Date: Sep 24, 2017 1:18 PM Author: Dan Christensen Subject: Re: 0 = 1 On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 12:37:09 PM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:

> On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 5:24:12 PM UTC-4, Conway wrote:

> > On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 3:17:45 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

> > > On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 1:09:44 PM UTC-4, Conway wrote:

> > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2017 at 11:10:59 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

> > >

> > > > >

> > > > > If you cannot formally define these concepts of yours purely in terms of the symbols of logic and set theory (or some equivalent), it isn't mathematics. Do your homework if you want to be taken seriously here.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here again, as an example is a possible formal definition of the set of natural numbers:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. 0 in N

> > > > > 2. For all x in N: S(x) in N

> > > > > 3. For all x, y in N: [S(x)=S(y) => x=y]

> > > > > 4. For x in N: S(x)=/=0

> > > > > 5. For subsets P of N: [0 in P & For all x in P: [S(x) in P]

> > > > >

> > > > > From these axioms and the axioms of set theory, we can derive most if not all of modern mathematics. I'm guessing, you will probably want to include these, along some definition of you notion of spaces, dimensions and whatever.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > Dan

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps you don't remember my reply the last time you posted this table. I thanked you. I also said something to the affect that in no way does the table help. Other than to say the following...

> > > >

> > > > "For all x in N there exists two parts to x"....and so on....

> > > >

> > >

> > > So, is x an ordered pair of objects or what? You will have be more specific.

> > >

> > >

> > > > I have also stated that perhaps better definitions for space and value are yet to be achieved.

> > >

> > > You've tested the waters for your ideas here and the reaction must be discouraging for you, but you now have to decide how much time and effort you want to spend on this division-by-zero project. Either quit, or get on with the next phase of your project and come up with something more concrete.

> > >

> > >

> > > > However as Jeff points out....to "some" extent you KNOW what I mean by space and value.....

> > >

> > > I'm not just playing the silly bugger to trip you up on minor details like some pedants here are wont to do. I really have no clue what you are talking about.

> > >

> > >

> > > Dan

> > >

> > > Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com

> > > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

> >

> > Dan

> >

> > Thanks for you time. I have learned from you. I shall continue as I have.

>

> You mean, you will just keep repeating your half-baked ideas as they are and hope you will amass a huge international following without having to work out the details?

>

> As a cautionary tale, take a good look at the online careers of math failures JG, AP and WM spanning decades here and at other forums. That strategy has not worked for them. (Not suggesting you are anywhere near as toxic as JG.)

>

> You yourself have conceded that your "definitions" need some work. Do it. And apply them to at least one important theorem.

Important? OK, that may be a bit much. How about just the functionality, associativity, commutativity and cancelability of addition and multiplication on this set of 2-part numbers of yours?

> You are wasting your time here otherwise.

>

> Dan

>

> Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com

> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com