# Relative Mathematics

#### Archie

Do you think/agree the following makes sense....
Not in the slightest.

That's not to say that you couldn't build up a system based on the idea.

In a set of elephants, you can happily consider each elephant to be a collection of components, but for that to make sense you must define what those components do and how they interact with other components of the same and of different elephants. I don't see the components of an elephant as "space" and "value" at all. Trunk, legs, ears, etc. yes. Some ill-defined idea of "space" and "value", not at all. But that doesn't mean the idea couldn't be made to work in some context.

We can talk about chemical elements and how they react with each other, or we can talk about molecular structure - but only if we determine how the nuclei and electrons interact.

Your problem is that you are too wedded to your concepts and terminology. What you are calling a "number" isn't a number. It's a collection of elements (which may or may not be convenient to represent as an ordered pair of numbers). The problem everyone else has is that you make little attempt to formalise your ideas, instead preferring to wander off on a stream of imprecise language. It doesn't mean anything to anyone because the concepts aren't clearly defined and there's no earthly reason that anyone else can see why you should be using them or what they actually represent.

#### chiro

MHF Helper
Sets don't have to contain numbers - they can be anything.

They can have any structure so long as when you take intersections and unions they are consistent.

You have to determine how to break things up and then represent them as a set.

Numbers are just things that make sense geometrically and with arithmetic - the information represented doesn't have to be a number.

If you have a so called "piece" of a number then you have to decide how to break up the number.

You can represent that in a set but you need to determine the structure of how to break up these "pieces" by defining what elements the set has.

#### Conway

Chiro

Fine....again lets set aside any talk of SETs at this point.....as in the op I never mentioned sets of any kind. I truly have only meant to deal with arithmetic. If you wish to talk of that... and we can come to terms, then maybe WE can find a way to apply it to sets....which is what I was trying to do with Dan.

Do you think/agree the following makes sense....

1

is composed of

(_) one quantity of space (
as well as

(1) one quantity of value

if and only if I place the value into the space do I get a number

(1) = 1

Archie

I offered formal definitions for both space and value in the original post. Apparently you did not read it.
I offered formal definitions for the combining of space and value in the original post. Apparently you did not read it.

This is why you think that I have "wondered off"...because you NEVER read the original post.

I have FORMALIZED, PERCISE, definitions for both! And have been attempting to explain those ideas in as many other ways as possible...thinking you had actually read them.

Shall I continue.....if so....just for you Archie my friend....I will give these exact definitions and operations again....?

Space = labeling of quantities of dimensions.............see VERY precise
Value = labeling of quantities of existence other than dimensions..................see VERY precise

IT is in multiplication that the value given is placed into the space given, then all values are added............again very precise
It is in division that the value given is subtracted equally into the space given, than all values are subtracted except one.......and again very precise

#### Conway

To All,

I think I have taken this thread as far as it can go at this time....again....lol.

Therefore I yield in defeat to Dan, Chiro and Archie

Thank you all.......

I will return to my studies in hopes of maturing these ideas. Maybe in another year I will return again.

After all the third time is the charm!

Sincerest gratitude to all!

#### Archie

Space = labeling of quantities of dimensions.............see VERY precise
Value = labeling of quantities of existence other than dimensions..................see VERY precise
Those are not mathematical definitions. They are the interpretations that you wish to apply. As it is, I don't think those definitions do make much sense in many arenas. Elephants constantly change the "space" they occupy and their value is not obvious. All numbers, to me, have no "space" that they occupy, so in mathematics I see no point in recording the fact.

I didn't read the OP in detail. It was too long and dense, and I've read previous versions.

But, as I've said before, just because I don't follow your thinking doesn't mean that you have to stop. But for it to make any sense in mathematics you must find a precise mathematical description of what you are doing.

2 people

#### chiro

MHF Helper
In my opinion they aren't anywhere near as formal as you think they are.

If they were then people wouldn't have problems understanding you - but they clearly do based on the replies you are getting.

It should be simple for you to answer the questions posed but you don't.

Also - when you use things like numbers and non-numeric objects in combination then they are just sets.

It also doesn't matter if you combine things with arithmetic or something else - you can use sets to do many things.

Like Archie said above - they aren't mathematical definitions and you might as well be a type-writing monkey because the stuff you are writing doesn't make much sense at all.

2 people

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
Therefore I yield in defeat to Dan, Chiro and Archie
It's already been said but it bears repeating. There is no defeat here. No one has any problem with you it's just that your arguments are not well formed. What's happening here is a learning process. There's no shame to that.

-Dan

1 person

#### AndyDora

topsquark:

I understand that bringing this up like this might bring on a ban. I do so at great risk. I had hoped you might re-read this thread. Then compare it to my recent previous behavior on other forums. I accept responsibility for my clearly inappropriate behavior. I treated romesk especially so. For this I am sorry. But I have struggled from the beginning to be polite and do my best to learn and make progress. Have I not done so? But I have been severely abused by some here and others elsewhere. This takes its toll. I would hope you would also consider the context of all the versions I have posted here over the past few years.

Again I apologize to all of those I treated poorly.