ALine

52 minutes ago, studiot said:

Does 4 implies 2 have any meaning?

How do mathematicians define "meaning?" Because whenever I run into it I come to an existential road block.

But, yes I think I understand what you are saying in terms of Relations and my intuitive thought.

I think I got function and relation confused and did not understand each of there definitions are you have pointed out prior.

Random thought, could this be used to imply symmetry breaking in a field of study such as physics?

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

a R b denotes that b is related to a

Are relations the same as if conditional statements then? Or at the very least similar? Because with a if b, you have b -> a.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

What do you mean by this ?

I mean to say that a relationship is the connection between two points in space in nature.

Also I mean a relationship is an object in math.

4 minutes ago, wtf said:

But the implication is manifestly false, as I noted. If X and Y have the same truth value, then their xnor is true and their xor is false, resulting in a false material implication. Agree or disagree?

Agree

4 minutes ago, wtf said:

Didn't understand this. Sets of knowledge? What do you mean?

Just expressing my limited amount of knowledge on the subject.

5 minutes ago, wtf said:

But the implication is manifestly false, as I noted. If X and Y have the same truth value, then their xnor is true and their xor is false, resulting in a false material implication. Agree or disagree?

Need some time to try and formalize this, have problems with this endeavor.

I admit defeat.

6 minutes ago, ALine said:

(relationship) [ X XOR Y -> X XNOR Y] (this was the first way I thought about doing it where XOR was the addition in mathematics because of the circle and the +, multiplication would be circle and x.

 

It being I have no idea how to formally explain it.

It being my idea/discovery.

Mathematics is the structuring of the universe, ergo nature, into a set of discoverable rules and formulations. These formulations are conceived by the human mind. A set is itself an inverse of reality due to those languages which better describe reality. Languages, of the romantic kind, describe humans endeavor to discern between the reality and fictitious efforts of noise. That's probably the best way I can put my discovery. I think I am trying to describe automata theory. Not sure though. Please help.

(relationship) [ X XOR Y -> X XNOR Y] (this was the first way I thought about doing it where XOR was the addition in mathematics because of the circle and the +, multiplication would be circle and x.

41 minutes ago, wtf said:

So, what do you mean by -> here?

I was using implication here.

41 minutes ago, wtf said:

Mathematical functions never create news sets. Given two sets, there may be functions between them. But the sets have to already exist. Functions do relate them in terms of inputs and outputs, but this isn't a very meaningful way to put it.

I may have been applying my sets of knowledge to a field of study which uses mathematics to make the above statement true.

44 minutes ago, wtf said:

symmetric addition

XOR Gate symmetric difference,

XNOR Gate symmetric addition, however I worded it wrong.

58 minutes ago, wtf said:

Secondly, Russell showed in 1901 that there is no universal set. Are you working with some restricted universe of sets? Can you clarify what you mean by universal set?

jesus math is old. Was not aware of this fact. Thanks for this.

58 minutes ago, wtf said:

Potentially a fractal

This was just banter more than stating any claims or facts.

Thanks for your responses.

This basis of the idea was that the implication emerged from the relationship.

X, being a set, and Y being a set.

X XNOR Y -> X XOR Y, is the basis of mathematics.

Mathematics, based on my research, is about relationships which can be described using functions. These functions relate or create new sets. However there is a problem. What actually IS a relationship.

Claim: A relationship is a symmetric difference -> symmetric addition.

Explanation: A symmetric addition is a similarity between two sets. It is a comparison between these two sets and everything else in the universal set. By comparing both obtain something neat.

Potentially a fractal. This is as far as I have gotten on the problem. 

11 minutes ago, wtf said:

Was this for me?

A TM program is a finite sequence of symbols taken from an at most countably infinite alphabet. There are therefore at most countably many TM programs of length 1, countably many of length 2, countably many of length 3, and so forth. The countable union of countably many sets is countable. Therefore there are at most a countable infinity of TMs. And for TMs you can substitute programs in any Turing-complete language: FORTRAN, COBOL, Python, C++, or whatever.

Since there are uncountably many sets of natural numbers (per Cantor), there must necessarily be sets of natural numbers whose members can NOT be generated by any computer program. That contradicts your claim, to the extent that I can interpret it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

This does not, by the way, contradict your thesis. Your premises are wrong but your conclusion is right! A step in a computer program is a transition from one state of the computer's hardware to some other state. Practical computers -- real-life digital computers implemented physically -- are finite state machines. They make a succession of transformations from one state to another, and those transitions can be taken to be mathematical functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine

 

 

yes, apologies

Can you provide an explanation to your Turing machine statement please.

Thanks bud

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I'm not sure I follow the idea, maybe you can you define "step"?

Step meaning a programs execution through means of pointer reference value shifting.

Ummmm, I think a step function maybe.

1 minute ago, ALine said:

A step in programming is a function in mathematics.

Proof:

A function is a relationship between two sets.

A set can be represented as being a list or tuple of programs.

A function is just a transition between programs.

Therefore a step is a function.

[g]

This viewpoint is from the perspective of both the philosophy of both mathematics and computer science.

Reality is made up of a bunch of strings connected using complex dot structures called elopians. These elopians configure into a complex structure known as a spadoople. They then reconfigure into a finite curvature called a flagelon. Finally reaching the point of no return, ending up inside of calaousite sack known as your mother.

On 11/26/2022 at 3:54 PM, wtf said:

Measure theory and fractals are not involved in the proof of Banach-Tarski

Never made this claim. Using it as a potential method for analysis.

On 11/24/2022 at 3:40 AM, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

We have the Banach-Tarski paradox that says: 1 sphere = 2 spheres or 1 = 2. Since it can also be proven that 1 ~= 2, we have an inconsistency.

Actually it says a sphere is equidecomposable into 2 spheres. It is then follows that: 1 = 2.

To exclude this we have to make the following operation invalid: fill a hole in a line by shifting the line up to infinity.

Using measure theory with fractals one can assert the claims being made here. Therefore, I believe that we are over simplifying Willems claim. However I am stumped on the level of complexity needed to understand this further. Can you please explain further @Willem F Esterhuyse

12 hours ago, Arete said:

If you haven't actually done an experiment, unfortunately the idea isn't worth much on its own.  I'm glad for you that you're thinking about cool ideas but there's a lot of heavy lifting to do before it's publishable. Unfortunately cancer/immunology is outside my wheelhouse as a microbiologist and my plate is already rather full. Good luck. 

Edit: As an aside, I have dozens of sketched ideas and half done experiments that never see the light of day for every publication I've completed. Having the idea and generating the concept are just the first step. I think a lot of non-scientists seriously underestimate the work that goes into turning an idea into a published study. Most of my undergraduates and even some PhD students aren't capable of doing it. 

Thank you for the reply. Your statements are both correct. I do underestimate the work required in the scientific process. I will go and learn how to be a proper scientist. Thanks again!

I believe that I came up with a methodology for using crispr gene editing chromosomes to track, label, locate and delete cancer cells. It will take time for me to understand it fully and I have no experience with biology or constructing scientific papers. @AreteWould it be possible for you to assist me in helping me figure it out.

Need assistance writing a paper that expresses the methodology for the Potential Method of Detection, Location, and Removal of Cancer Cells.

My current methodology is the following sequence of steps

1) Cell Detection

  1.1) Detect Specific Cancer Types using cell classification methods.

  1.2) Program DNA for cancer types in order to define signature of cell using 

             CRISPR.

  1.3) Classify Cancer type based on cell type that the cancer has mutated.

2) Cell Location

   1.1) Immune System auto defines the attack on the given cell based on certain

   1.2) Gives an attack signature of the mutated cell based on mutated cell itself.

3) Cell Deletion

   3.1) The Immune system removes/collapses the mutated cells from the 

           immune system definement.

Immediate assistance would be appreciated. Want to try to get this into a formal paper to gain a better understanding on the research process.

Hey everyone. So uhh, i'm back from the lab and I learned that uhhh entropy is the measure of decay of structure in the solid matter.

To me this means that everything in the universe will eventually decay into nothingness assuming current laws of physics.

This makes me feel happy about myself because I can deduce a reason to live from it, which is that everything is finite and unstable, but I can come up with ways to better structure myself and my surroundings.

Thank you all for coming and enjoy the rest of your evenings!

today I learned about prime and normal factorization. And the use of rectangles in order to represent factors of a given value.

I today I learned about some basic algebra skills from brilliant.

Gotta learn every day. Even if its the smallest thing. Gotta stay on brand.

Today I am learning about adversarial machine learning and ways one can trick a machine learning system.

Going to start giving a brief explanation each time I start learning something new in order to express I have learned and understood something so I can be accountable for what I have learned. 

Tomorrow I plan on learning about philosophy concepts such as classes and groups and rules because I sense that this is a VERY important concept. Then I will move on to going back to learning my grammer rules and basic english because I feel like I neglected this when I was younger and it royally messed me up going through life till this point. 

After that its gonna be going back over all my math so I can have that down pact. Then expanding outwards from there. Wish me luck!

23 hours ago, ahmet said:

I learnt I was innocent but too much anxious whenever I misunderstand a point that I deal with.

I understand that one. 

Today I am learning about opencv for python. Its a neat tool!

Today I have learned about, and learning about, opencv for python.