# Thread: Mathematics - a new basis

1. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

k6-function opposite number - because each has its opposite number, the general form
as.w [q] b = c, a w [q] bs. = c, as.w [q] bs. = c, (s.-tag number which has its opposite number)
k7-Subtraction - one can only be in (a-yes ,b - not), or in the (b -yes ,a - not),
2/.2/4-[1]3/.3/2=1/.1/5/.1/1 , current subtraction 5-2=3

----------------
topsquark show the current notation of what I have reposed (im my 35 characters)

2. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

I am beginning to think this is all a joke. You have, again, given a lot of examples but have not given a single definition. Is there some reason why you refuse to tell us what you are talking about?

3. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy
I am beginning to think this is all a joke. You have, again, given a lot of examples but have not given a single definition. Is there some reason why you refuse to tell us what you are talking about?
you want my math to understand math as the present, mine is a different approach, there is no definition, two axioms (and no other definitions), everything has to be connected (no axiom that breaks connectivity)
k7-Subtraction - 1 can only be in (a-yes ,b - not), or in the (b -yes ,a - not),
2/.2/4-[1]3/.3/2=1/.1/5/.1/1 , current subtraction 5-2=3

4. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

If there are no definitions then there is nothing to talk about.

5. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy
If there are no definitions then there is nothing to talk about.
I agree completely . And msbiljanica I asked you some time ago to post your paper rather than little snippets. I see no reason to continue the conversation.

-Dan

6. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

k7-subtraction - there is only 1 u a (b - not), or just u b (a -not),
2/.2/4- [1] = 3/.3/2 1/.1/5/.1/1, current subtraction 5-2 = 3

7. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

k8-contrast subtraction - 1 is the same in both a and b, there is at present
mathematics.
2/.2/4 $\fbox{-}$ [1]3/.3/2=1/.5/1

8. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

k9-gap addition - 0 u a or u b there does not exist in the current mathematics
2/.4/2 $\fbox{+}$ [1]3/.3/2=0/.5/0

9. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

You are still posting and still have not given any definitions. You cannot expect to make up your own language and then expect people to understand you when you speak it.

10. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy
You are still posting and still have not given any definitions. You cannot expect to make up your own language and then expect people to understand you when you speak it.
There is no definition,
----------------

k10-gap subtraction - 0 there exists u a (b-no) or u b (a-no), does not exist in the current mathematics
2/.4/2 $\fbox{ -.}$ [1]3/.3/2=0/.2/2/.1/0

11. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Then you are just writing symbols at random?

12. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

k11-gap opposite subtraction - 0 exists in a and b does not exist in the current mathematics
2/.4/2 $\fbox{-/ }$[1]3/.3/2=0/.2/0

14. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Thank you for posting that part of the paper. It makes things much easier to understand.

Unfortunately I don't really see the point. I mean there's nothing wrong with looking at things with a fresh start, but your constant comparisons with "typical" Mathematics just doesn't seem to have direction. I looked at the first 10 pages or so (before I got lost in the notation) and came up with two comments:
1. As an example of your comparisons with current Mathematics: "numerical semi-lines" and "numerical points" are merely a collection of points and line segments. Those concepts are geometric in nature and have been around since Euclid.

2. At the very least your first 5 or 6 "proofs" end up being derived by introduction of new notation, which in and of itself proves nothing.

My advice:
1. Include an abstract to your paper explaining what your goals and results are.

2. Define your symbols as a part of the proof and use it to actually prove your assertions. New notation does not imply proof. This needs to be sharpened up.

3. Look more carefully at what's already out there. It's nice to say that the natural numbers are constructed by axiom, but that is not a requirement. The Peano axioms can be used to construct the natural numbers, for example.

Address at least these issues (maybe someone else will chime in with other thoughts for you) and perhaps post your revised paper. As a Forum we are not going to edit your paper for you but if someone here is willing to give you advice they are welcome to.

-Dan

15. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Here I am again,
I'll give you an example that challenges sets of numbers (rational, irrational, real)
question is whether a real number can be written as a fraction (rational number)

$\frac{a}{1}$ , $a$ $\in{R}$

See you again!!

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last