Mathematics - a new basis

kennyc · **#61** by **kennyc** » Feb 19, 2013 4:22 pm

But is it conscious?

:rofl:

campermon · **#62** by **campermon** » Feb 19, 2013 4:41 pm

Can anybody tell me which posters funny set of symbols are the right ones?

:whine:

Microfarad · **#63** by **Microfarad** » Feb 19, 2013 5:01 pm

campermon wrote:Can anybody tell me which posters funny set of symbols are the right ones?

Every one a bit.

Rumraket · **#64** by **Rumraket** » Feb 19, 2013 5:50 pm

campermon wrote:Can anybody tell me which posters funny set of symbols are the right ones?

You can start with this basic symbol:

I call it the third axiom of discourse.

kennyc · **#65** by **kennyc** » Feb 19, 2013 5:52 pm

I see what you did there!

kennyc · **#66** by **kennyc** » Feb 19, 2013 5:53 pm

campermon wrote:Can anybody tell me which posters funny set of symbols are the right ones?

The Blue one, by the fish.

laklak · **#67** by **laklak** » Feb 19, 2013 6:10 pm

Darmock and Jalad, at Tanagra.

Rai and Jiri at Lungha. Rai of Lowani. Lowani under two moons. Jiri of Ubaya. Ubaya of crossroads, at Lungha. Lungha, her sky gray.

iamthereforeithink · **#68** by **iamthereforeithink** » Feb 19, 2013 10:46 pm

A New Basis For Mathematics:

Mobile numbers of the form 1-800-123-456
Natural numbers of the form 1.2.3.4.5.6
Between mobile numbers and natural numbers - No contact
On infinite straight line with discrete corners - Contact between mobile numbers of the form 1-800-123-456 and mobile numbers of the form 044187654321 with natural numbers of the form 1.2.3.4.5.6 in unequal discrete intervals, always resulting in mobile numbers of the form 01144187654321 !!!! - No contact

campermon · **#69** by **campermon** » Feb 19, 2013 10:50 pm

Rumraket wrote:
campermon wrote:Can anybody tell me which posters funny set of symbols are the right ones?

You can start with this basic symbol:

I call it the third axiom of discourse.

<----- I did!

:beer:

ms.srki · **#70** by **ms.srki** » Feb 20, 2013 3:44 pm

2.6. Mobile gap number "2.2,2.5"
Theorem-Gap numbers can be entered and the second numerical
point other than the point numeric 0th

EVIDENCE-ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

: w19.png (14.15 KiB) Viewed 2671 times

ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (5) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

: w20.png (14.2 KiB) Viewed 2671 times

ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.

: w21.png (14.1 KiB) Viewed 2671 times

...
A set of mobile numbers gap GNn={[n]GN}

susu.exp · **#71** by **susu.exp** » Feb 20, 2013 7:17 pm

susu.exp wrote:BTW, the binary operation our OP introduced can be trivially rewritten:
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\})\}

There´s an error in this, but I´m happy to correct it:

a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})\}, \min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| n \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}

@campermon: I can explain mine :mrgreen:

iamthereforeithink · **#72** by **iamthereforeithink** » Feb 20, 2013 7:45 pm

susu.exp wrote:
susu.exp wrote:BTW, the binary operation our OP introduced can be trivially rewritten:
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\})\}

There´s an error in this, but I´m happy to correct it:
a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})\}, \min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| n \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}

@[color=#CC0000][b]campermon:[/b][/color] I can explain mine

I thought there was an error, and I tried to reply to suggest a correction. But it seems that when I quoted you, the quoted part didn't have the error, it just wasn't displaying the whole text? :ask:

Thommo · **#73** by **Thommo** » Feb 20, 2013 8:16 pm

susu.exp wrote:
susu.exp wrote:BTW, the binary operation our OP introduced can be trivially rewritten:
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\})\}

There´s an error in this, but I´m happy to correct it:
a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})\}, \min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| n \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}

@[color=#CC0000][b]campermon:[/b][/color] I can explain mine

That might be nice if you don't mind, I'm having difficulty following a couple of things:

- In the part following that comma you appear to have a dummy variable "m" which is always going to return a 0, should the following "n" be an "m" here? It also looks like there's some bracketing issues, so should the formula be:

a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\}), \min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| m \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}))\}?
- When you calculate 130?13 you get an answer of

130?13=\{n| n \in \mathbb{N}; 13 \leq n \leq 208\}, but it looks like the answer should be

130?13=\{n| n \in \mathbb{N}; 13 \leq n \leq 169\} assuming we stick to simple convex polygons in our interpretation of the OP.
- I can't see why you've included the red part -

a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})\}

, \min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| n \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\} as in the OP a,b are natural numbers and thus

\min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| m \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}) \leq 3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\}).

Pulsar · **#74** by **Pulsar** » Feb 20, 2013 9:21 pm

iamthereforeithink wrote:I thought there was an error, and I tried to reply to suggest a correction. But it seems that when I quoted you, the quoted part didn't have the error, it just wasn't displaying the whole text?

MathJax doesn't split long formulae automatically, and LIFE has set the font size a bit too large. You can reduce the font size by putting everything inside \small{}. To split a formula in LaTeX, put it between \begin{multline} and \end{multline}, and put \\ at the point you want the formula to split. And you can increase the size of delimiters by preceding them with \big, \Big, \bigg or \Bigg. Thommo's first formula in the previous post then looks like this:

\small{\begin{multline}
a?b=\Big\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max\Big(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\}), \\
\min\big(\big\{m \in \mathbb{N}| m \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\big\}\big)\Big)\Big\}
\end{multline}}

susu.exp · **#75** by **susu.exp** » Feb 20, 2013 9:56 pm

Thommo wrote:
That might be nice if you don't mind, I'm having difficulty following a couple of things:

- In the part following that comma you appear to have a dummy variable "m" which is always going to return a 0, should the following "n" be an "m" here?

Yes. It´s a typo.

Thommo wrote:It also looks like there's some bracketing issues, so should the formula be:
a?b=\{n|n \in \mathbb{N}; \min(\{a,b\}) \leq n \leq \max(3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\}), \min(\{m \in \mathbb{N}| m \geq \frac{2}{3} \max(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{a,b\})\}))\}?

I don´t think so, but...

Let´s unravel this a bit. The min solution is

\small{\min(\{a,b\})}. The max solution can take two forms (more on that later), one is

\small{3 \times \min(\{a,b\}) + \max(\{a,b\})} and the other is

\small{\min(\{a,b\}) + \min(\{m|m \in \mathbb{N}, m \geq \frac{3}{2} \max(\{a,b\})\})}

(There was another typo there -

\small{\frac{3}{2}} rather than

\small{\frac{2}{3}})

Thommo wrote:- When you calculate 130?13 you get an answer of 130?13=\{n| n \in \mathbb{N}; 13 \leq n \leq 208\}, but it looks like the answer should be 130?13=\{n| n \in \mathbb{N}; 13 \leq n \leq 169\} assuming we stick to simple convex polygons in our interpretation of the OP.

That´s the rub. If we stick to convex polygons it is 169 and the maximal solution is the first of the two options given. The second one appears when we allow polygons that are not convex and

\small{\min(\{m|m \in \mathbb{N}, m \geq \frac{1}{2} \max(\{a,b\})\} > 2 \times \min(\{a,b\})\})}. It´s basically what you get from a star shape (I´m not doing the 13?130 here):

The typo (2/3 rather than 3/2) explains the other issues with the red part.

Whether the OP intended only convex polygons or not is another reason to prefer maths to something that is rather informal and basically expects the reader to extrapolate from examples. Since all triangles are convex, giving us an example with triangles and then telling us that "(polygon may be)" is ambiguous, because it doesn´t tell us whether it´s convex only or not.
We both assume that ? commutes here - maybe for a?b a has to be convex, while b doesn´t and in this case it doesn´t generally commute.

Thommo · **#76** by **Thommo** » Feb 20, 2013 11:27 pm

Thanks it was the typos misleading me (and the fact I hadn't worked out the general form for the solution in the concave cases).

ms.srki · **#77** by **ms.srki** » Feb 21, 2013 2:34 pm

2.7. Points the number of "2.2,2.3,2.5"
Theorem - Number (N, GN) has extended the numeric point, they
can write the opposite.

EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: [0 ], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Opposite may
write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5].

: w22.png (24.84 KiB) Viewed 2627 times

Gaps has a number 2/.3/1 points: [0 ], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. They can be
otherwise write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5), [.6].

: w23.png (39.28 KiB) Viewed 2627 times

Scar · **#78** by **Scar** » Feb 21, 2013 2:55 pm

ms.srki wrote:2.7. Points the number of "2.2,2.3,2.5"
Theorem - Number (N, GN) has extended the numeric point, they
can write the opposite.

EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: [0 ], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Opposite may
write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5].

w22.png

Gaps has a number 2/.3/1 points: [0 ], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. They can be
otherwise write: [.0], [.1], [.2], [.3], [.4], [.5), [.6].

w23.png

Matthew Shute · **#79** by **Matthew Shute** » Feb 21, 2013 4:03 pm

Perhaps ms.srki's content in this thread could be merged with the "unbelievable mathematics" thread.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... t4916.html

Then rename it "indecipherable mathematics obfuscated by unintelligible English".

ms.srki · **#80** by **ms.srki** » Feb 22, 2013 2:33 pm

2.8. The opposite number "2.2,2.3,2.5,2.7"
Theorem - Numbers (N, GN) that have the same number of points
number, length becomes gap and rotation.
EVIDENCE - 4

\fbox{s} 0/.4/0 , 4s. = {4, 0/.4/0 } or 0/.4/0s.= {0/.4/0,4}.

: w24.png (21.2 KiB) Viewed 2585 times

1/.1/3

\fbox{s} 0/.1/1/.3/0 , 1/.1/3s. = {1/.1/3, 0/.1/1/.3/0} or
0/.1/1/.3/0s. ={ 0/.1/1/.3/0, 1/.1/3}

: w25.png (26.78 KiB) Viewed 2585 times

The general form of a

\fbox{s} b, as.= {a, b} or bs. = {b, a}.

A set of numbers opposing S. = {(a, b) (N, GN)}, S.n = {(a, b) (Nn, GNn)}

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