ms mathematisc

M

msbiljanica

Registered Senior Member
I believe that today's mathematics is limited, so I came up with a mathematics that consists of one axiom, everything else is obtained through proofs, see the attachment




adding or joining , as performed

R a+b=c same as now, combined numbers 222+33=2253, when they are the same along (gap) they are joined, here 2 and 3, we get 5

R[sup]2[/sup]
here there is an operation function (the same applies to other R[sup]n[/sup]) , 1(R[sub]2[/sub]) 3+[sub]1[/sub]4=(3,4[sub]2[/sub]) , 2(R,R[sub]2[/sub]) 3[sub]+2[/sub]4={7 ,(3,4[sub]2[/sub])} , 3(R-R[sub]2[/sub]) 3+[sub]3[/sub]4= (7, 4[sub]2)[/sub]},4(R,R[sub]2[/sub],R-R[sub]2[/sub]) , 3+[sub]4[/sub] 4={7,(3,4[sub]2[/sub]) , (7.4[sub]2[/sub])}
(2,3[sub]2[/sub])+(3.3[sub]2[/sub])=(5 .6[sub]2[/sub])

R[sup]3[/sup] 5(R,R[sub]2[/sub] , R[sub]3[/sub]) , 3+[sub]5[/sub]4={7 , (3 ,4[sub]2[/sub] ), (3 , 0 , 4[sub]3[/sub])} , 6(R-R[sub]2[/sub], R[sub]3[/sub]) , 3+[sub]6[/sub]4={( 7 , 4[sub]2[/sub]) , ( 3 , 0 , 4[sub]3[/sub]} , 7(R, R[sub]2[/sub]-R[sub]3[/sub]) , ...so on


latex doesn't work ,
 
msbiljanica said:
I believe that today's mathematics is limited, so I came up with a mathematics that consists of one axiom, everything else is obtained through proofs, see the attachment




adding or joining , as performed

R a+b=c same as now, combined numbers 222+33=2253, when they are the same along (gap) they are joined, here 2 and 3, we get 5

R[sup]2[/sup]
here there is an operation function (the same applies to other R[sup]n[/sup]) , 1(R[sub]2[/sub]) 3+[sub]1[/sub]4=(3,4[sub]2[/sub]) , 2(R,R[sub]2[/sub]) 3[sub]+2[/sub]4={7 ,(3,4[sub]2[/sub])} , 3(R-R[sub]2[/sub]) 3+[sub]3[/sub]4= (7, 4[sub]2)[/sub]},4(R,R[sub]2[/sub],R-R[sub]2[/sub]) , 3+[sub]4[/sub] 4={7,(3,4[sub]2[/sub]) , (7.4[sub]2[/sub])}
(2,3[sub]2[/sub])+(3.3[sub]2[/sub])=(5 .6[sub]2[/sub])

R[sup]3[/sup] 5(R,R[sub]2[/sub] , R[sub]3[/sub]) , 3+[sub]5[/sub]4={7 , (3 ,4[sub]2[/sub] ), (3 , 0 , 4[sub]3[/sub])} , 6(R-R[sub]2[/sub], R[sub]3[/sub]) , 3+[sub]6[/sub]4={( 7 , 4[sub]2[/sub]) , ( 3 , 0 , 4[sub]3[/sub]} , 7(R, R[sub]2[/sub]-R[sub]3[/sub]) , ...so on


latex doesn't work ,
Click to expand...
Yeah you really need to use the Latex function. This is unintelligible
 
Testing TeX:
$E=mc^2$
$$E=mc^2$$
$$\oint \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{A}=q/\epsilon_0$$
$$\oint \vec{E}\cdot d\vec{A}=q/\epsilon_0$$
Hmmm.... not working. I will see if this can be fixed.
 
msbiljanica said:
I believe that today's mathematics is limited, so I came up with a mathematics that consists of one axiom, everything else is obtained through proofs, see the attachment
Click to expand...
So if today's mathematics is, in your view, limited, what does your mathematics do that can't be done in what you replacing?
And, importantly, how can you verify that these additional things that it can do (if there are any) are correct?
 
you have two points, how would you describe them with numbers
1. there is no line between the points
2. there is a line between the points
3. there is a line between the points, parts of the line are erased
practical application of my mathematics

axion
there is length 0-1 there is gap 0 - 1
ten times smaller than 0 - 0.1 ( 0-0. 1 )
a hundred times smaller than 0- 0.01 ( 0- 0.00 1 )
...

With me, rights are plans, evidence not axion.

there are gap and combined numbers , and linear complex , basic set definition (set)

In physics, there are theses, theorems, proof is what is experimentally proven to be true, everything else is lies.
There is one axiom, there is a mathematical space, every new theorem should have its beginning in an axiom or previous proofs, I prove theorems experimentally . what is true from current mathematics (if it is an axiom, I get it through proof), my mathematics is an extension of current mathematics with what I have discovered
 
msbiljanica said:
you have two points, how would you describe them with numbers
1. there is no line between the points
2. there is a line between the points
3. there is a line between the points, parts of the line are erased
practical application of my mathematics

axion
there is length 0-1 there is gap 0 - 1
ten times smaller than 0 - 0.1 ( 0-0. 1 )
a hundred times smaller than 0- 0.01 ( 0- 0.00 1 )
...

With me, rights are plans, evidence not axion.

there are gap and combined numbers , and linear complex , basic set definition (set)

In physics, there are theses, theorems, proof is what is experimentally proven to be true, everything else is lies.
There is one axiom, there is a mathematical space, every new theorem should have its beginning in an axiom or previous proofs, I prove theorems experimentally . what is true from current mathematics (if it is an axiom, I get it through proof), my mathematics is an extension of current mathematics with what I have discovered
Click to expand...
No. Why post on Physics forums, get told your thesis is nonsense by seasoned professionals, then just try here?
 
geogebra-export (5).png
1 . 11 real length
2. 11 real gap
3.32132 real combinations
Let's agree, there are three items in the picture, using current mathematics, describe the numbers in that state, if you can, I will stop publishing my findings.
or you seem to be a bad student
 
Looking back at this poster's history, it seems my only previous comment was to remark: "The eels up hovercraft hoover by choice?"

That was in 2018.
 
So your assertion is that the rational numbers 1 (one) or 1/2 (one half) or 0 (zero) do not exist. Is that what your mathematics shows?

Do you see any problems with a mathematical system that makes demonstrably false assertions?
 
exchemist said:
Looking back at this poster's history, it seems my only previous comment was to remark: "The eels up hovercraft hoover by choice?"

That was in 2018.
Click to expand...
Yes, the post definitely has a note of "the fullness of the eels to the hovercraft there is". My Hungarian translation may not be accurate, I'm a bit rusty.
 
It seems that you are very unclear
axiom
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DD-wXhc6ahcfc1fS6wMJkw6mSV4_s4te/view
Basic length
1. initial base 0-1
2 ten times smaller than the starting base 0-0-1
3. one hundred times smaller than the starting base 0-0.01
,,,
infinite

Basic gap
1. starting point 0-1
2 ten times smaller than the starting base 0-0.1
3. one hundred times smaller than the starting base 0-0.01
,,,
infinite

Theorem 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCWBcgKe1CZtM4PfJbW6SNZYbUxPvS-s/view



we merge 1 ( 2 , 3 , ... , infinity )
we get
half right
gap half-right
along
gap



theorem 2

we name the points joining (0 , 1 , 2, 3 , ...) ( 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , ...) , the other points are implied and are represented by the symbol for infinity , comparison with current mathematics in the set of real numbers , between two integers there is an infinity of numbers

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W0_5UDM6A26duJlMbYka6bCM94YOw7xW/view



Defining a base set and a set
 
Again I'll ask:
If today's mathematics is, in your view, limited, what does your mathematics do that can't be done in what you are replacing?
And, importantly, how can you verify that these additional things that it can do (if there are any) are correct?

Are you actually going to engage with people asking you questions, or are you just going to continue to keep posting your... whatever it is... without engaging?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top