# Thread: Mathematics - a new basis

1. ## 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

2. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

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
5.33Rd1 (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
(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

3. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

1 Mathematics Space
We'll tell mathematical space with two initial geometric object that can not
prove.
1.Natural geometric object - natural straight line .
2.Real geometric objects - real straight lines .
1.1 Natural along
In the picture there is a natural geometric object straight line (AB), it has a beginning (A)
and end (B) - this property natural long'll call point.

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

4. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

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

EVIDENCE - natural straight lines (AB, BC) are connected - we get straight line AC.

Natural straight lines (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get straight line AD.

Natural straight lines (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get straight line AE.

...

Natural straight lines (AB, BC, CD, DE, ...) are connected - getting semi-line.

-------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
straight line - EVIDENCE ( line - Axiom)
semi-line - EVIDENCE (line -Axiom )

5. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

I am confused as to what is "new" about this. It looks to me like basic Euclidean geometry but with vague and poorly stated definitions instead of the standard definitions.

6. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy
I am confused as to what is "new" about this. It looks to me like basic Euclidean geometry but with vague and poorly stated definitions instead of the standard definitions.
Geometry but not the basis of the whole of mathematics, unlike Euclid I only have two axioms (natural straight line - with which you are familiar)
This is a different approach than the current math, the fewer rules (axiom)
Because these rules (axioms) to limit the the phenomena that exist in real life can be mathematically explained (I gave an example of the early post)
------------
2.2 Numeral semi-line, 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, ...), ...}.
-------------
2.3 Natural numbers "2.2"
Theorem - There is a relationship (length) between Point in numeric (0) and
all points Numeral semi-line.

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, ...}.
--------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
numeral semi-line - axiom
numerical point - axiom
set - axiom
natural numbers -axion

7. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

2.4 Mobile Number "2.2,2.3"
Theorem-Natural numbers can be specified and other numerical
point other than the point numeric 0th
Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numeric point (2)
the number 2

Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 2

Ratio (length) numerical point (2) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 2

...
A set of mobile numbers Nn = {[n]N}
-----------------
2.5 Gap numbers "2.2,2.3,2.4"
Theorem - Natural number and mobile number of no contact,
(natural number and mobile number no contact) and have no contact mobile number, ..., in numeric longer.

EVIDENCE - natural number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, you get the number of gaps 2/.1/2.

natural number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, you get the number of gaps 2/.2/2.

natural number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, you get the number of gaps 2/.3/2.

...
(natural number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact) and mobile number 1 no contact , you get the number of gaps
2/.1/2/.1/1

...
Set gap number GN={a|/.bn/cn|(a,bn,cn)$\displaystyle \in$$\displaystyle N$,bn>0}
a/.b1/c1
a/.b1/c1/.b2/c2
a/.b1/c1/.b2/c2/.b3/c3
a/.b1/c1/.b2/c2/.b3/c3/.b4/c4
...
---------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
mobile number - no
gap number - no

8. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

2.6. Mobile gap number "2.2,2.5"
Theorem-Gap numbers can be entered and the second numerical
point other than the point numeric 0th

EVIDENCE-ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (5) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

...
A set of mobile numbers gap GNn={[n]GN}
-------------
2.7. Points the number of "2.2,2.3,2.5"
Theorem - Number (N,GN) has extended the numeric point, they
can write the opposite.

EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: [0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Opposite may
write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5].

Gaps has a number 2/.3/1 points: [0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. They can be
otherwise write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5), [.6].

--------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
mobile gap number - no
point number - no

9. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Originally Posted by msbiljanica
2.6. Mobile gap number "2.2,2.5"
Theorem-Gap numbers can be entered and the second numerical
point other than the point numeric 0th

EVIDENCE-ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (5) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

...
A set of mobile numbers gap GNn={[n]GN}
-------------
2.7. Points the number of "2.2,2.3,2.5"
Theorem - Number (N,GN) has extended the numeric point, they
can write the opposite.

EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: [0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Opposite may
write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5].

Gaps has a number 2/.3/1 points: [0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. They can be
otherwise write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5), [.6].

--------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
mobile gap number - no
point number - no
You a crank and I claim my $64,000 reward. . 10. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis Originally Posted by zzephod You a crank and I claim my$64,000 reward.

.
is this a joke, or actually give the money
--------------
2.8. The opposite number "2.2,2.3,2.5,2.7"
Theorem - Numbers (N, GN) that have the same number of points
number, length becomes gap and rotation.
EVIDENCE - 4 $\displaystyle \fbox{s}$ 0/.4/0 , 4s. = {4, 0/.4/0 } or 0/.4/0s.= {0/.4/0,4}.

1/.1/3 $\displaystyle \fbox{s}$ 0/.1/1/.3/0 , 1/.1/3s. = {1/.1/3, 0/.1/1/.3/0} or
0/.1/1/.3/0s. ={ 0/.1/1/.3/0, 1/.1/3}

The general form of a $\displaystyle \fbox{s}$ b. as.= {a, b} or bs. = {b, a}.

A set of numbers opposing S. = {(a, b) $\displaystyle \in$(N, GN)}, S.n = {(a, b)$\displaystyle \in$ (Nn, GNn)}
----------------
2.9 N comparability numbers "2.3"
Theorem - Two (more) numbers are comparable to
know who is higher (equal or smaller), which is the point of [.0] away
from the numerical point of 0th

EVIDENCE - Two numbers: 5> 3 (item number 5 [5] is far from the point
3 of [3] 5 is a number of third 4 = 4 (item number 4 [4] and the number of points
4 [4] are equidistant) 4 is equal to 4 .2 <6 (item number 6 [6] is
from the point of 2 [2] 2 less than sixth ). .(={>, =, <}.

The general form of a). .(b

Three numbers: a). .(b). .(c (general form, open, closed form (the
figure)).

...
---------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
opposite number -no
N comparability numbers - axiom

11. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Theorem - Number (N, GN, S.) and number (Nn, GNn, Sn) have
contact, item number (Nn, GNn, Sn) [0 ] ranges counts the number of
(N, GN, S.) and connect.

EVIDENCE - 3 + [0 ] 3 = 3 or 3 + [.3 ] 3 = 3.

3 + [1] 3 = 4 or 3 + [.2] 3 = 4

3+[2]3=5 or 3+[1]3=5

3+[3]3=6 or 3+[.0]3=6 or 3+3=6.

The general form of a + [q] = c or b + a [. q] b = c
The general form of the opposite numbers

This is the solution to start fasting
3+[0]3=3
3+[1]3=4
3+[2]3=5
3+[3]3=6

------------------------
2.11 comparability GN number "2.10"
Theorem - Parts of gaps that are not /. an / are added
actions in addition [.0] and compared as natural numbers.

EVIDENCE - 4/.5/3 , 4+[.0]3=7 , a/.b/c , a+[.0]c=d .

6/.5./2/.4/3 , 6+[.0]2+[.0]3=11 , a/.b/c/.d/e , a+[.0]c+[.0]e=f .

3/.3/5/.2/7/.3/4 , 3+[.0]5+[.0]7+[.0]4=19 , a/.b/c/.d/e/.f/g ,
a+[.0]c+[.0]e+[.0]g=h .

...
-----------------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
comparability GN number - no

12. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Perhaps it is a translation problem but nothing you are saying makes any sense to me. What does it mean for two numbers to "have contact"? What does it mean for numbers to "connect"? What are "gaps"? What do you mean by "fasting"?

13. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Originally Posted by HallsofIvy
Perhaps it is a translation problem but nothing you are saying makes any sense to me. What does it mean for two numbers to "have contact"? What does it mean for numbers to "connect"? What are "gaps"? What do you mean by "fasting"?
two numbers to "have contact"

"gaps"

current mathematics $\displaystyle x\in(0,1)\cup(2,5)$ -1
$\displaystyle x\in(0,1)\cup(2,3)\cup(4,5)$-2
reason that if you write a formula for (1,2) to be less character,
1/.1/3+[3] 1/.1/1/.1/1=1/.1/4/.1/1 - a+[q]b=c
a=$\displaystyle x_1\in(0,1)\cup(2,5)$
b=$\displaystyle x_2\in(0,1)\cup(2,3)\cup(4,5)$
c=$\displaystyle x\in(0,1)\cup(2,6)\cup(7,8)$
​+[q]-continues, you'll see that a lot needs to be written

"fasting" (look February 11th, 2013, 07:43 AM)
-------------
2.12 Subtraction "2.10"
Theorem - The addition of a long relationship where the angle
delete this relationship, the rest remains.

Evidence - 3-[0]3=0 or 3-[.3]3=0 or3-3=0

3-[1]3=1/.2/1 or 3-[.2]=1/.2/1

3-[2]3=2/.1/2or 3-[.1]3=2/.1/2

3-[3]3=6 or3-[.0]3=6

The general form a-[q]b=c ili a-[.q]b=c

The general form the opposite numbers

-----------
TEST - see what you've learned
(2.8 - what part of the question)
1. 4/.3/2/.9/2s.=?
2. 50s.=?
3. 0/.22/5/.6/0=?
(2.10)
1. 5+[3]7=?
2. 6s.+[.2]1/.4/5/.3/0=?
3. 4/.5/3s.+[6]6/.2/3s.=?
(2.11)
1. 4/.6/3?1/.2/2/.2/1
2. 5/.2/2/.3/1?1/.6/2
3. 4/.3/2s.?6
(2.12)
1.6-[.2]7=?
2.1/.6/2-[3]6s.=?
3.7s.-[4]8s.=?

14. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

I am amazed at how polite many of the respondents to this thread have been to what is either nonsense or a complete failure on the part of the OP to communicate what he thinks s/he has to say effectively.

.

15. ## Re: Mathematics - a new basis

2.13. Contrary subtract "2.10"
Theorem - The addition of a long relationship where the angle
this relationship remains, the rest of the care.

Evidence 3$\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [0]3=3 or 3$\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [.3]3=3

3 $\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [1]3=2 or 3 $\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [.2]3=2

3 $\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [2]3=1 or 3 $\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [.1]3=1

3 $\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [3]3=0 or 3 $\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [.0]3=0

The general form a$\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [q]b=c or a$\displaystyle \fbox{-}$ [.q]b=c
The general form in opposite numbers

Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
subtraction - axiom (one form)
contrary subtract - no

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last