One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is true

We apply set theory with urelements (non sets) ZFU to physical

space of elementary particles;

we consider locations as urelements, elements of U,

in number infinite. Ui is a subset

of U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinite

cartesian product and a set of paths.

Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary

particles-locations which number is n.

If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m),

countable choice for k elements sets k=2

through m, the set of paths will be the void set.

So, after an infinite time, physical

space would become void, the universe would

collapse and a Big Crunch would happen.

The matter would have to go somewhere and indeed

the Big Bang happened. So, n is indeed

greater than m. Let us notice that physical

space is infinite. It's rather complicated

but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that

the negation of the axiom of choice is true ?

It is like the non-euclidian geometry which

is known in physics as true.

Regards,

Adib Ben Jebara.

http://jebara.topcities.com

One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is true

We apply set theory with urelements (non sets) ZFU to physical

space of elementary particles;

we consider locations as urelements, elements of U,

in number infinite. Ui is a subset

of U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinite

cartesian product and a set of paths.

Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary

particles-locations which number is n.

If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m),

countable choice for k elements sets k=2

through m, the set of paths will be the void set.

So, after an infinite time, physical

space would become void, the universe would

collapse and a Big Crunch would happen.

The matter would have to go somewhere and indeed

the Big Bang happened. So, n is indeed

greater than m. Let us notice that physical

space is infinite. It's rather complicated

but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that

the negation of the axiom of choice is true ?

It is like the non-euclidian geometry which

is known in physics as true.

Regards,

Adib Ben Jebara.

http://jebara.topcities.com

You do understand, don't you, that once you have introduced the " physical

space of elementary particles" you are no longer talking about mathematics? In any case, I cannot see how this has anything to do with the axiom of choice.

Mathematics are applied to physics since a long time ago.

I apply the negation of the axiom of choice.

Adib Ben Jebara.

Mathematics are applied to physics since a long time ago.

Of course! It still is and will always be. There is no way out without it.

Adib, think you could latexise it? I cannot read what you wrote.

=Uncool-

I don't know how to Latexize it but if you write me at

adib.jebara@topnet.tn

I will send it as an email.

Adib Ben Jenara.

Sorry, just in general don't like giving out my e-mail. Think you could at least make your proof somewhat more formal?

 

And to use latex, just use the [ math ] [ / math ] things without the spaces.

 

[math]\frac{1}{2}[/math]

=Uncool-

Mathematics are applied to physics since a long time ago.

I apply the negation of the axiom of choice.

Adib Ben Jebara.

Irrelevant to what I said. "Applying" the negation of the axiom of choice to physics does not prove that negation is true. One can apply an incorrect idea to a physical situation and get a true result. And you have only a very vague argument that your result is true.

 

I might also point out that your physics is wrong. "The mass must go somewhere" is untrue. There is no reason to believe the laws of "conservation of mass" or even "conservation of mass/energy" apply either before the "big-bang" or after the "big-crunch".

I still don't see what that had to do with the Axiom of Choice anyway.