Ah, that's the whole point. It's axiom free!

Matthew Shute wrote:I'm going to present you my vision of the perfect math (based on other grounds)

What other grounds? God told you? What do you mean by "perfect math"?[/quote]
I do not believe in God, but in your brain, when you ask a question that you can improve math (science in general) should know that it is good, then you should know how well you place (stim man is born), I want to tell you convey what I thought of that (so you assess whether it's worth)

Evolving wrote:ms.srki, I don't know what you mean by "vision of the perfect math"...

look at it piece by piece, and be patient ...

Microfarad wrote:So, what are the axioms of your "new basis" of mathematics?

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 straight line
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.

If it has a beginning and an end, it isn't a line, it's merely a segment of one.

Hmmm. I seem to remember Professor Stanley Unwin saying something similar

ms.srki wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

I'm going to present you my vision of the perfect math (based on other grounds)

What other grounds? God told you? What do you mean by "perfect math"?

I do not believe in God, but in your brain, when you ask a question that you can improve math (science in general) should know that it is good, then you should know how well you place (stim man is born), I want to tell you convey what I thought of that (so you assess whether it's worth)

You messed up the quotes, to show me saying that I'm going to present a vision of perfect maths, whatever that would mean. Those were your words; please consider learning to use the quote function properly. Aside from that, I can't parse your word-salad after the bit about not believing in God. I'm none the wiser as to why you consider current mathematics to be "sinful", and why the body-building community (for example) would need to know that.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthrea ... 291&page=1

Perfect maths: 36-24-36.

(this is not a response to Matthew Shute's post)

Let's make allowances for the fact that ms.srki clearly struggles with English, and try to work out what he means while suspending, for the time being, disbelief.

He has begun to explain his axioms to us, and begins with the "natural straight line" (presumably he will come on to the "real straight line" later).

ms.srki, I don't understand your definition of a point: "this property natural long'll call point." Can you explain it a different way?

Further questions suggest themselves, but can we clear this one up first?

jamest wrote:Perfect maths: 36-24-36.

You have an eye for figures.

Evolving wrote:(this is not a response to Matthew Shute's post)

Let's make allowances for the fact that ms.srki clearly struggles with English, and try to work out what he means while suspending, for the time being, disbelief.

Yes indeed. The communication/language issue is probably making this look like an even bigger candidate for the "pseudoscience" section than it might actually be. I'd give him/her the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

Evolving wrote:

ms.srki, I don't understand your definition of a point: "this property natural long'll call point."

Figure (A or B) ,Natural straight line does not consist of the points
--------------
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.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... R5bUk/edit
-------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
straight line - EVIDENCE ( line - Axiom)
semi-line - EVIDENCE (line -Axiom )

I still don't know what you mean by a "point" in your system, ms.srki.

What you are showing us here looks to me like vector addition, in standard mathematics. Standard mathematics, of course, starts with defining a vector space and then proceeds to consider operators such as addition. You seem to be introducing what you call a "line" (something that looks like a vector) as your first fundamental mathematical object and using the concept of a "direction" without first defining the space in which the direction has a meaning.

And I don't know what you mean by the term "semi-line" which you introduce undefined.

ms.srki wrote:
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 straight line
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.

w1.png

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

Thank you, but I still find it rather unintelligible. Could you turn these axioms into a formal system, specifying its symbols and its inference rules?

Microfarad wrote:
Thank you, but I still find it rather unintelligible. Could you turn these axioms into a formal system, specifying its symbols and its inference rules?

Mathematics is the current natural straight line is the proof (line the axiom, from which it derives), mine is an axiom.
All other axiom of the proof to me (addition, subtraction, plane, function, line, ...).
notation - the terms that exist in the current math I'm using the same notation,
for terms that are new to using the notation that I introduced
-----------------
2.2 Numeral semi-line, numeric point "2.1"
Theorem-character mark points on semi-line
(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, ...), ...}.
-----------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
numeral semi-line - axiom
numeric point - axiom

ms.srki wrote:
Proof - is obtained by numerical

I thought you were defining a new basis.

What is it you are proving?
Is it really ok to use "numerical" in a proof for a new basis for math? Isn't that circular?

ms.srki, your posts are unintelligible to me. Are you using an automatic translator?

A good start would be to present a reason why busy people should invest time to try to understand your new mathematics. In one of my responses I asked you to "help me to understand where you see the deficit in current mathematics". Your inital post with the triangles doesn't do that.

ms.srki wrote:

Microfarad wrote:
Thank you, but I still find it rather unintelligible. Could you turn these axioms into a formal system, specifying its symbols and its inference rules?

Mathematics is the current natural straight line is the proof (line the axiom, from which it derives), mine is an axiom.
All other axiom of the proof to me (addition, subtraction, plane, function, line, ...).
notation - the terms that exist in the current math I'm using the same notation,
for terms that are new to using the notation that I introduced
-----------------
2.2 Numeral semi-line, numeric point "2.1"
Theorem-character mark points on semi-line
(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.

w6.png

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, ...), ...}.
-----------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
numeral semi-line - axiom
numeric point - axiom

What?!

What is your native language?

Evolving wrote:ms.srki, your posts are unintelligible to me. Are you using an automatic translator?
...

If your text is not clear, then try to understand the picture, this is what I'm showing you najprostio, because knowledge is (in my brain) can not teleport into your brain, you should try to figure out a lot (it's up to you).
If you watched sfi fi series (SG1-starrgate, stargate-antlantis) there are characters that are interpreted on the basis of the intellectual alien present earthly knowledge ...

Scar wrote:
What?!
What is your native language?

Serbian
--------------------
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

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... dUTmc/edit

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 4

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... dUSkk/edit
...
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)

set - axiom
natural numbers -axion

ms.srki wrote:you should try to figure out a lot (it's up to you).

Exactly wrong. Since this is the second forum I'm a member of that you've posted this arse-water on, and the second forum on which nobody has the faintest idea of what the holy fuck you're babbling about, the failure is all yours.

If you think you have something to present, you should present it in a coherent, understandable manner. This responsibility is entirely yours. Indeed, if you can't do so, whatever your idea might be, it's utterly worthless. Our responsibility, then, is merely to point and laugh.

I presume the first was the body building one?

ms.srki wrote:

Evolving wrote:ms.srki, your posts are unintelligible to me. Are you using an automatic translator?
...

If your text is not clear, then try to understand the picture, this is what I'm showing you najprostio, because knowledge is (in my brain) can not teleport into your brain, you should try to figure out a lot (it's up to you).
If you watched sfi fi series (SG1-starrgate, stargate-antlantis) there are characters that are interpreted on the basis of the intellectual alien present earthly knowledge ...

Scar wrote:
What?!
What is your native language?

Serbian
--------------------
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

w7.png

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (1) the number o1

w8.png

Ratio (required) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2) is the number 2

w9.png

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 3

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... dUTmc/edit

Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 4

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... dUSkk/edit
...
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)

set - axiom
natural numbers -axion

Do you even lift bro?