ms.math

-If I broke some rules, then we restrict to publish your ideas here- ---------------------------------------- 2:17 Function opposite numbers "2.9,2.11,2.12,2.13,2.14,2.15, 2.16, ... " Theorem - The opposite numbers can be written in a short computation operations. EVIDENCE - 4 + [2] 3 = 5, 0/.4/0 + 2 [3] = 0/.2/3 4 + [2] 3 = 5, 0/.4/0 + 2 [3] = 0/.2/3, 4 + [2] = 0/.3/0 4/.1/1, 0/.4/0 + [2] = 0/.3/0 0/.5/0 The general form (w-(+,-,x,...)

I understand that there is no ideal mathematics, there is mathematical space in which there are geometric objects, the initial geometric objects (along the natural, real along) are axioms everything else comes from this axiom, we follow those features and phenomena (more) geometrical objects in other geometrical objects (semi-line, plane, ...), and that all things geometry in mathematics (numbers, functions, ...) When I show you my math metal processing and metalworking then we can talk about its practical application, this is a very small part of who I have reposed ... you only have a? b = c, what "?" represents the current math when there is more than one solution (c) when you connect the two triangles you can see the following (I painted them out to see what emerges) - triangle, rectangle, pentagon, ... , 12-angle in my operation of addition there are three numbers in your four numbers (no relationship to the number three, and I noted a ratio of two numbers, two operations (addition, subtraction) is just my addition (+(q)). a+(q)b=c (my) , A(a,b)=a+b-d=c ( your ) Are you now ready for revision of mathematics, or will you introduce censorship (forbidden to write to my math (to act as a church when he banned the work of Galileo Galilei )) Assuming that I am an alien, and your country that you can translate your my math, if you realize you'll realize relations (see SFI-fi series Stargate SG1, Stargate - antlantis, there are characters that go inside the alien translate science into the present, if you are sure you understand my presentation ...)

Please tell me about the meaningful questions that I answered.If you follow my presentation (one hundred), meaning that they are interested in a different approach to math, so if you decided then insert censorship and close this topic ...

2:16 opposite numbers "2.2,2.2,2.5,2.7" - "from which previous evidence proving the new concept" Theorem - The numbers have the same number of points, length becomes void and rotation. EVIDENCE - 4 [math]\fbox{s}[/math] 0/.4/0 1/.1/3 [math]\fbox{s}[/math] 0/.1/1/.3/0

2:15 gap contrary seizure Theorem - The addition of a relationship gaps where gaps together, he remains, the rest is deleted. EVIDENCE - 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [3]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [.0]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [2]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [.1]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [1]0/.1/1/.1/0=0 or 1/.2/1[math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [.2]0/.1/1/.1/0=0 1/.2/1[math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [0]0/.1/1/.1/0=0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [.3]0/.1/1/.1/0=0 The general form a[math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [q] b = c, and a[math]\fbox{-/}[/math] [. q] b = c. ! Moderator Note ms.math, I'm going to echo a few others who have posted here and ask you not to treat the forum as your own blog. You are welcome to start a blog and post whatever you like, but if you intend to post content here, you need to be aware that we have rules about soap boxing and being unresponsive to the questions asked of you. If you can't start to make any real attempts at responding to people, this thread will be closed. to any meaningful question I have to answer, I think I broke no rule

2.14, subtract Gap Theorem - The addition of a relationship gaps where gapstogether, this relationship is deleted, leaving the rest. EVIDENCE - 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [0] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.2/0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [.3] 0/.1/1/.1/0 =0/.2/0 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [1] 0/.1/1/.1/0 =0/.1/2/.1/0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [.2] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/2/.1/0 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [2] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/1/.3/0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [.1] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/1/.3/0 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [3] 0/.1/1/.1/0 =0/.1/1/.1/1/.2/0 or 1/.2/1 [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [.0] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/1/.1/1/.2/0 The general form of a [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [q] = c or a [math]\fbox{-.} [/math] [. q] = c.

I made a little better notation that my speech was clearly - PDF below (in Serbian, there will be an English translation) https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B54ITFgLFx7-Z2haRnd2cU1BZ0E

View this formula to appear numbers (for n = (1,2,3, ...))[math] \frac{Z}{10^n}[/math] , and when( [math]n \to \infty[/math]) - [math] \frac{Z}{10^{n \to \infty}}=R[/math]. Is this meaningful "current mathematics" ____________________________- 2 - which has similarities with some triangle polygon There is an angle of 180 °, they all look like a triangle, if you can indicate the quadrilateral (ABDC), pentagon (ABDCE) __________________ 2:13 Gap addition Theorem - The gap between the sums of the two gaps. EVIDENCE - 1 (.2.) 1 [math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.0) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.3.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1[math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.. 3) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.3.) 0 1 (.2.) 1 [math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.1) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1[math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.. 2) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0 1 (.2.) 1 [math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.2) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.3.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1 [math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.. 1) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.3.) 0 1 (.2.) 1 [math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.3) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1 [math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.. 0) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0 The general form a[math]\fbox{+}[/math] (. q) = c or a[math]\fbox{+}[/math] (.. q) = c

20-character my mark - 3 (.1 .) 3 (.1 .) 2 - 13 -character , my math is described with fewer characters _________________________ 1 - a triangle that has no surface - triangle ABC , angle ABC=0° , angle BCA=180° , angle CAB=0° _______________________________ 2.12 - Contrary seizure Theorem - The addition of a long relationship where together, this relationship remains (a), the rest are deleted. EVIDENCE - 3 w (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 w (.. 3) 3 = 3 3 w (.1) 3 = 2 or 3 w (.. 2) 3 = 2 3w (.2) 3 = 1 or 3 w (.. 1) 3 = 1 3 w (.3) 3 = 0 or 3 w (.. 0) 3 = 0 The general form aw (. q) b = c or aw (.. q) b = c, w-replacement surgery opposite subtraction (Figure stands)

2:11 Subtraction Theorem-The addition of a long relationship where the merged, deleted the ratio (a), the rest remains. EVIDENCE - 3 - (.0) 3 = 0 or 3 - (.. 3) 3 = 0 3 - (.1) 3 = 1 (.2.) 1 or 3 - (..2) = 1 (.2.) 1 3 - (.2) 3 = 2 (.1.) 1 or 3 - (.. 1) 3 = 2 (.1.) 1 3 - (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 - (.. 0) 3 = 6 general form a+(.q)b=c , where +(.q) the operations of addition ,I've introduced a third number that does not exist in the problem (z) x+y-z=d ,and two arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction) _____________________________________________ o see if you think like mathematicians who created the current math, it's a plane geometry: 1 - a triangle that has no surface 2 - which has similarities with some triangle polygon 3 - that triangle has angles> 180 ° __________________________________________________

a - you have along the 10m b - delete between 3m and 4m c - delete between 7m and 8 m how to write the condition (b, c) with the current math mine would be like this: b - 3m (.1 m). 6m c - 3m (.1 m.) 3m (.1 m.) 2m implementation gap numbers --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.10 comparability of gaps Theorem-gap parts of which are not (. an.) Are added to the store addition (.. 0) and compared as natural numbers. EVIDENCE - 4 (.5.) 3 followed by 4 + (.. 0) 3 = 7, a(.b.)c Followed a+ (.. 0) c = d. 6 (.5.) 2 (.4.) 3 followed by 6 + (.. 0) 2 + (.. 0) 3 = 11 , a(.b.)c(.d.)e followed by a+(.. 0) c + (.. 0) e = f 3 (.3.) 5 (.2.) 7 (.3.) 4 followed by 3 + (.. 0) + 5 (.. 0) 7 + (.. 0) 4 = 19, a(. b. ) c (. d.) e (. f) g follows a + (.. 0) c + (.. 0) e + (.. 0) g = h. ...

only meaningful answer to questions,Bignose said there is a solution "2D - Vector" but did not give an answer. _____________- 2.9 Addition Theorem-number (number of gaps) and mobile number (mobile Gap number) are in contact, the movable point number (mobile number gaps) (.0) Varies according to the number of counts (number of gaps) and connect. EVIDENCE - 3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3. 3 + (.1) 3 = 4 or 3 + (.. 2) = 4 3 + (.2) 3 = 5 or 3 + (.. 1) 3 = 5 3 + (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 + (.. 0) 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6 With this solution we get the first 4 solutions, the other will have to wait!!

2.8 comparability of natural numbers Theorem-Two (more) numbers are comparable to know Who is the greater (equal, smaller), which is the point of (.. 0) away from the numerical point of 0th EVIDENCE - Two issues: 5> 3 (item number 5 (.5) away from the point number 3 (.3)) 5 has 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 distance from point number 2 (.2) 2 less than 6 . ). (= {>, =, <}, a). (b. Three issues: a). (b). (c ...

2.7 Points of number Theorem - Number of numeric longer has a point, it could be the opposite write. EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: (.0), (.1), (.2), (.3) (.4) (.5). Opposite may write: (.. 0), (​​.. 1), (​​2 ..) (.. 3), (​​4 ..) (.. 5). Emptiness 2 (.3.) 1 has a point: (.0), (.1), (.2), (.3) (.4) (.5), (.6). can Write the opposite: (.0), (​​.. 1), (.. 2), (​​3 ..) (.. 4), (​​5 ..) (.. 6)

Please give it a nice solution "2-D vectors" , i do not know .

2.6 Moving of gap number Theorem-gap numbers can be entered and the second numerical point other than the point numeric 0 EVIDENCE-ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is gap 2 (.1.) 1 Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (5) is gap 2 (.1.) 1 Ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is gap 2 (.1.) 1 ...

look ms.math 10 September 2012 I praise you because you are pretty well understood the essence of many forms of addition (ms.math 26 September 2012) , It remains to explain what is (.0),(.1),...,(33Rd1(6)d2(12)) 2.5 Gap numbers Theorem- number and mobile number of no contact, ( number and mobile number without contact) and mobile number without con- clock, ..., in numeric longer. EVIDENCE - number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, gets a gap of 2 (.1.) 2 number 2 and number mobile 2 no contact, getting the 2 (.2.) 2 number 2 and number mobile 2 no contact, getting the gap 2 (.3.) 2 ... (number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact) and mobile number 1 no contact, getting a gap of 2 (.1.) 2 (.1.) 1 ... Gap set of numbers GN={ a |(.bn.)cn| (a, bn, cn) "belongs" N, bn> 0}

The reason is simple, the current math is based on a number of axioms (function, plane, addition, division, ...), I have given you an example (the ratio of the two polygon), which is possible in real life, but it is impossible in the current mathematics. So if you want me to continue to follow my presentation then you will realize the benefits of my mathematics or in the present, because we are now at the beginning. Here's a question for you, how much is this? Z÷(10^n)=? , calculate n=1,n=2,n=3,...,n tends to infinite

2.4 Mobile Number Theorem-Natural numbers can be specified and other numerical point other than the point numeric 0th Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2) the number 2 Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 2 Ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 2 ...

Theorem - the length between points 0 and all points (separately) on the number the longer the new relationship proof - look along the numerical We got a set of natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, ...}, example of the difference and the number of points on the number exceed: Item 5 and No. 5 are two different things, point 5 is the point number 5 is the length between points 0 and 5 points along the numerical

theorem - infinite point dc longer be replaced {(0), (0,1), ... (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), ...} circular and set position. evidence We got a new geometric object - along the numerical primes- My link

that the operation between the two polygon according to you, if not then there is something wrong with the current math theorem - two (more) natural merge in the direction of longer AB experiment (realization theorem) we get the following geometric objects 1. final (n, in Figure 1.2.3.) Along 2. infinite (n, in Figure 4.) along a one-way infinite

A different approach, a mathematical space that has two starting points (natural and realistic axiom - a natural geometric object and a real geometric object) in a mathematical space is monitored geometrical relationship between the object (function, numbers, logic equations, ..., are different names relations geometrical object). Natural geometric object - along the natural (Figure AB) point the natural properties of longer, its beginning (A) and end (B) - the current point math is not defined. Natural longer merge points. Each new geometric object should come from natural and long previous geometrical object (this is achieved by association of concepts and new concepts not as an axiom by the current math). When you look at this "addition", you will not understand, because you need to show much new to you realize 1.3 + (.0)3 = 3 2.3 +(.1)3 = 4 3.3 +(.2)3 = 5 4.3+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 if you look at the history of mathematics, you will see that the new things in math should take some time to have a practical application The following post is made to demonstrate the first evidenceo

Watch the image below. If we combine the two triangles we get different results. Triangles will be replaced with the number 3 (because triangles have three angles), the results obtained with the number as a geometric object angles. Connecting the two triangles is the mathematical operations of addition a + b = c 1.3 +3 = 3 2.3 +3 = 4 3.3 +3 = 5 4.3 +3 = 6 5.3 +3 = 7 6.3 +3 = 8 7.3 +3 = 9 8.3 +3 = 10 9.3 +3 = 12 The current mathematics has the answer (4.3 +3 = 6), it is impossible for the other, the reality is that this may be true. I'll show you a review of mathematics that solves problems, join ...