Thread: Mathematics - a new basis

See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles

what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

Originally Posted by msbiljanica

See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles

what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

Are you asking for help on a problem or is this a puzzle of some sort where you know the answer? And a bit more explanation of the triangle stuff would be appreciated.

-Dan

Originally Posted by topsquark

Are you asking for help on a problem or is this a puzzle of some sort where you know the answer? And a bit more explanation of the triangle stuff would be appreciated.

-Dan

I gave you an example that can not be resolved by current mathematics.
Reason - Mathematics is the only science which was basically caused 4-5000 years ago, and has not reformed to respond to new challenges.
When you look at the solution below will not be clear
1. 3 + [0] 3 = 3
2. 3 + [1] 3 = 4
3. 3 + [2] 3 = 5
4. 3 + [3] 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6
5.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (7)} +3 = 7
6.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (8)} +3 = 8
7.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (9)} +3 = 9
8.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (10)} +3 = 10
9.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (12)} +3 = 12
(1,2,3,4) - There are many forms of addition in the set N
(5,6,7,8,9) - numbers that are dynamic, where it is possible to add this
_______________________________________________
You realize that you have to Presenting part by part, where you will see my work that my math becomes ideal (that every challenge has a solution)

Originally Posted by msbiljanica

I gave you an example that can not be resolved by current mathematics.
Reason - Mathematics is the only science which was basically caused 4-5000 years ago, and has not reformed to respond to new challenges.
When you look at the solution below will not be clear
1. 3 + [0] 3 = 3
2. 3 + [1] 3 = 4
3. 3 + [2] 3 = 5
4. 3 + [3] 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6
5.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (7)} +3 = 7
6.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (8)} +3 = 8
7.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (9)} +3 = 9
8.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (10)} +3 = 10
9.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (12)} +3 = 12
(1,2,3,4) - There are many forms of addition in the set N
(5,6,7,8,9) - numbers that are dynamic, where it is possible to add this
_______________________________________________
You realize that you have to Presenting part by part, where you will see my work that my math becomes ideal (that every challenge has a solution)

What it seems to me is that the triangles, then, are paradoxes. Physics is full of those. I mean, we can define 2 + 5 = 6 - 1, but it's a nonsensical statement. If we have a paradox we simply throw it away. Now there are any number of examples in both Physics and Mathematics where we can take the paradox and get something useful out of it. For example the constant i was invented and was incorporated into any number of fields of study. And non-Euclidean spaces is one of the largest fields of study I know of. But not all paradoxes can be made to be useful in this way.

The only way I could analyze the triangles is to sit down and see if there is some kind of Group or Algebraic structure to the "equations." I haven't yet seen a problem that can't be somehow taken care of by enlarging or adding a symmetry group.

Actually I have spent a fair amount of time trying to discover how to restructure Physics and see if there isn't any way to get more out of the principles. By the time you finish you will have a new and possibly valuable method to work with. But beware! What you have will no longer be able to be defined as Mathematics.

You should probably look into the History of Mathematics. The number of changes that numbers have undergone is enormous. And new modes of thought have been added to mainstream Mathematics in the past and is ongoing. I'm not seeing how there hasn't been changes throughout the centuries.

Sorry for writing a book!

-Dan

Originally Posted by msbiljanica

I gave you an example that can not be resolved by current mathematics.
Reason - Mathematics is the only science which was basically caused 4-5000 years ago, and has not reformed to respond to new challenges.

Essentially that says that you know neither mathematics nor history! Euclidean geometry was first developed about 2300 years ago. The Calculus was developed about 500 years ago. Non-Euclidean geometry was developed about 200 years ago. Riemannian geometry was developed about 150 year ago. Those are all major responses to new challenges.

When you look at the solution below will not be clear

Why is it a good thing that the solution will NOT be clear?

1. 3 + [0] 3 = 3
2. 3 + [1] 3 = 4
3. 3 + [2] 3 = 5
4. 3 + [3] 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6
5.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (7)} +3 = 7
6.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (8)} +3 = 8
7.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (9)} +3 = 9
8.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (10)} +3 = 10
9.3_{3Rd1 (6) d2 (12)} +3 = 12
(1,2,3,4) - There are many forms of addition in the set N
(5,6,7,8,9) - numbers that are dynamic, where it is possible to add this
_______________________________________________
You realize that you have to Presenting part by part, where you will see my work that my math becomes ideal (that every challenge has a solution)

You were right - it is NOT clear! I take it that English is not your native language. You have used a number of words in strange ways.

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy

I take it that English is not your native language. You have used a number of words in strange ways.

Yes , google translation Serbian-English, so there are sometimes bad translation .
1 Mathematics Space
We'll tell mathematical space with two initial geometric object that can not
prove.
1.Natural geometric object - natural along .
2.Real geometric objects - real alongs .
1.1 Natural along
In the picture there is a natural geometric object along (AB), it has a beginning (A)
and end (B) - this property natural long'll call point.



1.2 The basic rule
Two (more) natural longer are connected only with points.

Look, let's save some time here. Are you going to discuss this here or at MHB? Pick one. I'll provide the appropriate links to your (identical) problem when you do.

-Dan

Originally Posted by topsquark

Look, let's save some time here. Are you going to discuss this here or at MHB? Pick one. I'll provide the appropriate links to your (identical) problem when you do.

-Dan

Go ahead and show here

-----------------
2 Natural Mathematics
2.1 Along , one-way infinite along the (semi-line) "1"
"1"-from any previous evidence (axioms), a new proof
Theorem-Two (more) natural longer merge points in the direction of the first AB
longer natural.

EVIDENCE - Natural long (AB, BC) are connected - we get along AC.



Natural long (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get along AD.



Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get along AE.


...

Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE, ...) are connected - getting the sim-
measurement along the infinite.
www5.png



...

Originally Posted by msbiljanica

Go ahead and show here

-----------------
2 Natural Mathematics
2.1 Along , one-way infinite along the (semi-line) "1"
"1"-from any previous evidence (axioms), a new proof
Theorem-Two (more) natural longer merge points in the direction of the first AB
longer natural.

EVIDENCE - Natural long (AB, BC) are connected - we get along AC.



Natural long (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get along AD.



Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get along AE.


...

Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE, ...) are connected - getting the sim-
measurement along the infinite.
www5.png



...

I have asked Jameson if he would mind a set of links so everyone can see the two conversations.

I'm going to presume that you haven't read my latest post on MHB. Clarity! First, what are "dynamic numbers?" And what is going on with the 3?3 and those triangles???? Please define these clearly before you move on.

-Dan

The topic at MHB has been closed by one of our global moderators since it was essentially going nowhere.

Originally Posted by msbiljanica

Go ahead and show here

-----------------
2 Natural Mathematics
2.1 Along , one-way infinite along the (semi-line) "1"
"1"-from any previous evidence (axioms), a new proof
Theorem-Two (more) natural longer merge points in the direction of the first AB
longer natural.

EVIDENCE - Natural long (AB, BC) are connected - we get along AC.



Natural long (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get along AD.



Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get along AE.


...

Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE, ...) are connected - getting the sim-
measurement along the infinite.
www5.png



...

You posted this on MHB: "all triangles with the merger (operations of addition )
you seem to have a lot of impatient, you piece by piece to conquer in order to understand the above written"

I'm not sure I'm going to bother with the links. Without proper definitions you can't help anyone with anything! If you believe that is wrong then you aren't doing Mathematics. Actually you are abandoning one or more of the principles guiding the Scientific Method.

And if that's the kind of thing your are going to insist upon then we'll have to close this one off, too.

-Dan

Originally Posted by topsquark

Actually you are abandoning one or more of the principles guiding the Scientific Method.

I have given a task, you gave me the solution, which means that there are other principles of mathematics that offers the solution, you want to immediately understand new things (like when you start to go to school in the first grade and immediately know what integrals, differential equations) , so you have to step by step - because it works on other principles ...
..........
Google translator
2.2 Numeral along, numeric point "2.1"
Theorem-character mark points on the one-way infinite
long (A, B, C, ...), replace the labels {(0), (0.1), ..., (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ), ...}
which are set circular and positionally.

Proof - is obtained by numerical along which the numerical point of {(0,00,000,
0000, ...), (​​0,1,10,11,100,101, ...), ..., (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, ...), ...}.

Arcane as ever. Euclid's "Elements" is the one of the signal works of all time and starts with basic definitions and assumptions. So what are yours? One last chance.

-Dan

Originally Posted by topsquark

Arcane as ever. Euclid's "Elements" is the one of the signal works of all time and starts with basic definitions and assumptions. So what are yours? One last chance.

-Dan

mathematical space, along the natural and real along.
One last chance.gifts if (close post) :
1. Prime numbers https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkW...hoUkJlRWs/edit
2.Calculate , logical conclusion
real number divisions is the result of two integers (a fraction of a rational number). that real and rational numbers are the same numbers, irrational numbers do not exist
----------
2.3 Natural numbers "2.2"
Theorem - There is a relationship (length) between Point in numeric (0) and
all points along the numerical.

Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numerical point (0)
the number 0



Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (1) the number o1



Ratio (required) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2) is the number 2



Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 3



Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 4


...
Set - all the possibilities given theorem.
The set of natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, ...}.
------------------------
Test your IQ, to see who is the authority
plane geometry
1.that no triangle area
2.similarity of triangles and polygon
3.which triangle has the sum of the internal angles greater than 180°

I've looked at the paper a bit and even though I cannot understand much of what you are doing it appears that it makes some sort of sense. However you are not making sense in this thread as you have repeatedly ignored my requests for answers and merely posted snippets of information. You still haven't defined, for example, what a dynamic number is.

Since you are talking about a paper you have written this should properly belong to the Peer Math Review forum. Please post your thread there if you wish to continue the discussion.

-Dan