Mathematics - a new basis

iamthereforeithink · **#81** by **iamthereforeithink** » Feb 22, 2013 2:49 pm

WTF is this shit? Is there anyone who has a clue what ms.ski is trying to say? It seems that this has moved to "pseudoscience", but to me this looks like "not even pseudoscience".

ms.srki · **#82** by **ms.srki** » Feb 23, 2013 1:50 pm

2.9 N comparability numbers "2.3"
Theorem - Two (more) numbers are comparable to
know who is higher (equal or smaller), which is the point of [.0] away
from the numerical point of 0th

EVIDENCE - Two numbers: 5> 3 (item number 5 [5] is far from the point
3 of [3] 5 is a number of third 4 = 4 (item number 4 [4] and the number of points
4 [4] are equidistant) 4 is equal to 4 .2 <6 (item number 6 [6] is
from the point of 2 [2] 2 less than sixth ). .(={>, =, <}.

The general form of a). .(b

Three numbers: a). .(b). .(c (general form, open, closed form (the
figure)).

: w26.png (15.14 KiB) Viewed 1839 times

...

ms.srki · **#83** by **ms.srki** » Feb 24, 2013 11:39 am

2:10 Adding "2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.7,2.8"
Theorem - Number (N, GN, S.) and number (Nn, GNn, Sn) have
contact, item number (Nn, GNn, Sn) [0 ] ranges counts the number of
(N, GN, S.) and connect.

EVIDENCE - 3 + [0 ] 3 = 3 or 3 + [.3 ] 3 = 3.

: w27.png (26.09 KiB) Viewed 1825 times

3 + [1] 3 = 4 or 3 + [.2] 3 = 4

: w28.png (25.04 KiB) Viewed 1825 times

3+[2]3=5 or 3+[1]3=5

: w29.png (25.21 KiB) Viewed 1825 times

3+[3]3=6 or 3+[.0]3=6 or 3+3=6.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing

The general form of a + [q] = c or b + a [. q] b = c
The general form of the opposite numbers
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing
------------
This is the solution to start topic
3+[0]3=3
3+[1]3=4
3+[2]3=5
3+[3]3=6

Scar · **#84** by **Scar** » Feb 24, 2013 12:59 pm

Edit:

And also, on.... request:

Have at it guys! :drunk:

lobawad · **#85** by **lobawad** » Feb 24, 2013 2:40 pm

ms.srki wrote:See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles

matematička zagonetka.png

what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

The number following the ? is in the genitive.

3 + (how-much-or-how-many-of?)3 = 3
3 + (how-much-or-how-many-of?)3 = 4

...and so on.

campermon · **#86** by **campermon** » Feb 24, 2013 2:47 pm

Scar wrote:

Somebody called?

:beer:

campermon · **#87** by **campermon** » Feb 24, 2013 2:48 pm

lobawad wrote:
ms.srki wrote:See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles

matematička zagonetka.png

what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

The number following the ? is in the genitive.

3 + (how-much-or-how-many-of?)3 = 3
3 + (how-much-or-how-many-of?)3 = 4

...and so on.

That makes sense. :thumbup:

But I fail to see how this can be the new basis of mathematics?

lobawad · **#88** by **lobawad** » Feb 24, 2013 3:00 pm

campermon wrote:
lobawad wrote:
ms.srki wrote:See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles

matematička zagonetka.png

what is a "?"
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

The number following the ? is in the genitive.

3 + (how-much-or-how-many-of?)3 = 3
3 + (how-much-or-how-many-of?)3 = 4

...and so on.

That makes sense.

But I fail to see how this can be the new basis of mathematics?

Beats me (not that I don't do that enough myself...). I'm following this because for a couple of years I've been trying to think of a novel math operation, just sophistry for fun, and this is one that I thought of but rejected as insufficiently novel. I've been planning to call the operation by the imaginary name of an imaginary misunderstood genius named "Valđik". It's only a coincidence (or is it?!) that the name is pseudo-Serbian.

iamthereforeithink · **#89** by **iamthereforeithink** » Feb 24, 2013 4:41 pm

lobawad wrote:
I've been planning to call the operation by the imaginary name of an imaginary misunderstood genius named "Valđik". It's only a coincidence (or is it?!) that the name is pseudo-Serbian.

Seems like divinely-inspired synchronicity to me - much like the way Ramanujan received his theorems directly from Vishnu in his dreams. :coffee:

lobawad · **#90** by **lobawad** » Feb 24, 2013 4:46 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:
lobawad wrote:
I've been planning to call the operation by the imaginary name of an imaginary misunderstood genius named "Valđik". It's only a coincidence (or is it?!) that the name is pseudo-Serbian.

Seems like divinely-inspired synchronicity to me - much like the way Ramanujan received his theorems directly from Vishnu in his dreams.

Namagiri, man, not Vishnu!

lobawad · **#91** by **lobawad** » Feb 24, 2013 4:47 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saraswati.jpg

I'm more of a Saraswati guy myself...

ms.srki · **#92** by **ms.srki** » Feb 25, 2013 3:38 pm

lobawad wrote:
Beats me (not that I don't do that enough myself...). I'm following this because for a couple of years I've been trying to think of a novel math operation, just sophistry for fun, and this is one that I thought of but rejected as insufficiently novel. I've been planning to call the operation by the imaginary name of an imaginary misunderstood genius named "Valđik". It's only a coincidence (or is it?!) that the name is pseudo-Serbian.

bolji naslov bi bio -bečki konjušar misli matematički , pogleđuje na SRBINA-
--------------

2.11 comparability GN number "2.10"
Theorem - Parts of gaps that are not /. an / are added
actions in addition [.0] and compared as natural numbers.

EVIDENCE - 4/.5/3 , 4+[.0]3=7 , a/.b/c , a+[.0]c=d .

6/.5./2/.4/3 , 6+[.0]2+[.0]3=11 , a/.b/c/.d/e , a+[.0]c+[.0]e=f .

3/.3/5/.2/7/.3/4 , 3+[.0]5+[.0]7+[.0]4=19 , a/.b/c/.d/e/.f/g ,
a+[.0]c+[.0]e+[.0]g=h .

...
-----------------------
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
adding - axiom (one form)
comparability GN number - no

campermon · **#93** by **campermon** » Feb 25, 2013 5:23 pm

ms.srki wrote:
bolji naslov bi bio -bečki konjušar misli matematički , pogleđuje na SRBINA-
--------------

En Englais s'il vous plait.

Any translators here?

:popcorn:

ms.srki · **#94** by **ms.srki** » Feb 25, 2013 5:38 pm

campermon wrote:
ms.srki wrote:
bolji naslov bi bio -bečki konjušar misli matematički , pogleđuje na SRBINA-
--------------

En Englais s'il vous plait.

Any translators here?

South Slavic joke (because the respective said he was from Slovenia)

iamthereforeithink · **#95** by **iamthereforeithink** » Feb 25, 2013 6:57 pm

lobawad wrote:
iamthereforeithink wrote:
lobawad wrote:
I've been planning to call the operation by the imaginary name of an imaginary misunderstood genius named "Valđik". It's only a coincidence (or is it?!) that the name is pseudo-Serbian.

Seems like divinely-inspired synchronicity to me - much like the way Ramanujan received his theorems directly from Vishnu in his dreams.

Namagiri, man, not Vishnu!

Whoa, OK. That explains it. I just knew that Vishnu couldn't possibly have given Ramanujan those theorems. It had to be Namagiri. :grin:

The pertinent question right now is which god is giving ms.ski his/her revolutionary mathematics. I would request the concerned god or goddess to add a few comprehensible english language sentences by way of explanation.

ms.srki · **#96** by **ms.srki** » Feb 26, 2013 2:33 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:
The pertinent question right now is which god is giving ms.ski his/her revolutionary mathematics. I would request the concerned god or goddess to add a few comprehensible english language sentences by way of explanation.

View pictures, so if you get it, then you can be considered intelligent man,
I guess pictures speak louder than say
-------------------
2.12 Subtraction "2.10"
Theorem - The addition of a long relationship where the angle
delete this relationship, the rest remains.

Evidence - 3-[0]3=0 or 3-[.3]3=0 or3-3=0

: w32.png (24.2 KiB) Viewed 1729 times

3-[1]3=1/.2/1 or 3-[.2]=1/.2/1

: w33.png (27.81 KiB) Viewed 1729 times

3-[2]3=2/.1/2or 3-[.1]3=2/.1/2

: w34.png (27.72 KiB) Viewed 1729 times

3-[3]3=6 or3-[.0]3=6
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing
The general form a-[q]b=c ili a-[.q]b=c

The general form the opposite numbers
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing
-----------
TEST - see what you've learned
(2.8 - what part of the question)
1. 4/.3/2/.9/2s.=?
2. 50s.=?
3. 0/.22/5/.6/0=?
(2.10)
1. 5+[3]7=?
2. 6s.+[.2]1/.4/5/.3/0=?
3. 4/.5/3s.+[6]6/.2/3s.=?
(2.11)
1. 4/.6/3?1/.2/2/.2/1
2. 5/.2/2/.3/1?1/.6/2
3. 4/.3/2s.?6
(2.12)
1.6-[.2]7=?
2.1/.6/2-[3]6s.=?
3.7s.-[4]8s.=?

ms.srki · **#97** by **ms.srki** » Feb 27, 2013 2:04 pm

2.13. Contrary subtract "2.10"
Theorem - The addition of a long relationship where the together,
this relationship remains, the rest of the care.

Evidence 3

\fbox{-} [0]3=3 or 3

\fbox{-}[.3]3=3

: w37.png (26.24 KiB) Viewed 1720 times

3

\fbox{-}[1]3=2 or 3

\fbox{-} [.2]3=2

: w38.png (24.93 KiB) Viewed 1720 times

3

\fbox{-} [2]3=1 or 3

\fbox{-} [.1]3=1

: w39.png (24.35 KiB) Viewed 1720 times

3

\fbox{-} [3]3=0 or 3

\fbox{-}[.0]3=0
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing
The general form a

\fbox{-} [q]b=c or a

\fbox{-} [.q]b=c
The general form in opposite numbers
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0x ... sp=sharing
Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics)
subtraction - axiom (one form)
contrary subtract - no

Rumraket · **#98** by **Rumraket** » Feb 27, 2013 2:17 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:WTF is this shit? Is there anyone who has a clue what ms.ski is trying to say? It seems that this has moved to "pseudoscience", but to me this looks like "not even pseudoscience".

Ihavenofingerprints · **#99** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Feb 27, 2013 2:21 pm

If I minus 3 off the opposite angle and multiply it by the comparable number, take the inverse and divide by 3 again. Is it good if I'm getting 0?

Rhubis · **#100** by **Rhubis** » Feb 28, 2013 2:33 pm

ms.srki wrote:
View pictures, so if you get it, then you can be considered intelligent man,
I guess pictures speak louder than say

Sorry but the pictures you are giving us seem to be a bunch of lines with numbers and triangles that without some kind of explanation we can understand mean fuck all. You keep posting something that it seems nobody can follow, stop posting more bullshit and try to explain what the hell you are getting at or you are just wasting your time and might as well be talking to yourself.

Oh and if someone on here can get what you are trying to explain just by the pictures I wouldn't call them intelligent i'd call them fucking psychic!

Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Re: Mathematics - a new basis

Who is online