Adib Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is true We apply set theory with urelements (non sets) ZFU to physical space of elementary particles; we consider locations as urelements, elements of U, in number infinite. Ui is a subset of U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinite cartesian product and a set of paths. Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary particles-locations which number is n. If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m), countable choice for k elements sets k=2 through m, the set of paths will be the void set. So, after an infinite time, physical space would become void, the universe would collapse and a Big Crunch would happen. The matter would have to go somewhere and indeed the Big Bang happened. So, n is indeed greater than m. Let us notice that physical space is infinite. It's rather complicated but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that the negation of the axiom of choice is true ? It is like the non-euclidian geometry which is known in physics as true. Regards, Adib Ben Jebara. http://jebara.topcities.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Country Boy Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is trueWe apply set theory with urelements (non sets) ZFU to physical space of elementary particles; we consider locations as urelements, elements of U, in number infinite. Ui is a subset of U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinite cartesian product and a set of paths. Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary particles-locations which number is n. If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m), countable choice for k elements sets k=2 through m, the set of paths will be the void set. So, after an infinite time, physical space would become void, the universe would collapse and a Big Crunch would happen. The matter would have to go somewhere and indeed the Big Bang happened. So, n is indeed greater than m. Let us notice that physical space is infinite. It's rather complicated but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that the negation of the axiom of choice is true ? It is like the non-euclidian geometry which is known in physics as true. Regards, Adib Ben Jebara. http://jebara.topcities.com You do understand, don't you, that once you have introduced the " physical space of elementary particles" you are no longer talking about mathematics? In any case, I cannot see how this has anything to do with the axiom of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adib Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 Mathematics are applied to physics since a long time ago. I apply the negation of the axiom of choice. Adib Ben Jebara. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Mathematics are applied to physics since a long time ago. Of course! It still is and will always be. There is no way out without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Adib, think you could latexise it? I cannot read what you wrote. =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adib Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 I don't know how to Latexize it but if you write me at adib.jebara@topnet.tn I will send it as an email. Adib Ben Jenara. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncool Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Sorry, just in general don't like giving out my e-mail. Think you could at least make your proof somewhat more formal? And to use latex, just use the [ math ] [ / math ] things without the spaces. [math]\frac{1}{2}[/math] =Uncool- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Country Boy Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Mathematics are applied to physics since a long time ago.I apply the negation of the axiom of choice. Adib Ben Jebara. Irrelevant to what I said. "Applying" the negation of the axiom of choice to physics does not prove that negation is true. One can apply an incorrect idea to a physical situation and get a true result. And you have only a very vague argument that your result is true. I might also point out that your physics is wrong. "The mass must go somewhere" is untrue. There is no reason to believe the laws of "conservation of mass" or even "conservation of mass/energy" apply either before the "big-bang" or after the "big-crunch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I still don't see what that had to do with the Axiom of Choice anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now