0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)
If your first line is true, then some of your later lines are false.You also imply that π=½
x=y=z there is no inequality
Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:41:36x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.x=y=zBUTf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:48:11Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π Then you still have a falsehood in your list.Also it would be best to reserve π for its conventional meaning and use a different, but defined, symbol for whatever you are trying to say.
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:57:26Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:41:36x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.x=y=zBUTf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality, ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)Because : ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)Because ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,jBecause (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1Because i = 0.5 i,jand j = 0.5 i,j but i also = 1 and j also = 1
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 16:36:48Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:57:26Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:41:36x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.x=y=zBUTf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality, ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)Because : ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)Because ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,jBecause (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1Because i = 0.5 i,jand j = 0.5 i,j but i also = 1 and j also = 1What i'm implying is;YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:49:36Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 16:36:48Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:57:26Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:41:36x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.x=y=zBUTf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality, ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)Because : ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)Because ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,jBecause (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1Because i = 0.5 i,jand j = 0.5 i,j but i also = 1 and j also = 1What i'm implying is;YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation? X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 16:53:07Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:49:36Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 16:36:48Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:57:26Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:41:36x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.x=y=zBUTf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality, ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)Because : ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)Because ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,jBecause (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1Because i = 0.5 i,jand j = 0.5 i,j but i also = 1 and j also = 1What i'm implying is;YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation? X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:57:48Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 16:53:07Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 16:49:36Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 16:36:48Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:57:26Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2018 14:41:36x=y=z there is no inequalityAgreed.x=y=zBUTf(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality, ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)Because : ƒ: (c/x) = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)Because ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,jBecause (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1Because i = 0.5 i,jand j = 0.5 i,j but i also = 1 and j also = 1What i'm implying is;YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation? X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.A computer does not know anything other than what we tell it to ''know'' by programming . We can position things like in cgi software because we have put in the plots, a computer will never ''know'' the difference. or know.
Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers.
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 17/02/2018 21:26:18f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)What do you mean by that?Also "How to plot a course in 3D space"x=f(t)y=g(t)z=h(t)Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 15:48:11Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers. It isn't.The real and imaginary number lines cross at zero.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_planeAnd 0/0 (like anything else divided by zero) is undefined.
If (xy) = Picture of PolicemanThen (xyz) = PolicemanThey are exremely similar but not the same.
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 17:21:33If (xy) = Picture of PolicemanThen (xyz) = PolicemanThey are exremely similar but not the same.And that would write xy ≠ xyz which is nothing new
Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.
Quote from: Ve9aPrim3 on 18/02/2018 18:51:52Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.The onus is on you to prove your case.Currently you haven’t done that.I’m happy to discuss further if you can do that, but until then I see no reason to engage.
someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught.
I'm defining 0/0 as π