ms.math Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Watch the image below. If we combine the two triangles we get different results. Triangles will be replaced with the number 3 (because triangles have three angles), the results obtained with the number as a geometric object angles. Connecting the two triangles is the mathematical operations of addition a + b = c 1.3 +3 = 3 2.3 +3 = 4 3.3 +3 = 5 4.3 +3 = 6 5.3 +3 = 7 6.3 +3 = 8 7.3 +3 = 9 8.3 +3 = 10 9.3 +3 = 12 The current mathematics has the answer (4.3 +3 = 6), it is impossible for the other, the reality is that this may be true. I'll show you a review of mathematics that solves problems, join ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 This doesn't seem like all that good idea to me. 2 through 9 all look like the same on the left hand sides, but all have different evaluations on the right hand sides. I don't see how this is an improvement over the tried and true. Furthermore, via an extension of the the tried and true using 2-D vectors, all of the above can be recreated. Without redefining an operator that really doesn't need redefining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted September 26, 2012 Author Share Posted September 26, 2012 A different approach, a mathematical space that has two starting points (natural and realistic axiom - a natural geometric object and a real geometric object) in a mathematical space is monitored geometrical relationship between the object (function, numbers, logic equations, ..., are different names relations geometrical object). Natural geometric object - along the natural (Figure AB) point the natural properties of longer, its beginning (A) and end (B) - the current point math is not defined. Natural longer merge points. Each new geometric object should come from natural and long previous geometrical object (this is achieved by association of concepts and new concepts not as an axiom by the current math). When you look at this "addition", you will not understand, because you need to show much new to you realize 1.3 + (.0)3 = 3 2.3 +(.1)3 = 4 3.3 +(.2)3 = 5 4.3+3 = 6 5.33Rd1(6)d2(7)+3 = 7 6.33Rd1(6)d2(8)+3 = 8 7.33Rd1(6)d2(9)+3 = 9 8.33Rd1(6)d2(10)+3 = 10 9.33Rd1(6)d2(12)+3 = 12 if you look at the history of mathematics, you will see that the new things in math should take some time to have a practical application The following post is made to demonstrate the first evidenceo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 When you look at this "addition", you will not understand, because you need to show much new to you realize So, then, why aren't you trying to explain it better so that we will understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaton Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Same no-sense subject, presented by the same individual, on multiple forums, garnering the same responses. Overlapping two planar figures and seeing the resulting number of sides is not the same as adding two numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted September 27, 2012 Author Share Posted September 27, 2012 Same no-sense subject, presented by the same individual, on multiple forums, garnering the same responses. Overlapping two planar figures and seeing the resulting number of sides is not the same as adding two numbers... that the operation between the two polygon according to you, if not then there is something wrong with the current math theorem - two (more) natural merge in the direction of longer AB experiment (realization theorem) we get the following geometric objects 1. final (n, in Figure 1.2.3.) Along 2. infinite (n, in Figure 4.) along a one-way infinite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted September 28, 2012 Author Share Posted September 28, 2012 theorem - infinite point dc longer be replaced {(0), (0,1), ... (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), ...} circular and set position. evidence We got a new geometric object - along the numerical primes- My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 Theorem - the length between points 0 and all points (separately) on the number the longer the new relationship proof - look along the numerical We got a set of natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, ...}, example of the difference and the number of points on the number exceed: Item 5 and No. 5 are two different things, point 5 is the point number 5 is the length between points 0 and 5 points along the numerical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted October 29, 2012 Author Share Posted October 29, 2012 2.4 Mobile Number Theorem-Natural numbers can be specified and other numerical point other than the point numeric 0th Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2) the number 2 Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 2 Ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 2 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Are you going to have a meaningful conversation? Demonstrate some way in which this new math can be used? Address some of the questions raised? I only ask because you are basically treating this like a personal blog, and if that is your intention, you can start your own blog/website and post whatever you want without using this forum's resources. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Moved to Speculations. msmath please take a few moments to read the special rules of that forum - take extra note of the need to engage with members who question your theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaton Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 that the operation between the two polygon according to you, if not then there is something wrong with the current math What do you mean by this? From reading your posts on another forum, I know that English is not your first language. Still, I'll try to communicate my message as best as I can. According to you, what is wrong with the current mathematics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share Posted October 31, 2012 What do you mean by this? From reading your posts on another forum, I know that English is not your first language. Still, I'll try to communicate my message as best as I can. According to you, what is wrong with the current mathematics? The reason is simple, the current math is based on a number of axioms (function, plane, addition, division, ...), I have given you an example (the ratio of the two polygon), which is possible in real life, but it is impossible in the current mathematics. So if you want me to continue to follow my presentation then you will realize the benefits of my mathematics or in the present, because we are now at the beginning. Here's a question for you, how much is this? Z÷(10^n)=? , calculate n=1,n=2,n=3,...,n tends to infinite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I have given you an example (the ratio of the two polygon), which is possible in real life, but it is impossible in the current mathematics. I must have missed this. All I've seen is seemingly random posting. Can you please, in explicit detail, show what you have calculated that is 'impossible' in current mathematics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Watch the image below Nope. No matter how I squint or let my eyes drift out of focus, all I see are a bunch of triangles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaton Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I must have missed this. All I've seen is seemingly random posting. Can you please, in explicit detail, show what you have calculated that is 'impossible' in current mathematics? Look back to ms. math's first post with the triangles. It's supposed to show that overlapping two polygons can represent addition by counting the number of sides. (for example, overlapping a square and a triangle = 9). But since any combination of two ordinary polygons can have multiple arrangements, the "addition" results in multiple answers... like implying 3+3=3, where two triangles are superimposed in the exact same position. So I'm guessing the impossibility in the current mathematics deals with geometric representations of operations. Personally, it doesn't look like this idea has any sense. It seems quite arbitrary and ambiguous first of all. Secondly, the implications of applying stuff like 3+3=3 to ordinary algebra destroys mathematics and its entire purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Look back to ms. math's first post with the triangles. It's supposed to show that overlapping two polygons can represent addition by counting the number of sides. (for example, overlapping a square and a triangle = 9). But since any combination of two ordinary polygons can have multiple arrangements, the "addition" results in multiple answers... like implying 3+3=3, where two triangles are superimposed in the exact same position. So I'm guessing the impossibility in the current mathematics deals with geometric representations of operations. Personally, it doesn't look like this idea has any sense. It seems quite arbitrary and ambiguous first of all. Secondly, the implications of applying stuff like 3+3=3 to ordinary algebra destroys mathematics and its entire purpose. I can describe every one of his figures with careful application of 2-D vectors. Certainly not impossible with current mathematics. I want him to tell me what he's done that is impossible with current math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) I must have missed this. All I've seen is seemingly random posting. Can you please, in explicit detail, show what you have calculated that is 'impossible' in current mathematics? look ms.math 10 September 2012 Look back to ms. math's first post with the triangles. It's supposed to show that overlapping two polygons can represent addition by counting the number of sides. (for example, overlapping a square and a triangle = 9). But since any combination of two ordinary polygons can have multiple arrangements, the "addition" results in multiple answers... like implying 3+3=3, where two triangles are superimposed in the exact same position. So I'm guessing the impossibility in the current mathematics deals with geometric representations of operations. Personally, it doesn't look like this idea has any sense. It seems quite arbitrary and ambiguous first of all. Secondly, the implications of applying stuff like 3+3=3 to ordinary algebra destroys mathematics and its entire purpose. I praise you because you are pretty well understood the essence of many forms of addition (ms.math 26 September 2012) , It remains to explain what is (.0),(.1),...,(33Rd1(6)d2(12)) 2.5 Gap numbers Theorem- number and mobile number of no contact, ( number and mobile number without contact) and mobile number without con- clock, ..., in numeric longer. EVIDENCE - number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, gets a gap of 2 (.1.) 2 number 2 and number mobile 2 no contact, getting the 2 (.2.) 2 number 2 and number mobile 2 no contact, getting the gap 2 (.3.) 2 ... (number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact) and mobile number 1 no contact, getting a gap of 2 (.1.) 2 (.1.) 1 ... Gap set of numbers GN={ a |(.bn.)cn| (a, bn, cn) "belongs" N, bn> 0} Edited November 2, 2012 by ms.math Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) look ms.math 10 September 2012 I read it. I was the first one who commented on it. I am asking you to explain it better so I can understand it. Just repeating yourself by pointing back to your post doesn't help. e.g. I don't read Russian. Handing me an original copy of War and Peace is unreadable to me. When I ask for help, I don't expect to just be handed a second copy of the book. I am actually asking for help... And furthermore, it certainly doesn't answer the my question about stuff that current mathematics can do, because, AGAIN, careful use of 2-D vectors can completely and wholly replicate your pictures there. Edited for spelling/grammar Edited November 3, 2012 by Bignose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 2.6 Moving of gap number Theorem-gap numbers can be entered and the second numerical point other than the point numeric 0 EVIDENCE-ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is gap 2 (.1.) 1 Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (5) is gap 2 (.1.) 1 Ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is gap 2 (.1.) 1 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 2.6 Moving of gap number... Thanks for not even bothering to try to answer my question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 And furthermore, it certainly doesn't answer the my question about stuff that current mathematics can do, because, AGAIN, careful use of 2-D vectors can completely and wholly replicate your pictures there. Thanks for not even bothering to try to answer my question... Please give it a nice solution "2-D vectors" , i do not know . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Please give it a nice solution "2-D vectors" , i do not know . Start at the back third of most any university level college calculus text, as well as http://www.amazon.com/Div-Grad-Curl-All-That/dp/0393925161/ will give you a good start on vectors. Vectors is a very, very wide field, and I am not going to type it all into this forum. Once you learn the above, you will learn that you can use operators on a vector or group of vectors and be able to re-create the pictures you posted. Specifically, translation, rotation, and possibly dilation operators. Have you seen one of those video games with advanced graphics? To render them, the GPU is constantly applying operators to vectors to create those images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ms.math Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 2.7 Points of number Theorem - Number of numeric longer has a point, it could be the opposite write. EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: (.0), (.1), (.2), (.3) (.4) (.5). Opposite may write: (.. 0), (.. 1), (2 ..) (.. 3), (4 ..) (.. 5). Emptiness 2 (.3.) 1 has a point: (.0), (.1), (.2), (.3) (.4) (.5), (.6). can Write the opposite: (.0), (.. 1), (.. 2), (3 ..) (.. 4), (5 ..) (.. 6) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Like say Bignose : you can start your own blog/website I'll vist it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts