Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
Like Tree10Thanks

Thread: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Axiom

    Let every number be arbitrarily composed of two numbers.


    Let the number table exist as such…


    0=(0,1)
    1=(1,1)
    2=(2,2)
    3=(3,3)
    4=(4,4)…and so on

    Let the first number of the number chosen be labeled as z1


    Let the second number of the number chosen be labeled as z2


    Let multiplication exist as follows…


    (A x B) = ( z1forA x z2forB ) = ( z2forA x z1forB ) = ( z1forB x z2forA ) = ( z2forB x z1forA )


    Let division exist as follows…


    (A/B) = ( z1forA/z2forB )

    (B/A) = ( z1forB/z2forA )
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    698
    Awards
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    Axiom

    Let every number be arbitrarily composed of two numbers.


    Let the number table exist as such…


    0=(0,1)
    1=(1,1)
    2=(2,2)
    3=(3,3)
    4=(4,4)…and so on

    Let the first number of the number chosen be labeled as z1


    Let the second number of the number chosen be labeled as z2


    Let multiplication exist as follows…


    (A x B) = ( z1forA x z2forB ) = ( z2forA x z1forB ) = ( z1forB x z2forA ) = ( z2forB x z1forA )


    Let division exist as follows…


    (A/B) = ( z1forA/z2forB )

    (B/A) = ( z1forB/z2forA )
    I don't see anything that tells me what you are doing! What's the point you are trying to make/derive?

    So just to be clear:
    (1 x 3) = (1 x 3) = (3)? Or some such?

    (1/3) = (1/3) = 1/3?

    Suggestion: Rewrite your table as
    a = (0, 1)
    b = (1, 1)
    etc.

    Then (a x c) = (1 x 3) = 3 as a real number?

    -Dan
    Thanks from Conway
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Dan

    I can not rewrite it as you suggest. If you do not use 0 in your equations... then you will find this to be of no use. Ill start off with the math here...


    0 = (0,1)
    1 = (1,1)
    2 = (2,2)

    Let the expression be...

    ( 0 * X )

    (z1for0) * x = 0
    (z2for0) * x = x
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,367
    Thanks
    2684
    Awards
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    Axiom
    Let every number be arbitrarily composed of two numbers.

    Let the number table exist as such…
    0=(0,1)
    1=(1,1)
    2=(2,2)
    3=(3,3)
    4=(4,4)…and so on

    Let the first number of the number chosen be labeled as z1

    Let the second number of the number chosen be labeled as z2


    Let multiplication exist as follows…

    (A x B) = ( z1forA x z2forB ) = ( z2forA x z1forB ) = ( z1forB x z2forA ) = ( z2forB x z1forA )


    Let division exist as follows…

    (A/B) = ( z1forA/z2forB )

    (B/A) = ( z1forB/z2forA )
    Having done pre-publication reviews, my comment is that what you posted is nonsense.
    1) You have not said what the heck this is all about. Axioms for what?
    2) What are the symbols used in the axioms. You used numbers 1,2,3 etc, without telling the reviewer what they are.
    3) Then you use appears to be ordered pairs: what are they?
    4) Because all of foundation papers in mathematics are set-theory based, are we to assume that the answers to the above are commonly understood. If so, what is the point?

    Now the notation z1forA is nonsense if you do not give a coherent definition.
    Thanks from Conway
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Having done pre-publication reviews, my comment is that what you posted is nonsense.
    1) You have not said what the heck this is all about. Axioms for what?
    2) What are the symbols used in the axioms. You used numbers 1,2,3 etc, without telling the reviewer what they are.
    3) Then you use appears to be ordered pairs: what are they?
    4) Because all of foundation papers in mathematics are set-theory based, are we to assume that the answers to the above are commonly understood. If so, what is the point?

    Now the notation z1forA is nonsense if you do not give a coherent definition.


    Use zero in binary muliplication and divsion.

    again...


    0=(0,1)
    1=(1,1)
    2=(2,2)
    3=(3,3)
    4=(4,4)…and so on

    Let the first number of the number chosen be labeled as z1
    Let the second number of the number chosen be labeled as z2


    Let the expression be...

    ( x * 0 )

    x * (z1for0) = 0
    x * (z2for0) = x

    we can then extrapolate for division by zero...in such a way as to NOT contradict any current field axiom...

    Field Axioms -- from Wolfram MathWorld

    I defined z1 and z2 respective to a NUMBER corresponding in the given table.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,834
    Thanks
    1087

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    Use zero in binary muliplication and divsion.

    again...


    0=(0,1)
    1=(1,1)
    2=(2,2)
    3=(3,3)
    4=(4,4)…and so on

    Let the first number of the number chosen be labeled as z1
    Let the second number of the number chosen be labeled as z2


    Let the expression be...

    ( x * 0 )

    x * (z1for0) = 0
    x * (z2for0) = x

    we can then extrapolate for division by zero...in such a way as to NOT contradict any current field axiom...

    Field Axioms -- from Wolfram MathWorld

    I defined z1 and z2 respective to a NUMBER corresponding in the given table.
    The pairs and operations you have chosen will not generate a field. You just showed that every element is zero. X*0 = 0 and x*0=x implies x=0.
    Thanks from Conway
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    21,367
    Thanks
    2684
    Awards
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    What a monumental waste of time.
    Why are any of us suckered into such by trolls?
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    698
    Awards
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    Dan

    I can not rewrite it as you suggest. If you do not use 0 in your equations... then you will find this to be of no use. Ill start off with the math here...


    0 = (0,1)
    1 = (1,1)
    2 = (2,2)

    Let the expression be...

    ( 0 * X )

    (z1for0) * x = 0
    (z2for0) * x = x
    You are using the symbol "1" (and 0, 2, 3, etc) to mean two different things. You are going to have to relabel something to make this work right.

    -Dan
    Thanks from Conway
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by SlipEternal View Post
    The pairs and operations you have chosen will not generate a field. You just showed that every element is zero. X*0 = 0 and x*0=x implies x=0.
    Incorrect...I did not say

    x * 0 = 0
    x * 0 = x
    therefore
    x = 0

    I said SPECEFICALLY

    (z1for0) * x = 0
    (z2for0) * x = x
    Last edited by Conway; Sep 26th 2017 at 08:32 PM.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
    You are using the symbol "1" (and 0, 2, 3, etc) to mean two different things. You are going to have to relabel something to make this work right.

    -Dan
    I am not redefineing the number 1 in ANY way whatsoever...

    "Let all numbers be composed of two numbers"

    0 = (0(z1),1(z2))
    1 = (1(z1),1(z2))

    (z1for0) * x = 0
    (z2for0) * x = x
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,834
    Thanks
    1087

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    Incorrect...I did not say

    x * 0 = 0
    x * 0 = x
    therefore
    x = 0

    I said SPECEFICALLY

    (z1for0) * x = 0
    (z2for0) * x = x
    Incorrect. You SPECIFICALLY defined multiplication as $(z_{1_A,} z_{2_A}) \times (z_{1_B}, z_{2_B}) = z_{1_A} z_{2_B} = z_{2_A} z_{1_B} = z_{1_B} z_{2_A} = z_{2_B} z_{1_A}$

    So if $x=(x,x)$ you have $x\times 0 = x 1 = x 0 = 0 x = 1x $. This was YOUR rule.

    If you cannot understand your own rules, how do you expect anyone else to?
    Last edited by SlipEternal; Sep 27th 2017 at 02:07 AM.
    Thanks from topsquark
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    11,041
    Thanks
    698
    Awards
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    I am not redefineing the number 1 in ANY way whatsoever...

    "Let all numbers be composed of two numbers"

    0 = (0(z1),1(z2))
    1 = (1(z1),1(z2))

    (z1for0) * x = 0
    (z2for0) * x = x
    Last try.

    So when you have 4 = (4, 4) you are calling the number 4 by what? The symbol 4 can't be the integer 4 on both sides! Your notation implies 4 = (4, 4) = ( (4, 4), (4, 4) ) = ( ( (4, 4), (4, 4) ), ( (4, 4), (4, 4) ) ) = ... which is just garbage without meaning.

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by SlipEternal View Post
    Incorrect. You SPECIFICALLY defined multiplication as $(z_{1_A,} z_{2_A}) \times (z_{1_B}, z_{2_B}) = z_{1_A} z_{2_B} = z_{2_A} z_{1_B} = z_{1_B} z_{2_A} = z_{2_B} z_{1_A}$

    So if $x=(x,x)$ you have $x\times 0 = x 1 = x 0 = 0 x = 1x $. This was YOUR rule.

    If you cannot understand your own rules, how do you expect anyone else to?




    This is all WELL said.....it should have been obvious however...my apologies it was not. I was trying to keep the original post short so ...

    (z1forA * z2forB) = (z1forB * z2forA) = (z1forB * z2forA) = (z2forA * z2forB)

    this equation is true as long as A and B =/=

    if A = 0
    (z1forA) * (z2forB) = 0
    (z2forB) * (z1forA) = 0

    (z2forA) * (z1forB) = B
    (z1forB) * (z2forA) = B


    if B = 0
    (z1forA) * (z2forB) = A
    (z2forB) * (z1forA) = A


    (z1forB) * (z2forA) = 0
    (z1forB) * (z1forB) = 0

    If and A and B = 0
    (z1forA) * (z2forB) = 0
    (z2forB) * (z1forA) = 0
    (z1forB) * (z2forA) = 0
    (z2forA) * (z1forB) = 0



    Perhaps "leaving" this out was not right. I was afraid of a lengthy post
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jun 2015
    From
    America
    Posts
    56
    Thanks
    1

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
    Last try.

    So when you have 4 = (4, 4) you are calling the number 4 by what? The symbol 4 can't be the integer 4 on both sides! Your notation implies 4 = (4, 4) = ( (4, 4), (4, 4) ) = ( ( (4, 4), (4, 4) ), ( (4, 4), (4, 4) ) ) = ... which is just garbage without meaning.

    -Dan
    I disagree...I have implied

    4 = (4,4)

    NOT
    4 = ((4,4)(4,4))

    "Let every number be composed of TWO numbers"..... NOT any other amount.......
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  15. #15
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,834
    Thanks
    1087

    Re: A Revised Postulate for Peer Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Conway View Post
    I disagree...I have implied

    4 = (4,4)

    NOT
    4 = ((4,4)(4,4))

    "Let every number be composed of TWO numbers"..... NOT any other amount.......
    You do not seem to understand that equality is transitive. If a=b and b=c then a=c.

    You have 4 = (4,4). Now, on the RHS, we can replace 4 with (4,4), so (4,4) becomes ((4,4),4) or we can write (4,(4,4)), or we can write ((4,4),(4,4)).

    I repeat, if you are not able to understand the basic rules of mathematics, then we are not going to be able to have a meaningful dialog. You seem to be picking and choosing rules to follow if you like them and ignoring them if they do not match what you "thought" it was supposed to be.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Sep 14th 2012, 02:08 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 8th 2010, 07:55 AM
  3. Revised Simple Proof of Beal's Conjecture
    Posted in the Number Theory Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Aug 13th 2010, 11:30 AM
  4. Power series (being revised)
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 13th 2008, 03:50 PM

/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum