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



Number 10 produces the Galois theory #95 Specialness of 10 and 1, 10, 100, 10^3, . . 8th ed.: TRUE CALCULUS
Posted:
Dec 21, 2013 2:50 PM


Number 10 produces the Galois theory #95 Specialness of 10 and 1, 10, 100, 10^3, . . 8th ed.: TRUE CALCULUS
Alright, I do not know if Google is up and running at normal or what.
Now I was reading some history of the Quintic, and how Galois theory helps solve it. I was reading of the Cayley criterion with the Cayley resolvent of P^2  1024zdelta.
Now notice in the Grid Systems with infinity borderline, that we require three levels of higher grids in order to function in the given specified grid we are working in. In other words, to do Calculus in the 10 Grid, we require all the numbers of the 100 and 1000 Grid. So given any specified grid, say 10^7 then we need 10^8 and 10^9 in order to do the Calculus in 10^7.
Now, look at Galois theory and ask yourself, why does it need Group then Ring then Field? Each of which is a level higher than the previous. And now look at Grids, in that you need three levels in order to work in the first level.
Now why do I say that the number 10 is the number that allows Galois theory to work?
Look at the Cayley resolvent with its 1024 factor. When we take 2^10 it is 1024. Whereas 10^3 is 1000. For the quintic we have 5 and we have 2 and 2*5 = 10. For the quartic we have 2*2 = 4, and 2^4 is a mere 16, so for the quartic, we are not going to run into any sort of trouble finding the quartic roots, because the roots are below the "imposition of the number 10 with its 5*2". With the quintic we have 1024 spilling over and past the number 1000. So we are not going to get a solution to all generalized quintics.
What I am showing here is how one single number, the number 10 forms the Galois theory. It forms it in the fact that 10 and its sequence 10, 10^2 , 10^3 etc forms the only clean inverse which serves as the mathematical inductor and which contains all the numbers possible. In other words, the number 10 allows for the Galois Field to be a complete field, no missing number.
Any other system of numbers like base 2, or binary, or base 3 or base 4 etc etc, any other base cannot deliver a Complete Number list. By complete numbers, I mean every possible digit arrangement is produced by that inverse with constant adding of that inverse. In 10 Grid, every possible digit arrangement of 1 digit to the rightwards of decimal point and 1 digit leftward of decimal point is produced by the inverse of 10 as 0.1 math inductor unit.
In the binary system, it cannot produce a Complete list of numbers and thus cannot make a Galois Field theory.
The number 10 is what produces the Galois theory, of its levels group, ring, field, and of its completeness.
Have you ever seen a math professor ask himself, "why should I need a ring, why not just group and field"? Well, the same is asked of Grids with infinity border. Why not just use 1000 and 10^4 with the 10 Grid and skip over 100 grid.
Or, have you ever seen a math professor ask himself, can the binary or ternary or base 4 or other base systems yield every possible digit arrangement in that base? Of course not, for they are usually too busy chasing after the latest phony mathematics to be bothered with real math.
As it turns out, only the decimal (and sequence) base system is able to provide a Complete list of numbers from its inverse which is All Possible Digit Arrangements.
It is the unique way that 10 exists for it is the number that is composed of 1 and 0 digits only and which makes its inverse also 1 and 0 digits only, and this clean purity of just 1 and 0 allows the inverse to produce all possible digit arrangements in math induction.
This book's aim is to do True Calculus, and I did not think for the life of me, that I would be impacting Galois theory and making that theory clear also.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutoniumatomuniverse plutoniumatomuniverse@googlegroups.com
 Drexel's Math Forum has done an excellent search engine for author posts as seen here: http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Now, the only decent search for AP posts on Google Newsgroups, is a search for plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com for it brings up posts that are mostly authored by me but it brings up less than 250 posts. Whereas Drexel brings up nearly 8,000 AP posts. Old Google under Advanced Search for author, could bring up 20,000 of my authored posts but Google is deteriorating in quality of its searches.
Google web searches of AP is appalling because on 20 Dec2013 while Google had its guard down, a web search of AP revealed itself to be halfway decent in that the first ten hits showed actual science content with a large hit of Math Forum talking about superdeterminism and other topics. Trouble was, it was only temporary before the usual Google demonizing hits reappeared. A Google web search of AP is a huge list of preferred "demonizing sites" given priority over sites that do science. It is because of rogue Google employees that fixate on hatred of a person and thus add instructions to the hits to display demonization and curse words and words like "crackpot, kook, etc" that take priority over web sites that actually do science with AP. I used to think thousands of hatemongers figured out the Google display hit formula and adjusted their website with demonizing words accordingly. But better reasoning tells us that single rogue Google employee can rig a person's hits to place demonization at the front and science in the rear of the list.
Archimedes Plutonium



