conway

Greg Because it allows for division and multiplication by zero is the reason it "over turns" current mathematics. It is that 2 * 3 and 3 * 2 yield the same sum, but they are not exactly the same. For that matter, the only thing that really matters is which is value, and which is space. I may put space first. That is 2s * 3v. 2(a-b) = a-b does NOT equal 2 = 1 it equals 2a-2b = a-b so please......post this mathematically viable way of producing (2 = 1) out of ( 2(a-b) = a - b ) In the end it is not MY definition of multiplication and division. It is CURRENT definition of multiplication and division. It is only that I found a more accurate way of stating it. You have always been told that 2 * 3 = 2+2+2 = 3+3. But you where never told why. This is why Greg. One number only represents value, One number only represents space. The value is placed into the spaces and added.

John in the equation 2 * 3 2 is the value, 3 is the space in the equation 3 * 2 3 is the value, 2 is the space Therefore the equations are different. The rules do apply to all numbers, ordinary or not. It is exactly the current definition of multiplication and division (except by zero). Only not described in terms of space or value. It is that we just "say" 2 * 3 is (2+2+2), or the other way around. Using terms of space and value explain WHY it is explained as such.

Greg I do not have to qualify "technically". It is still entirely possible to do it all in one's head. It decreases the systems complexity, while adding the benefit of DEFNINING all equations. That makes it worth it , even if it is more complicated. Greg if the current answer to the question you posed (about the room) is undefined, then you do have an "extraneous information". If then I proved an answer and that answer is 50(units of time). Then you still have "time" it does not disappear, nor is that time undefined. What is the case is that time passes with no movement or it passes with movement. That MUST be defined. Ant that is NOT erroneous. 2(a-b) = a - b.....does not equal to 2=1 2a-2b = a - b if a and b are 1 then 2-2 = 1-1 0=0 if a and b are 0 then 0=0 with out solving for the variables 2(a-b) = a - b 2a-2b = a - b....a true statement where did you come up with 2=1 ? You can't just drop your variables into thin air. John I am not sure how else to say it. If you look at an equation with two numbers in it. And it involves multiplication or division. Then one of the numbers is ONLY representing value. While the other number is ONLY representing space. Again 2 * 3 = 6 2(as a value only) * 3(as a space only) = 6 (x, x, x ) = the space of 3 I then put my value, or 2 into all given spaces then add. 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 I know that you insist that it does not help your lawyer with his 120k. I agree, he still has no one to give it to. But at lest we generate a sum other that undefined when talking of what he does (or doesn't) do with the 120k.

John Ok no problem. Any number in operation of multiplication or division is only representing a value or a space in any given equation. So that in multiplication the first symbol(number) is value only, the second symbol(number) is space only. It is then that the value is "placed" equally into all given spaces then all values added in all spaces. 2v*3s = (2+2+2) = 6.....(x+x+x) = space of 3 As we have already talked about, in multiplication either number given can be value or space. That is 3v*2s = (3+3) = 6......(x+x) = space of 2 So that in division the first symbol is Always value, the second symbol is Always space. It is then that the value is "placed" equally and subtraction-ally into all given spaces then all values are subtracted but one. 6v/3s = (2-2-2)...subtract all BUT one = 2 So that... 6v/0s = (6).....V for 0 = 0, S for 0 = 1. That is (x) = the space of zero or the space of 1, if a value is placed into the space then it becomes a number. If the value is defined it becomes the number 1. If the value is undefined it becomes the number 0.

John If you believe that I have not offered a definition for division then you haven not been really paying attention to me. Division is the same action in all cases John, as it should be. Zero involved or other wise. All equations require a definition to their operations. I have defined all opearations. And generated sums.

Acme Thanks for the information. It seems to me then that if I am a liberty to define 1 and division, then assuming 1 fits the definition of division, then it is also a prime?

John The answer to any equation is "not what did we do" ergo multiply, divide ,subtract, add, the question is what does the operation equal. I understand the point you have been making john. It is that the "answer" to division by zero is undefined because the "operation" is undefined. It is also that I do not believe that the operation or the sum is undefined. Name one other equation John where the sum, is answered by defining or (lack there of) of the operation. Not one. The operation exists to create a sum. The sum is the answer..... not the definition of the operation.

Greg This is a matter of units and semantics, for example..... 50/0=undefined What we do know is that "undefined" is not how long it takes you to cross the room What we do know is that "you do NOT" cross the room, which is a defined "sum". 50/0=50 What the case here is, is that units are involved. Some units are space units, some units are value units, some units are both at the same time. I take it you can figure out which. So that in the equation what I actually have at all times is the following t = d/v 50(meters)/0(velocity) = 50(meters with 0 velocity) or (time), (but t can not operate with out a velocity). This then shows that no meters was crossed at all. As opposed to say 50(meters)/1(velocity) = 50(meters with 1 velocity) or (time), (t in this case can operate), therefore indicating a meter was crossed, and the new final unit being time. So in the first case I do have 50 meters, but 0 velocity which is my unit (time). Indicating no meters are crossed So in the second case I do have 50 meters, but 1 velocity which is my unit (time). Indicating meters were crossed It is not that I have 50(time) out of the operation d/v, therefore I crossed the room with out any velocity, It is that I have 50 (meters with no velocity) therefore I did not cross. Simplest form 50m/0v=50seconds,....of no movement 50m/1v=50seconds....of movement I found your last post engaging, and directly on a proper assault of the idea, thank you. I will listen carefully to what you have to say in regards to this reply.

Strange While my algebraic notations have changed this has been do to yours and others request. The idea however has NOT changed. I have given extensive amounts of thought to this idea. It is because of this , that we are still chatting. As you yourself stated .... "I am almost certain this cannot be true" I am almost certain that it is. Now that you admit that there is the smallest of chances that it is.....then we should be able to continue. As well as understanding that I have not ignored ANY idea that has been offered for contradiction. It is that I have countered all of them. (albeit) You may think otherwise. This is fine. Further...at the risk of the ire of the mighty moderators.....the original paper entitled "Relative Mathematics", was anything but un-formalized. All numbers represent two things in one. Space ( a quantity of dimension), Value ( A quantity of existence). They are defined accordingly and then when any symbol is multiplied or divided, it is representing only one piece of value or space from each given number.

Greg I am confused. I did not think I implied at all that you crossed the room instantly. Or that you crossed the room at all. 0v * 50s = 0........therefore you did not cross the room.

John I am under the impression (possible falsely)....that I have followed all forum rules. "Doing nothing, isn't doing something" In fact it is John. You are standing still, You are existing, but not moving(relative to earth)(still moving, which is something). You are breathing. Your heart is beating. You are still doing "nothing".... but all the other statements are also truth. Therefore "Doing nothing, is doing something" When a lawyer "does nothing" he is still holding a pie (if he started with one). That is my point. I understand your point John. You do not feel that I make any sense. OK. I understand that from you. I think the entire forum understands that you think I make no logical, intellectual, or verbal sense whatsoever.

John The forum is composed of humanity. I agree totally that you post things I do not understand. And also that I post stuff no one understands. Do you agree I have posted some stuff some people understand? But you claim to understand nothing of what I post. I do not think any of my words have been meaningless. Albeit this is yours, and possible others, opinion. Again, how about a post back onto the idea.....unless you just wish to further assault me.

John Thanks! I agree it's not my decision. It's humanity's decision. I have however tried my best to explain it the way it is, not the way I conceive of it to be. As evidenced by the "apparent" likeness to what actually IS current explanation of multiplication and division (just not by zero). We seem to be have a lot of post between us that we both consider to "make no sense".....so....thanks for hanging in there.

Strange I have studied basic math since I was a child. I need not study it any further. I came here to ask individuals with Advanced math education, to see what happens when this idea is applied to these particular fields. Again "my opinion" is that this idea only affects basic mathematics....which I know all I need to know of. You claimed I have Dunning Kruger's effect, a mental illness. I am not really offended, no need to report, but as I pointed out, what the state of my mind is has nothing to do with this idea. The idea is either sound or not. Independent of my mental stability. So attack that. Not me. You know what I am trying to get across here. Out of curiosity, why did you refuse to continue "helping" me (thanks by the way), when the process of "q into r" came up. It literally happens like value's placed into vectors'. This apparently is an Advanced math exactly like what I am stating. Yet you quit at this point saying you "didn't understand". John I do not want to try again. I meant exactly what I said. It is a fact. It is also a fact that it is NOT verbally expressed in this way. That's the whole point I am trying to make John.... It is not that I am changing ANYTHING in mathematics. I am changing our perspective of mathematics. Greg It is not really productive to talk rationales and irrationals at this point. But if you insist. As I have already stated, nothing changes in regards to division and multiplication outside of zero. So any thing divide by a rational or irrational, yields the CURRENT sum. It is however entirely possible to represent this idea while doing division by rationales and irrationals. If you and I could agree on the integers, and natural's representation, then we would agree on the rational and irrational representations. But alas we do not agree on the former, so "showing" the latter is a waste of our time......on second thought here you go. 1/4 = .25 = ( x / x,x,x,x...,the put 1 in the first x, 4 in the next four x's then subtract all but one) = (1/4)....tadaa! nothing changes. And Your "room" question.... 0veloctiy * 50meters = 0 0value * 50space = 0 = (x,x,x,x,x,...50 times, then put 0 in all and add) Made for a good example!

Swansont I did not claim the thread would die when I felt like it. I claimed the thread would die on it's own, in due course. Greg and John If we chose 3 + 3. then the it is 2 that is not a number in 2 * 3. See what I did there. It is a current mathematical fact, that when multiplying one SYMBOL is not technically a number but rather a representation of a space. Strange You have implied several times that I have a mental issue. I have not once said anything about you. I have only attacked your ideas. In all fairness you know that you have not done the same to me. To all Ajb has, shown time and time again how to attack a persons, ideas, and not the person. Others could learn tremendously from this. Including myself. AJb 1. 0/0 = 0.....unique number 0 fits the equation. 2. Yes. Distributive property still exists. So long as both expressions declare space and value alike. 3. Yes. A-A = 0. (a given symbol representing only value, as opposed to only space, is not used in addition and subtraction)

If it could be "proven" that 1 was for a certainty a prime, then would the "pattern" in Primes be clear and defined?

Studiot I actually did miss that post. Believe me it was not intentional. In any case I agree. But I make an addition, before the world settled on what the "answers" to the "questions" I posed, they were philosophy. If then a person wishes to debate these "answers" to these specific "questions", then they must return to philosophy. So yes I am redefining numbers. But not frivolously. And before this went "sour", I MOMENTARILY had a few people on my side. But also I agree with you. If I were a better communicator, more educated (especially in mathematics), then yes this conversation could have been more a convivial thread. For that I am truly sorry. To all..... List an equation that is affected by this, other that multiplication and division by zero. Then may we continue? If you feel this is a waste of your time, please leave no more comments. Just leave. (I would think regular members would have known this. In fact I believe they do. So then why do they continue to return to talk of mental disorders and lack of credentials? Because I am just that good of a troll? NO. I have no skills. As I have declared. So why then? Maybe...just maybe something is actually here.)

Greg If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period. Phi Of course I have attached an emotion to this idea. That does not mean I have not attached intellectualism. This thread is as long as it is, BECAUSE I continue to make good arguments (or you guys are bad at ignoring trolls). If you don't like this thread quit responding(be patient it will die). Especially when your only responding negatively. John. The question Never is "what does the lawyer do" The question always is "what do you have left". What do you have. What do you hold. Strange It is true that I only "think" I know enough to say "it makes no changes". Maybe it does. But because I know this I am here asking. Maybe then I do suffer from mental illness. But you or any one, has yet to give me an example of how it does change something other than multiplication and division by zero. So.......step it up. While MANY good reasons have been given as to why it can't happen, I have addressed all of them. Truly maybe not sufficiently, but clearly then I do not have this mental defect you like to talk of. Are you out of bullets? Maybe we can rehash you last bullets. Don't' want to? Fine....go somewhere else and insult people. To All I have made NO claims as to the superiority of my mathematical skills. I have made NO claims as the superiority of any of my skills. Therefore I do not suffer from the "dictionary" definition of Dunning Kruger. Albeit....maybe some other disease. Please note..... gregH said.... "it IS the definition of multiplication".... thanks greg! So I am taking the definition that ALLREADY exists, and I am making it apply to 0, it is only that before the concept of "relativity" humanity could not see it. Stephen Hawking "If I have seen farther than others it is because I stood on the shoulder of Giants".....not because he was educated, or smarter. Though true.

Ajb Ok, thanks for the information. I stated the axiom in a very specific way. As an axiom that is in addition to all current field axioms. I have done it in such a way as to not change the "rest" of mathematics whatsoever. So if some functions can not be inverted, fine, that has nothing to do with division and multiplication by zero, albeit as you point out in the above example, some rules have to change. It is not that the rules change Ajb, it is that I am adding a rule (a change). One single rule. So then again, point out, "mathematically" a rule that no longer holds, because of the addition to the rules I have made. For example graph a vertical line f(x)=y (something like that, its been awhile). It has no slope, it involves division by zero, the line is not undefined, the slope is not undefined, it is just that it is vertical, it is just that we have collectively decided to call it an undefined slope. The line exist, and it is vertical. I have defined the line exactly as it is. in it's totality, without using "undefined", without change the rules of how we got there. John The question never was, "can I tell the lawyer what to do" The question was, "how much money does he have, at the moment that he has no one to give it to" For a fact I have given a definition for division by zero. It remains to be tested, as (Ajb) is trying to help me do. (Thanks Ajb). Strange I am well aware of the "change" that it makes. The actually problem is that you do not seem to understand, that nothing "really" changes at all. Except multiplication and division by zero. Albeit, some "re-defining" has to occur To All Consider this idea without zero. Is it not then what exactly happens? (My idea or Not). It then is clearly a more accurate, simpler, description of multiplication and division. 2*3 2 is a value 3 is a space (x,x,x) is the space of 3 2 is value of 2 2 values into 3 spaces then add (2+2+2)=6

Bignose You are wrong in all three accounts. I have addressed all "objections" presented to me. Maybe not satisfactory enough to you. I freely gave up my terminology in favor of Strange 's terminology. So clearly I have not refused to adapt to the "proper" terminology. In fact I swore to him I would not use my terminology again, until (as you point out) I perceived his comment as and insult, maybe it wasn't. Quote for me one question that you claim I did not confront, and I will directly confront it.

Bignose It does not take skill to have an idea. I can have an idea about bananas but never had ate one. If the dunning Kruger effect is an "unskilled" person, which clearly I am, that has "delusions" of how grand their skill is........which clearly I do not, then I do not suffer from it. I have made NO claims as to the "greatness" of my mathematical ability(skill). I have only claimed to have an idea. Further I did finally define, under Strange 's guidance (thank you Strange) both q, and r. I am the one suggesting what it means. It was Strange that was "gripping" about not understanding. As for the rest of your post, as I have already stated, "yeah I need to learn a lot". Again what's that got to do with the idea. If it does, let's talk about it, like John and I (thank you John.). If you feel that the idea is not worth discussing, has no merit. Is not correct. Then carry on sir. Most importantly you point out the vastness of what I touch upon. I touch upon the philosophy of mathematics. I touch upon the pure abstract that is such that it is free of equations and only exists extensionally. Philosophers gave birth to mathematics. All fundamental advancement in mathematics have come from a philosophical change of perspective of mathematics itself. It will be a philosopher that fundamentally changes mathematics again....not a mathematician....albeit they may add much knowledge. To All It seems this has come down to attacking my credentials, which I have at no time claimed to have. (lol, suppose that makes an easy target). I suggest as reasoning for why I was able to "discover" this idea is because I am a philosopher. The things I studied, for 3 years, were not equations, or axioms (though later I did). The things I study were questions like.... "what is the nature of zero" "what is the nature of a number" "what is value, what is space" "what does it mean to put a value into a space" These things are not mathematics, these things are philosophy.

Strange Yes I could do what you suggest. And you are right about my education level. Then I would have much more knowledge. I could invert your scenario however. You yourself strange said "I don't know what this means"......in regards to (q,r) q, being placed into r. I have in fact read a very thread in this forum in mathematics on vectors, to which you your self replied to it. In short the very idea of vectors, is the idea of "space" with "values" placed into them, q being value, r being space, that was what I was talking about, yet you claim to not understand what I was talking about. Your post was purely indented to insult. I understand your done with this thread. So leave out the "passive aggressive" insults as well. I have only ever talked of arithmetic. Arithmetic is the foundation of mathematics. What is truth of the foundation is truth of the rest. Therefore If I have a complete working knowledge of arithmetic, then knowledge of the rest is not NECESSARILY required. If I wish to teach a dog to talk, must I then also know how he talks to other dogs. If I want to re-invent the wheel, must I then also know all about other shapes. If I want to say the world is round, do I then need to prove all planets are. To all I have in several examples admitted what it is that I do not know. This alone is evidence that I may indeed (highest probability)...say "A-ha now I get it, This idea is utterly wrong!". But it may be that there is actually something in this idea. As evidenced by more than one poster in this and the "original" thread. For those that wish to see it come out one way or the other do so at their own will. No one is required to continue reading and or posting.

John I must be missing something. I don't see how anything you stated is relevant. The equation you posted doesn't contain division by zero. A line approaching zero, is not the same thing as division by zero (what your suggesting here). X must have a value for Y to be determined. I agree, what's that got to do with division and multiplication by zero. Just because you have no one to give your pie to, (therefore your action is undefined), does not mean you are not holding that pie. And as I pointed out several times, "semantically" speaking, the question always is, what do you hold. Not "what did you do" "was your action definable". Upon further thought....Is not division by fractions the very definition of "one to many." 1/.01=100... Is not this 100 actually pieces of the original 1. (attach units such as $).

John I don't know what you mean by a many to one function. Could you provide an example.

Phi I allowed it was only not accurate, not that... to a large degree that I liked it. Lol. Ill get right on that new irony meter for you. To be fare, I have offered more than my share of equations.