[f.point (OP)]

I will present you a math composed of only two basis (natural and realistic basis)

Current mathematics (CM.)

Natural Base
-natural straight line the main axiom, its beginning or end point and natural straight line a defined length and with two points
NOTATION - natural straight line (lower case), points (capital letters or numbers (when specified point uploads metric (such as the number line)))
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
-natural gaps negation natural straight line , natural emptiness and emptiness is defined with two points
NOTATION - natural gaps (small underlined letter)
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
-basic rule merger - natural straight line and natural gaps are connected only points
-basic set - all possibilities defined theorem
(CM.)does not know the natural straight line , point is not defined, knows no natural gap, is not defined by basic set

[f.point (OP)]

Theorem - Natural straight line (natural gap) are connected in the direction of the points AB (0.1)
PROOF - straight line (gaps) b () -defined AC (0,2)
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
 - straight line (gaps) c () -defined AD (0,3)
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
...
infinite one way straight line (oneway infinite gaps) ∞ () defined A∞ (0, ∞)
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
(CM.) - straight line (not from the natural basis), there is gaps, a one-way infinite straight line the (semi-line (not from natural base)), one-way infinite gaps does not exist

[David Cooper]

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.

[f.point (OP)]

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 guess you have enough knowledge of mathematics, look at the picture and find connections, this can not be explained more simply

Theorem - there is a relationship between the points 0 and all points one-way infinite straight line(one-way infinite gaps) including points 0

PROOF - 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

[PmbPhy]

I will present you a math composed of only two basis (natural and realistic basis)

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.

Natural Base

You don't define the term Natural Base.

-natural straight line the main axiom, its beginning or end point and natural straight line a defined length and with two points

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. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)

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.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_notion

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.

So far you haven't demonstrated that you understand this all important part of the basics of mathematics. Therefore I recommend picking up a good text on geometry and follow the line of reasoning they present and how meticulous they are in their presentation. For example; it's currently accepted that the term point is an undefined term in geometry as is the term set.

[f.point (OP)]

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.

is given at the end (after the label ( CM.)), with the concepts that exist in the current math and that does not exist in the current mathematics

You don't define the term Natural Base.

I gave everything 17/04/2015 15:21:34 it is all natural basis

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.

natural straight line is a straight line, we take a basis from which we can obtain other terms

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.

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 ...

[PmbPhy]

I gave everything 17/04/2015 15:21:34 it is all natural basis

What you gave was insufficient to make this thread make sense.

natural straight line is a straight line, ..

I assume that you know that "straight line" is a primitive notion. You need to state these things in threads like this.

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 ...

You're writing leaves a great deal to be desired. And your claim "since in the current math concept is not defined point, it may be no dimensional object," is quite wrong. It shows that you didn't read the link about point and what a primitive object is. What you need to learn is that even though primitive notions can't be defined it most certainly does not mean that we can say anything that we want to about them. For example; even though we can't define the term "point" we know a great deal about what a point is by describing it in terms of things we know from everyday experience. That's why I suggested that you read a text on geometry, i.e. so that you'd learn these things and why your assertion "may be no dimensional object" is quite wrong.

And, no. You most certainly did not define the term point? That's what I was explaining to you.

This thread is so poorly worded that heads or tails cannot be made out of it. Take it from a mathematician - It's all wrong. And since it's so poorly written and you're not reading the very important material that I refer you to then I can't see trying to help you anymore.

[guest39538]

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 guess you have enough knowledge of mathematics, look at the picture and find connections, this can not be explained more simply

Theorem - there is a relationship between the points 0 and all points one-way infinite straight line(one-way infinite gaps) including points 0

PROOF - 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

I am intrigued, I like new things, I have no idea of what you are on about, but my presumption is that you are some how trying to co-ordinate a maths function out of spacial points, a ''zero point space''.

However .....

''relationship points 0 points 2 and the number 2 35bcbe2c929e4e53b7e1d76ef188c463.gif''

However, in space, 2 is equal to zero, and science already defines this with vectors.


(A0)........................................(B0)


(A0)............(XV/t)>>>>>>>>>(B0)


(a0/vt)<<<<<<<<<<(x0)>>>>>>>>>>(b0/vt)


is this what you are trying to  present?


''infinite one way straight line''

contradictory, infinite is isotropic 

[Colin2B]

However, in space, 2 is equal to zero, and science already defines this with vectors.


(A0)........................................(B0)

Excellent
However, we could also put A0=x₁y₁ and B0=x₂y₂
If we then put x₂y₂ as x_ny_n we can vary n with a formula and see how the vector plots a movement in space. Now the fun starts.

infinite is isotropic 

Wouldn't that depend on what it is that is being infinite?

Edit: f.point describes parts of these vectors as 'natural numbers' and 'gaps'. What does current maths call the the natural number in a vector? CM also recognises 'gaps', what would you describe them as.
I think you'll get this one, but just to check your understanding.

PS It is usual to reserve 0 for the origin of the coordinate system, as a reference point from which we measure other points. I find it useful.

[f.point (OP)]

Theorem - natural numbers and natural numbers gaps can be connected in the direction AB (0.1)

PROOF - Number 1 and number receives the combined number of or dup (duž , praznina )
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

-Number and number  1  receives the combined number of or dup
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

-Number 1 and number receives the combined number of or dup
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
...
- A basic set of combined natural numbers





...

(CM.) - Dup do not know, not know the combined numbers (there is this form, but not numbers )

[guest39538]

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, for example-


.............................................................................  , these dots could never be equal, the north and south having ''gaps''

an infinite structure has to look more like -

.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................

except from any point, all distance is still infinite, the point value is always zero, hence my ''zero point space'',  meaning that an actual 0 is to big, also meaning there is actually not even a point, zero - point-space, an empty nothing,

you then see this -












transparent

[chiralSPO]

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]

Hi Mr Box
I 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!

Not at all, if something is infinite, it has no direction but all directions

So would you say an infinite straight line goes in all directions?

Edit: sorry Chiral, my post collided with yours. I must have been writing while you were posting.
Good point made, so to speak!

[chiralSPO]

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.

[guest39538]

Hi Mr Box
I 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!

not quite true, the line I defined runs left to right but at the same time runs right to left,

(a0)...................(b0)

[guest39538]

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?

there is no object that can survive an infinite amount of time, space can survive an infinite length of time.

[Colin2B]

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.

Groan
Groan
Repeated groans .....
Infinite groans (in all directions)

[f.point (OP)]

Theorem - Two numbers have contact, their condition is described counts of first number

PROOF - number 3 and number 2 have a contact at point 0

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

- number 3 and number 2 have a contact at point 1

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

- number 3 and number 2 have a contact at point 2

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

- number 3 and number 2 have a contact at point 3

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

(CM.) - Knows no contact numbers

[Colin2B]

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,

So if no object can be infinite, what is 'something', because you have said before that space is nothing if there is no object?

[f.point (OP)]

Theorem - The contact numbers is sorted horizontally to be the only one natural straight line that gives a natural straight line

PROOF -
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
42=2

4}2=(1,1)

42=2

42=(3,1)

42=6 or 4+2=6

+₁ - addition rule 1

(CM.) - There are no "addition rule 1" only when the contact point number, the axiom