Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: 0 = 1
Posted:
Oct 5, 2017 12:10 PM


On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:29:21 PM UTC7, Mr Sawat Layuheem wrote: > ????? ?????????????? 5 ?????? ?.?. 2017 12 ?????? 25 ???? 29 ?????? UTC+7, Ross A. Finlayson ????????: > > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:59:00 PM UTC7, FromTheRafters wrote: > > > Conway pretended : > > > > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 8:41:08 PM UTC5, FromTheRafters wrote: > > > >> Ross A. Finlayson used his keyboard to write : > > > >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:42:13 PM UTC7, Conway wrote: > > > >>>> Peter > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Correct me here if I'm wrong... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This thread was over a week old with no replys... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Why did you bring it back up if nothing had changed in your opinion? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Only two scenarios exist... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1. Your just a troll > > > >>>> 2. Something I said is nagging the back of your mind....saying...he may > > > >>>> just be right. > > > >>> > > > >>> You might as well go on with your constructions > > > >>> not receiving much shall we say constructive, > > > >>> criticism. > > > >>> > > > >>> Though, you can readily expect others to understand > > > >>> their constructive content. > > > >> > > > >> I have not been fighting the idea, but it is my belief that he is > > > >> trying to 'get around' some perceived problem with zero  it being > > > >> excluded from being a denominator. I feel that the socalled problem > > > >> has already been solved via the Limit idea. > > > >> > > > >> Ingrained in my mind is the idea that numbers are values devoid of any > > > >> other thing such as he suggests like 'space'. The reason is by the > > > >> surprising (to me at the time) idea that the rationals are not > > > >> continuous. It would seem that due to the fact that denominators can be > > > >> any natural number, perhaps infinitely large, that the 'distance' (or > > > >> space?) between adjacent ones on the rational number line could be > > > >> completely filled. Their being 'discreet' values had escaped me at the > > > >> time. > > > >> > > > >> Then there are irrational numbers arrived at by algebra (such as the > > > >> squareroot of two) which must 'fit' between some two of these > > > >> previously determined rational numbers. Okay, so that surely must fill > > > >> the line up. These irrationals are algebraic and are countable. Then > > > >> there are the transcendentals, and again there must be "room" for them. > > > >> Uncountably many of them. I think that there must be no "width" to > > > >> numbers at all on the real number line. > > > >> > > > >> So bottom line: > > > >> > > > >> 1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > > > >> 2) That doesn't mean such an idea is meaningless, in fact new math is > > > >> often created while exploring things which for all intents and purposes > > > >> *seem* meaningless to others at the time they are being explored. > > > >> Euler's Totient function comes to mind here, I read somewhere that it > > > >> was considered 'a neat trick, but what good is it' by other > > > >> mathematicians of the time. It turns out to be quite useful today in > > > >> simplifying calculations reducing the 'computing cost' of encryption > > > >> related calculations. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ross > > > > > > > > I feel your post makes my point. I do not say this sarcastically or > > > > rudely....as you say > > > > > > > > > > > > "there MUST be ROOM for them all......" > > > > > > > > you however say...therefore this means numbers have NO space > > > > > > > > I however say... this means space and value are "interchangeable"...or > > > > "relative" > > > > > > > > > > > > "if it ain't broke don't fix it"...I agree > > > > > > > > but this does NOT mean > > > > > > > > "if it ain't broke don't improve upon it" > > > > > > > > there is always room for improvement > > > > > > > > as you say > > > > > > > > this all might seem pointless now...but later..... > > > > > > I'm not Ross, I was replying to Ross. I agree with Ross about you not > > > being discouraged in your explorations just because of a lack of > > > constructive criticism. > > > > This is Ross. > > > > I'd carry on with your alternating systems about numbers > > then where you can define a notation to reflect the results, > > about later having something like "equals" > > having been overloaded or "0 not equals 1". > > > > So when you describe these value spaces and comment on > > their properties it's pretty much always with a rather > > limited, direct, expressive, and correct name and notation > > in "mathematics" that it already has all its names just > > from what it is. > > > > That's not to say that anybody's paying attention, > > even though they might and have constructive criticism > > (or often and usually references to existing work). > > > > Anyways the structures have all their content then > > for example 0 to 1 etcetera. > > > > It's how they do not that they don't, then for where > > your definitions are sound when they fit with all your > > other definitions. > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? > develop points if math today not works???????????? > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=882905925197733&set=pcb.882906115197714&type=3&theater
Math today does work, but there is more than that, that also does work, finding more relations in structures that produce and reduce systems of equations.
I think SL's diagrams and points are interesting, but it is the formal presentation (presentation in forms) that is the development.
Then, about the number theory and the real analysis and geometry and as about the primes and other fundamental objects, it's amazing that they're all one mathematics. Finding fundamental and extended relations is the course.



