- Jan 2006
- Wellsville, NY
Okay, you are apparently using symbols and terms in unusual ways. If I may, please let me suggest some notation.Dan
Valid question, thank you
all symbols on the left of the equal sign are composites of numbers. That is a space and a value separately.
all symbols on the right of the equal sign (the sum) are a full fledged number containing both value and space not separated.
In the op, I stated that it is that a value is placed into a space there by generating a number.....for multiplication....and division....slightly more to it then that, we can get there latter if you wish.
If I am understanding you what you want is a notation to make a difference between values (V) and space (S). I chose the ordered pair notation to avoid the "+" notation: You are adding value and space and they are not the same kind of thing. So the addition is potentially screwing up your meanings. I mean, how can you add 3 + apples? One is a (numeric) value and the other is your space. But we can easily say that we have (3, apple). Do you see what I mean?Dan
I would love to use notation. I am very weak in such matters (set theory). I however have done some research on the symbols used in order to better understand you at this point. I hope you will bare with me as we continue along these lines. Please note I will post nothing of "certainty" until you have helped me understand. As far as the notation you used....can you explain more about why you chose Q. What is it that you mean by "quantity space" as opposed to "space". I will await more from you on this matter before I "judge" the notations that you gave. Until then I pose the following notations.
Where V = value, S = space, A = any number in the Set
let the ordered pair (V,S) be described as follows
(V + S) → A: ∀A, S ∈ V, S→(V,S) ∈ A, V ∈ S, V→(V,S) ∈ A
∀A ≠ 0: (V,S) = (A,A)
∀A = 0: (V,S) = (0,1)
(V,S) ∈ ∀A
∀A ≠ 0 : (V,S) = (A,A)
∀A = 0 : (V,S) = (0,1)
?????What do you think????
It may be axiomatic to you, but it isn't an axiom that the majority can by into without some justification which you fail to give. On the other hand, if you are just setting up a (new) number system, you should say so without the psuedo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Just state what the system consists of: ordered pairs (a,b) with operations that do whatever it is they do.Conway said:It is the inherent nature of all things thatthey are a compilation of two different and distinct things. It is axiomaticthat these two things are space and value.
That is creating a new system. Numbers in are defined in the current system and the way they are defined is nothing like what you are writing.I am not setting up a new number system. I have only....
Redefined numbers (within the CURRENT system).
|Similar Math Discussions||Math Forum||Date|
|Terminology to describe the relative proportions of 3 unknown sides of a triangle||Geometry|
|Find the orgin of a coordinate system relative to another?||Geometry|
|I need to find the relative frequency but a sample size is not given||Statistics / Probability|
|"warning speculation" Relative Mathematics||Math Philosophy|