See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles 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
When you look at the solution below will not be clear 1. 3 + [0] 3 = 3 2. 3 + [1] 3 = 4 3. 3 + [2] 3 = 5 4. 3 + [3] 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6 5.33Rd1 (6) d2 (7) +3 = 7 6.33Rd1 (6) d2 (8) +3 = 8 7.33Rd1 (6) d2 (9) +3 = 9 8.33Rd1 (6) d2 (10) +3 = 10 9.33Rd1 (6) d2 (12) +3 = 12 (1,2,3,4) - There are many forms of addition in the set N (5,6,7,8,9) - numbers that are dynamic, where it is possible to add this
Since this is a different approach to math, different rules apply than enjoy their current math, so I was a bit harder to connect concepts, ------------ 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 along 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.
Seeing as your English is abysmal, I'd stick with mathematicians from your native country, sorry bud. We'll never get past your language barrier... and obviously language is extremely important in mathematical rigor.
Makes sense Also op. If what your talking about is real math then you'll learn it in math class. Your.probly just discovering patterns that exist in higher level math.courses. Go to school
No, he believes our current system of math is wrong, or incomplete (which no one would argue it isn't incomplete, shit's being found out perpetually). He wishes to substitute his own version of math which he thinks is more accurate. But he'll have no ability to show us why that is so because he cannot get past the language barrier. I also doubt he has somehow come to a conclusion that many many other bright mathematicians wouldn't come across themselves. I feel like OP is just esoteric, occult math.
meter is the length (standard), mine is along the natural standard natural mathematics (natural and down along the same things, so we need a base from which we start), it's what you can not prove it, other than it derives from it or evidence predecessor, my math is connected, what is the point of the concept is defined,what do you know about mathematics (numbers, arithmetic operations, functions, logic, integrals, ...) another name for the phenomenon and related geometrical objects in other geometric objects (semi-line, line, ...)
I think this thread is fantastic. I would love to hear more about this new basis for mathematics in cryptic and unintelligible English.
What I'm going to do here is attempt to identify your premises, re-write them using specific language and full sentences, and maybe comment on them. msbiljanica, if you wish to help communicate your ideas, the best way would be to confirm or deny that these are accurate representations of your premises. If any of my interpretations are incorrect, please attempt to elaborate. PREMISE 1: The metre is a standardized length It is indeed an IS measurement, correct. PREMISE 2: You have conceptualized an alternative standard measurement PREMISE 3: This alternative standardized measurement is composed of whole numbers (colloquially know as natural numbers). CONCLUSION A: In order to define and utilize an alternative standardized measurement, there needs to be a consensus on which whole numbers are used to determine the numerical base. This is where my comprehension begins to seriously break down. I will try my best. CONCLUSION B: Rational numbers are rational numbers. (yes this is both an obvious tautology and direct mathematical proof) I really can't make heads or tails of this. It's a series of fragment sentences mashed together into a run-on sentence that reference undefined prior clauses. You seem to be claiming that a duodecimal system can be represented as geometric objects and rational numbers, therefore it is preferable to base-10 numeric systems. (which also meets all of the mentioned criteia) Of course, that assumes you use the word "natural" as a colloquial reference to rational numbers. If you're using "natural" to imply philosophical naturalism... then we need to start to delve into socio-cultural philosophy as well.
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. 1.. Natural straight lines (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get straight line AD. 2.. Natural straight lines (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get straight line AE. 3.. ... Natural straight lines (AB, BC, CD, DE, ...) are connected - getting semi-line. 4.. picture (slike i formule) https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=48F411219265CF17&id=48F411219265CF17!105 ------------- Comparability of the two mathematics ( down what is given of the current mathematics) straight line - EVIDENCE ( line - Axiom) semi-line - EVIDENCE (line -Axiom )