.  Again, it is unclear why, or what your goals are. 

Anyway, start at the beginning, explain the problem, and then explain your solution and what it gives us.
 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #2 on: 20/01/2012 17:34:28 »
intended-CliffordK
1.Z(10^n)=?
 a={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} , b={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
 n=1 , Z10={...,(-210),(-110),(010),(110),(210),...}={...,-0.2,-0.1,0,1,2,...}={Z,Z.b}
 n=2 , Z100={Z,Z.b,Z.ab}
 n=3 , Z1000={Z,Z.b,Zab,Zaab}
 n=4 , Z10000={Z,Z.b,Z.ab,Zaab,Zaaab}
...
simple evidence that proves that the real and the rational numbers one and the same (every real number is the result of divisions of two integers)
2.write in abbreviated form (if the function can be final and natural)
2+5=7 ... When you explain the new things you will know
3.how to solve this current knowledge of mathematics:
along ...When you explain the new things you will know
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #3 on: 20/01/2012 17:39:50 »
msbiljanica

Hi there - this is a note from a moderator.  We do not approve of posters cutting and pasting over multiple fora around the internet.  If you want to post here then please do - but it must be a start of a discussion with our members not merely a method of publishing your ideas.

Please do not do not cross post to other fora again


 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #4 on: 20/01/2012 17:43:09 »
Could you explain in more detail

Quote
1.Z(10^n)=?
 a={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} , b={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
 n=1 , Z10={...,(-210),(-110),(010),(110),(210),...}={...,-0.2,-0.1,0,1,2,...}={Z,Z.b}

I do not know what this means
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #5 on: 20/01/2012 17:57:06 »
simple evidence that proves that the real and the rational numbers one and the same (every real number is the result of divisions of two integers)

Every Rational number is either an integer (which could be itself/1), or a result of a division by two integers.

Ever Real number is not.
For example, pi (π), or e, are not considered to be the result of a division by two integers.
Likewise, many square roots and cubed roots do not result in rational numbers.
« Last Edit: 20/01/2012 17:59:28 by CliffordK »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #6 on: 20/01/2012 18:36:31 »
"simple evidence that proves that the real and the rational numbers one and the same (every real number is the result of divisions of two integers)"
As Clifford says that's pretty much wrong by definition.
The irrational numbers are defined as those real numbers that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.
They exist.
For example it's possible to prove that the square root of two is irrational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proofs_of_irrationality

It seems that your idea is fundamentally flawed.
(It's also impossible to know what you are on about- but that cannot mater since it's wrong anyway.)

 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #7 on: 21/01/2012 12:54:07 »
NATURAL MATHEMATICS



Presupposition-natural long merge points in the direction of the first natural along AB
Process:
 P1-AB..CD..ABC(AC)
 to read- natural along AB to point B, is connected to the natural long CD to point C, shall be
 P2-ABC(AC)..DE..ABCD(AD)
 read- along the ABC(AC) to point C , connecting with the natural long DE to point D is done
 renaming of points , we get along ABCD(AD)
 P3-ABCD(AD)..EF..ABCDE(AE)
...
--a3-
[S3]-along (natural basis)
 Definition[along]-the first and last point and the distance between points
 CM-[S3]-does not know
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #8 on: 21/01/2012 17:35:28 »
I'm sorry, but you are going to have to make your stuff a lot clearer than "Presupposition-natural long merge points in the direction of the first natural along AB"
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #9 on: 21/01/2012 19:06:34 »
There certainly is a "Natural Log" that is well defined in Mathematics, but "Natural Long" or "Natural Along" seem to be your own creation, or a translation error.  I agree with Bored Chemist that it needs a better definition.

Looking at your figure, you seem to be consolidating points.  Where B=C, you just make the replacement, which is common with elementary algebra.  The figure becomes unnecessarily complicated by re-using the same letters to apparently indicate different things, or different points.

With your previous "scientific notation", you seem to have an error in your calculations.
n=1 , Z10={...,(-210),(-110),(010),(110),(210),...}={...,-0.2,-0.1,0,1,2,...}={Z,Z.b}
Where 1/10 = 0.1, and 2/10 = 0.2

But, as noted above, you just redefined the rational numbers, and not all of the real numbers including the irrational numbers.
« Last Edit: 21/01/2012 19:08:34 by CliffordK »
 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #10 on: 22/01/2012 08:38:23 »
I'm sorry, but you are going to have to make your stuff a lot clearer than "Presupposition-natural long merge points in the direction of the first natural along AB"
If you read the elements of Euclid, they are just text, I have given the text and graphics, so if you know me then read on, this is the simplest that can explain
 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #11 on: 22/01/2012 08:43:04 »

But, as noted above, you just redefined the rational numbers, and not all of the real numbers including the irrational numbers.
see evidence of it they concluded, if he did not convince you, then you said I can not convince
 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #12 on: 22/01/2012 08:45:15 »
Presupposition - All points of a longer (the infinite form) can be replaced with labels: (0), (0,1 ),...,
 (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ),...
Process:
 P1-N (0) = {0,00,000,0000,...}
 P2-N (0,1) = {0,1,10,11,100,...}
 ...
 P10-N (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, ...}
 ...
--a3--
[S4]-number along
 [S5]-set of natural numbers N
 We will use N (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,...}
 Definition[number along]- a starting point (0), the last point at infinity
 [number N]-The number 0 is the point 0
 -Other numbers are longer, the first item is 0, the last point is the point of the name (number)
 CM-[S4].does not know , [S5]-axiom
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #13 on: 22/01/2012 10:02:19 »
I'm sorry, but you are going to have to make your stuff a lot clearer than "Presupposition-natural long merge points in the direction of the first natural along AB"
If you read the elements of Euclid, they are just text, I have given the text and graphics, so if you know me then read on, this is the simplest that can explain
You are no Euclid.

Euclid starts his work by clearly defining the terms he uses and laying out the axioms from which he is working.
(There's an on-line copy here)
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html#defs

You start by saying something wrong about real numbers and, what's more, you say it in a cluttered confused way.

As it stands, I can not tell if you are being deliberately unclear or if you are just not able to express yourself properly.
 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #14 on: 22/01/2012 11:01:56 »
Bored chemist-CliffordK
please calculated Z(10^n)=? , and to finish the debate whether there are irrational numbers
 

Offline msbiljanica

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #15 on: 22/01/2012 11:44:07 »
Presupposition-Numbers have their points
Process:
 P1 0=(.0)
 P2 1={(.0),(.1)}
 P3 2={(.0),(.1),(.2)}
 P4 3={(.0),(.1),(.2),(.3)}
 P5 4={(.0),(.1),(.2),(.3),(.4)}
...
--a5--
[S6]-number points
 CM-[S6]does not know
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #16 on: 22/01/2012 13:13:42 »
msbiljanica has been banned for copy/pasting content.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #17 on: 22/01/2012 13:45:55 »
"finish the debate whether there are irrational numbers"
I already did.
 At least one irratioanl number exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proofs_of_irrationality
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: srdanova math
« Reply #18 on: 22/01/2012 20:28:49 »
Bored chemist-CliffordK
please calculated Z(10^n)=? , and to finish the debate whether there are irrational numbers
What you are describing is an nth digit approximation.  And, in many cases it can be very powerful, but it is not exact.

For the most part our modern computers work with nth digit approximations.  However, one also has to be aware of the limitations of such an approach.

Numbers in computers called "Real Numbers", are in fact usually merely numbers expressed in exponential notation. 

It is always best not to do a comparison between computer-real numbers (if a=b) because the comparison can often fail.  So, one is led to using inequalities...  (if a ≥ b), or   (if a- ε ≤ b ≤ a + ε for sufficiently small ε).

I always find it annoying when I do a calculation and end up with 0 = 1.0x10-30, but that is the risk of using approximations, and always rounding.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: srdanova math
« Reply #18 on: 22/01/2012 20:28:49 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums