Mathematics - a new basis

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I would then have to ask you, what is your definition of "0" and "1"?

Number 0 - ratio (length) numeric point 0 and numeric point 0,
Number 1 - ratio (length) numeric point 0 and numeric point 1.
...

now apply my rules are different than the current math (no more axiomatic, but the evidence)

There are 2 things wrong with it.
1. You have not defined anything, stating that 0 is 0 and that 1 is 1 hasn't told me anything about 1 or 0.
Is 0=1? What is 2? How do you distinguish 2 form 1 or 0? What are the rules that relate this entities? If I have a unknown number "a", what do I have to look for to tell if that number is "0" or "1"?

2. There is no such thing has math without axiom's. Gà¶del's incompleteness theorem has demonstrated us that.
No only could you not have a math without axioms, you can create a completely different form of math which is governed by different rules depending on the axioms you happen to choose.

 

[ms.srki]

1. You have not defined anything, stating that 0 is 0 and that 1 is 1 hasn't told me anything about 1 or 0.
Is 0=1? What is 2? How do you distinguish 2 form 1 or 0? What are the rules that relate this entities? If I have a unknown number "a", what do I have to look for to tell if that number is "0" or "1"?

2.2 Numeral along, numeric point "2.1" ,
2.3 Natural numbers "2.2"
Number 0 - ratio (length) numeric point 0 and numeric point 0,
Number 1 - ratio (length) numeric point 0 and numeric point 1.
...
numerical point of a geometrical object along the numerical
number is the ratio of (length) between two numerical points
natural numbers are all the features of the numerical points (0) and all numeric points (0,1,2,3,4,5, ...)
-------------------
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

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYZ2NiS0VyUWNURUk/edit

Ratio (length) numerical point (1) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 2

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYemdsWURxSTRUQUE/edit

Ratio (length) numerical point (2) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 2


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYMy1YMlRTSUZpeWM/edit
...
A set of mobile numbers Nn = {[n]N}

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

1. You have not defined anything, stating that 0 is 0 and that 1 is 1 hasn't told me anything about 1 or 0.
Is 0=1? What is 2? How do you distinguish 2 form 1 or 0? What are the rules that relate this entities? If I have a unknown number "a", what do I have to look for to tell if that number is "0" or "1"?

2.2 Numeral along, numeric point "2.1" ,
2.3 Natural numbers "2.2"
Number 0 - ratio (length) numeric point 0 and numeric point 0,
Number 1 - ratio (length) numeric point 0 and numeric point 1.
...
numerical point of a geometrical object along the numerical
number is the ratio of (length) between two numerical points
natural numbers are all the features of the numerical points (0) and all numeric points (0,1,2,3,4,5, ...)

You haven't answered the question, you are just repeating yourself.

Can I ask you to get on with it, and just present everything you have on this so I can pass judgement?

 

[ms.srki]

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.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYSmlGVEdPMU4xMlE/edit?usp=sharing

natural number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, you get the number of gaps 2/.2/2.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYNVdXb3hDUzZoQ2s/edit?usp=sharing

natural number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, you get the number of gaps 2/.3/2.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYb1VJeVlfS3A4dG8/edit?usp=sharing
...
(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/0BzkWG0xdRpPYcWYzN05RdGNvRnM/edit?usp=sharing
...
Set gap number G[sub]N[/sub]={a|/.b[sub]n[/sub]/c[sub]n[/sub]|(a,b[sub]n[/sub],c[sub]n[/sub])\inN,b[sub]n[/sub]>0}

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

He won't coherently answer your questions, because he is using Google Translator from his native language - Serbian - to English.

In his terms: "I have given a task that can not be solved by current math, my math is based on the phenomenon and related geometrical object in another geometric object (numbers, functions, arithmetic operations, ... are other names for related geometrical object)".

Quite simply, he's been posting this nonsense over many different forums, copy-pasting the exact same things, and he never bothers to explain anything. Usually what seems to have happened is the thread closing, which I foresee happening here.

 

[ms.srki]

He won't coherently answer your questions, because he is using Google Translator from his native language - Serbian - to English.

In his terms: "I have given a task that can not be solved by current math, my math is based on the phenomenon and related geometrical object in another geometric object (numbers, functions, arithmetic operations, ... are other names for related geometrical object)".

Quite simply, he's been posting this nonsense over many different forums, copy-pasting the exact same things, and he never bothers to explain anything. Usually what seems to have happened is the thread closing, which I foresee happening here.

If you have pictures and descriptions are not clear, I can not help you if you do not connect concepts and realizes it's up to you.
-----------
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.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYTjJUeVc1ZjhOdDg/edit?usp=sharing

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

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYOG5GUW04OHBMTmc/edit?usp=sharing

ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is
2/.1/1 number of gap.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYZHpSVkdwdzhNc0U/edit?usp=sharing
...
A set of mobile numbers gap GNn= {[n]GN}

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is nonsense. I will give you one last shot at presenting your point or else I'm out.

 

[ms.srki]

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].

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYY3pyajJWYzBVSWs/edit?usp=sharing

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].

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYQzlhN2htWXpLYW8/edit?usp=sharing

 

[ms.srki]

2.8. The opposite number "2.2,2.3,2.5,2.7"
Theorem - Numbers (N, G[sub]N[/sub]) that have the same number of points
number, length becomes gap and rotation.
EVIDENCE - 4 s 0/.4/0 , 4s. = {4, 0/.4/0 } or 0/.4/0s.= {0/.4/0,4}.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYUVVuM3hEQnY3X0E/edit?usp=sharing

1/.1/3 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}

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYS2sxdHo2NWxvdUE/edit?usp=sharing

The general form of a s b. a[sub]s.[/sub]= {a, b} or b[sub]s.[/sub] = {b, a}. ( s -s in the box )

A set of numbers opposing S. = {(a, b) \in(N, G[sub]N[/sub])}, S.n = {(a, b) \in (Nn, G[sub]Nn[/sub])}

 

[ms.srki]

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)).

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYckY2R21NcHp5NWM/edit?usp=sharing

...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Your, posts are incoherent. Your definitions are circular. Your math is wrong. Your understanding of math is of a 12 y.o. Your notation is incomprehensible. You do not care to address the points. You might as well just stop posting because...

 

[ms.srki]

2:10 Adding "2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.7,2.8"
Theorem - Number (N, G[sub]N[/sub], S.) and number (Nn, G[sub]Nn[/sub], 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.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYSDE0MXU1MkI2U0k/edit?usp=sharing
3 + [1] 3 = 4 or 3 + [.2] 3 = 4
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYY1J0VHphTTZUNnc/edit?usp=sharing
3+[2]3=5 or 3+[1]3=5
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYOVNPSG9vRGIyQTQ/edit?usp=sharing
3+[3]3=6 or3+[.0]3=6 ili 3+3=6.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYeTQ5ME1hNjhWRE0/edit?usp=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/0BzkWG0xdRpPYUTgtdXFTcERlTDA/edit?usp=sharing

This is the solution to start fasting
3+[0]3=3
3+[1]3=4
3+[2]3=5
3+[3]3=6

 

[australopithecus]

At this point you're just telling us that 3 + 3 = 6, whilst ignoring your critics. I realiseand predicted that trying to communicate with us via a translation to was going to be a bad idea, and I was proven right.

Unless you at least try to draw up some meaningful replies to MGK, or anyone else, I'm going to have to call time on this thread.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is the solution to start fasting
3+[0]3=3
3+[1]3=4
3+[2]3=5
3+[3]3=6

So you are done?
I will destroy you math in less than 3 seconds.
A'+'C=A*0+B+C= B+C

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

ms.srki, have you submitted a paper on this for peer-review yet?

If not, why not?

And what do you hope to accomplish posting it here, if not elsewhere?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ms.srki]

Greetings,

ms.srki, have you submitted a paper on this for peer-review yet?

If not, why not?

And what do you hope to accomplish posting it here, if not elsewhere?

Kindest regards,

James

I have sent papers to "respectable journals", they will not publish,
look at this work and rate it

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYVTZxVThoUkJlRWs/edit?usp=sharing

I want to meet as many people to know my math ...

and the one who understands realize that my ideal math (you get to know all aspects of it, because this is just the beginning)

 

[Laurens]

I have sent papers to "respectable journals", they will not publish,

I think this might be a hint for you to find something better to do with your time.

I don't really understand this thread. But, it seems that you're not making an awful lot of sense. Whilst it is commendable to try to think about things differently, and approach ideas from different angles; not all angles turn out to be meaningful or worthwhile. Maybe consider putting your thoughts to a different problem, or idea.

 

[ms.srki]

2:11 comparability G[sub]N[/sub] number "2.10"
Theorem - Parts of gaps that are not /. a[sub]n[/sub] / 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 .

...

 

[australopithecus]

Are you actually going to address the criticism or are you just going to spam?