0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It may be brilliant, for all I know, but can you explain what any of that means in normal language. I have no idea how to begin to set about trying to understand it.
I will present you a math composed of only two basis (natural and realistic basis)
-natural straight line the main axiom, its beginning or end point and natural straight line a defined length and with two points
More specifically, in Euclidean geometry, a point is a primitive notion upon which the geometry is built. Being a primitive notion means that a point cannot be defined in terms of previously defined objects.
In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.
There is a great deal that you've omitted in your presentation making your new math quite unclear. For example; you write "Current mathematics (CM.)" as if what follows is supposed to be a statement of the math you're going to address in what follows that comment. However there is no remarks stating what the "current mathematics" is supposed to be, where it starts and where it ends.
You don't define the term Natural Base.
This statement is extremely confusing. On the one hand it could mean that your starting a presentation of something you're going to call the natural straight line. But then you never define what a line is nor do you define what a point is. Those are what's called primitive notions.
I gave everything 17/04/2015 15:21:34 it is all natural basis
natural straight line is a straight line, ..
since in the current math concept is not defined point, it may be no dimensional object, the basic element two (more) dimensional object, which is pure nonsense, I have defined the term point ...
Quote from: David Cooper on 18/04/2015 18:37:34It may be brilliant, for all I know, but can you explain what any of that means in normal language. I have no idea how to begin to set about trying to understand it.I guess you have enough knowledge of mathematics, look at the picture and find connections, this can not be explained more simplyTheorem - there is a relationship between the points 0 and all points one-way infinite straight line(one-way infinite gaps) including points 0PROOF - relationship points 0 points 0 and the number 0 [ Invalid Attachment ] -relationship points 0 points 1 and the number 1 [ Invalid Attachment ] -relationship points 0 points 2 and the number 2 [ Invalid Attachment ] [size=150]...[/size] basic set of natural numbers basic set of natural numbers gaps (CM.) - natural numbers are given as an axiom, there is no natural gaps numbers (there is this form, but do not call numbers
However, in space, 2 is equal to zero, and science already defines this with vectors.(A0)........................................(B0)
infinite is isotropic
Wouldn't that depend on what it is that is being infinite?
Not at all, if something is infinite, it has no direction but all directions
Hi Mr BoxI think you should definitely look more into vectors. They are useful in a lot of science. What f.point calls natural numbers are in fact the magnitude of the vector. The gaps can be described by position vectors. Vector maths is well established and what is shown here is a very small corrupted subset. Vectors can be quite interesting, If you look at the A0,B0 vector you defined, it is a line going left to right. But we can use pure numbers, scalars, to perform operations on vectors eg if you multiply A0,B0 by the scalar -1, the vector now points in the opposite direction. To do this using another vector, you would need to use a vector in the opposite direction to A0,B0 and of 2x the magnitude. Lots of fun to be had!
No, inifinite does not necessarily mean infinite in every dimension. There are plenty of methematical objects that are infinite in at least one dimension and finite in at least one other (lines, planes)Consider an object that exists for an infinite amount of time--does this mean that it also must take up an infinite amount of space?
Colin2B, I think you made your point quite planely. I welcome such acutely linear arguments, especially given the eccentric and hyperbolic or obtuse circular and apparently infinite tangents that abound. So to speak.
Not at all, if something is infinite, it has no direction but all directions,
there is no object that can survive an infinite amount of time,
there is no object that can survive an infinite amount of time, space can survive an infinite length of time.