hackenslash wrote:
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.

Do you know what geometrical object?
geometric object is - point , straight line , triangle , line , plane ,...

initial geometric object that can not prove it - natural straight line , point (1 Mathematics Space) It's my first axiom

have n (n>1) natural straight line in space , to do some meaningful new geometric object (you only get what is referred to -1 Mathematics Space ) - Look (2.1 straight line , semi-line "1") , Two new geometric object straight line (finite)semi-line (infinite)

semi-line (geometrical object, whose marked points - A, B, C, D, ...) to get a new semi-line (geometrical object, whose marked points - 0,1,2,3,4,. ..) - Look 2.2 Numeral semi-line, numeric point "2.1" , new geometric object (Numeral semi-line) which contains a numerical point (0,1,2,3,4,...)

Watch the numeric ratio of points on numeral semi-line , get the numbers, this setting is set (2.3 Natural numbers "2.2" )
-----------
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, ...}.

ms.srki wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
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.

Do you know what geometrical object?
geometric object is - point , straight line , triangle , line , plane ,...

initial geometric object that can not prove it - natural straight line , point (1 Mathematics Space) It's my first axiom

have n (n>1) natural straight line in space , to do some meaningful new geometric object (you only get what is referred to -1 Mathematics Space ) - Look (2.1 straight line , semi-line "1") , Two new geometric object straight line (finite)semi-line (infinite)

semi-line (geometrical object, whose marked points - A, B, C, D, ...) to get a new semi-line (geometrical object, whose marked points - 0,1,2,3,4,. ..) - Look 2.2 Numeral semi-line, numeric point "2.1" , new geometric object (Numeral semi-line) which contains a numerical point (0,1,2,3,4,...)

Watch the numeric ratio of points on numeral semi-line , get the numbers, this setting is set (2.3 Natural numbers "2.2" )
-----------
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, ...}.

Meaningless word-salad.

Stupid.

Yes.

I don't think that the language barrier helps, but it does look like nonsense to me.

campermon wrote:Yes.

I don't think that the language barrier helps, but it does look like nonsense to me.

Comprehend it not you can, while free your mind you must.

Axioms lead to points. Points lead to lines. Lines lead to ..... supersymmetric DBranes or something.

twistor59 wrote:

campermon wrote:Yes.

I don't think that the language barrier helps, but it does look like nonsense to me.

Comprehend it not you can, while free your mind you must.

Axioms lead to points. Points lead to lines. Lines lead to ..... supersymmetric DBranes or something.

But they lead not to the pseudoscience forum. Campermon's domain that is..

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

This could be an evocative description (for me it doesn't work), but surely it isn't a formal system.

I propose a new subforum for pseudo-mathematics. Someone would enjoy the company, and he and ms.srki could gambol to their hearts' content...

Actually, that might be an interesting meeting.

hackenslash wrote:I propose a new subforum for pseudo-mathematics. Someone would enjoy the company, and he and ms.srki could gambol to their hearts' content...

Actually, that might be an interesting meeting.

That would be some meeting..

ms.srki wrote:
between the two triangle (polygon may be) is going merger (which way represented an algebraic operation)
This is possible in real life, if we want to present it mathematically, we can not (because any arithmetic operations can be variable, (there is only one (addition, subtraction, ...))

This is something I do somewhat understand - it´s also wrong. Of course we can define binary relations that produce sets of numbers (for instance, we can easily create a function [math]f: \mathbb{R} x \mathbb{R} \rightarrow 2^{ \mathbb{R}}; f(a,b)=[a,b] and then define a binary relation through that function: [math]a\circ b := f(a,b)).

Given the definition of a filled ngon as a set of points, and using [math]G_m to refer to the set of mgons we get
[math]a?b=\{n| \exists A \in G_a, B \in G_b, A \cup B \in G_n\}, \forall a,b \in \mathbb{N}

Aw crap, susu, now you've gone and made sense! All the fun's gone out of this thread now.

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}

Ah, thinking understand all it I do now in, I, a neural, a new basis! Involves it in lines, the one line, with the points, pointing understanding into brain, each number in given set subsequent and contingent on line between points that what, what can be numeric or rational between brain teleporters, intersecting. Now, at central point, new basis becoming emergent with arbitrary irrational numbers non-randomly plotted on new line extending from point at exact pinnacle of crossover, real line and imaginary line, intersecting, which is basic axiom. Now, in to gather every the knowledge and insight from lecture given, just, one must study and extend mind into depth of what is written on thread to translate all encoded to shapes in real imaginary geometric space, which gives muscles. Watch extracted sequence of graphical entities, computer graphics, while on treadmill for results exceeding. You get, now? Knowledge with the addition of understanding is away from sin, now, which is basic moment.

I hope that clears everything up.

susu.exp wrote:

ms.srki wrote:
between the two triangle (polygon may be) is going merger (which way represented an algebraic operation)
This is possible in real life, if we want to present it mathematically, we can not (because any arithmetic operations can be variable, (there is only one (addition, subtraction, ...))

This is something I do somewhat understand - it´s also wrong. Of course we can define binary relations that produce sets of numbers (for instance, we can easily create a function [math]f: \mathbb{R} x \mathbb{R} \rightarrow 2^{ \mathbb{R}}; f(a,b)=[a,b] and then define a binary relation through that function: [math]a\circ b := f(a,b)).

Sorry, bit slow here:

You take a pair of reals [math]a,b then do [math]f to them to get [math][a,b]. What is [math][a,b]? - the line interval between the two reals? Also, what does [math]2^{ \mathbb{R}} mean?

Matthew Shute wrote:I hope that clears everything up.

I think you've got the hang of it. Have a PhD.

Matthew Shute wrote:Ah, thinking understand all it I do now in, I, aneurism, a new basis!

FIFY

twistor59 wrote:Sorry, bit slow here:

You take a pair of reals [math]a,b then do [math]f to them to get [math][a,b]. What is [math][a,b]? - the line interval between the two reals? Also, what does [math]2^{ \mathbb{R}} mean?

Yup, [math][a,b] is the closed interval between a and b
(i.e. [math]\{x|x \in \mathbb{R}, \min(\{a,b\}) \leq x \leq \max(\{a,b\})\}.
[math]2^{ \mathbb{R}} is the powerset of the reals, the set of all subsets of reals.

BTW, the binary operation our OP introduced can be trivially rewritten:
[math]a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})\}, \max(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| n \leq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}

So without having to draw a lot of 130-gons and 13-gons we find [math]130?13=\{n| n \in \mathbb{N}; 13 \leq n \leq 208\}

Edit: The above is also well defined on all reals, rather than just on intergers greater than 2. So not only can we do everything the OP claims we can´t do with ordinary maths - we can rather easily expand the concept (as useless as it is) to be more general. I´d like to see the OP try to figure out [math]e ?\pi using his method
(it´s [math]\{3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 \} using the above)

susu.exp wrote:

twistor59 wrote:Sorry, bit slow here:

You take a pair of reals [math]a,b then do [math]f to them to get [math][a,b]. What is [math][a,b]? - the line interval between the two reals? Also, what does [math]2^{ \mathbb{R}} mean?

Yup, [math][a,b] is the closed interval between a and b
(i.e. [math]\{x|x \in \mathbb{R}, \min(\{a,b\}) \leq x \leq \max(\{a,b\})\}.
[math]2^{ \mathbb{R}} is the powerset of the reals, the set of all subsets of reals.

BTW, the binary operation our OP introduced can be trivially rewritten:
[math]a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})\}, \max(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| n \leq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}

So without having to draw a lot of 130-gons and 13-gons we find [math]130?13=\{n| n \in \mathbb{N}; 13 \leq n \leq 208\}

AHHH, power sets, it's coming back to me now. (More of a trickle than a flood though )
Thanks

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
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing
...
Set gap number GN={a|/.bn/cn|(a,bn,cn) [math]\in [math]N ,bn>0}

hackenslash wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Ah, thinking understand all it I do now in, I, aneurism, a new basis!

FIFY

That's one way to achieve the requisite state for enlightenment. I thought that post was FUBAR. You somehow found something to fix in it. Pretty impressive!