ms.math

[Mellinia]

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 ...

 

Ms. you have confused yourself with pictures and math. When I take 1+1, I will always get two. You put two triangles on top of each other, and you still end up with two triangles. The problem is what you see.

[ms.math]

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

 

 

...

[StringJunky]

ms.math

 

You are soapboxing your ideas onto us.

 

From the rules:

 

8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

[Unity+]

Nope. No matter how I squint or let my eyes drift out of focus, all I see are a bunch of triangles.

Can't tell if sarcasm or just being very, very....nevermind.

 

Anyways, it seems like it could work, but you have to test it over and over to make sure it is a good process.

 

 

[ms.math]

ms.math

 

You are soapboxing your ideas onto us.

 

From the rules:

 

8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

 

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!!

[Bignose]

only meaningful answer to questions,

 

Heck, I don't even have to invoke 2-D vectors to replicate what you are doing there. Well-defined functions would just fine.

 

Replace "3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3." with A(x, y) = x + y -3

 

Replace "3 + (.1) 3 = 4 or 3 + (.. 2) = 4" with B(x, y) = x + y - 2

 

Replace "3 + (.2) 3 = 5 or 3 + (.. 1) 3 = 5" with C(x, y) = x + y - 1

 

Replace "3 + (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 + (.. 0) 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6" with D(x, y) = x + y

 

This is essentially what you are doing anyway... replacing the + operator with a combination of my A, B, C, D functions above. You dot and double-dot notation could just as easily be replaced with A, B, C, D.

 

Lastly, considering your quote that you only reply to "meaningful questions" ... I'd actually like one from my very first reply in this thread answered.

 

Namely, how is this an improvement over the tried an true? Instead of the tried and true addition operator, how is replacing it with some number of dots and an additional digit an improvement?

 

And then secondly, is there any practical application?

 

And THEN, will you retract your statement about how this is impossible in current mathematics? Because now I've provided at least two methods with the current mathematics that shows it can be done...

[ms.math]

And then secondly, is there any practical application?

 

 

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 (. a_n.) 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.

...

[Bignose]

 

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

 

 

[math] x \in (0,3) \cup (4,7) \cup (8,10)[/math]

 

easy enough. Set theory is a fairly rich field, and handles situations like this pretty easily.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Bignose

[Amaton]

[math] x \in (0,3) \cup (4,7) \cup (8,10)[/math]

 

easy enough. Set theory is a fairly rich field, and handles situations like this pretty easily.

 

You can also use the equivalent interval notation.

 

So far, I don't see anything in this post's content that the standard approaches can't do better.

 

In the case of the 10m number line, we can simply apply coordinates and use algebra to derive anything we need to solve for.

 

In my opinion, this new notation and methodology rather obscures and over-complicates what can already be worked easily.

[ms.math]

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

Replace "3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3." with A(x, y) = x + y -3

Replace "3 + (.1) 3 = 4 or 3 + (.. 2) = 4" with B(x, y) = x + y - 2

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 °

__________________________________________________

Edited December 12, 2012 by ms.math

[ms.math]

 

[math] x \in (0,3) \cup (4,7) \cup (8,10)[/math]

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)

[Bignose]

20-character

my mark - 3 (.1 .) 3 (.1 .) 2 - 13 -character , my math is described with fewer characters

 

You never challenged me to write in fewer characters. You told me that the 'current math' couldn't write it. Which is blatantly wrong. Your ignorance of the 'current math' doesn't mean that you can claim things which it cannot do. Are you going to retract the statements about how the current math can't do this yet?

 

Now, are you going to quit treating this forum like your personal blog? Or are you going to answer some of the really meaningful questions that were asked of you at the top of the thread? Like what practical applications do you have?

[ms.math]

 

Or are you going to answer some of the really meaningful questions that were asked of you at the top of the thread?

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

[ms.math]

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

[ms.math]

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.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

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.

[ms.math]

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

[ms.math]

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

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to decide whether or not you've broken the rules. Members here have asked you questions, so I suggest you go back and answer them.

[ms.math]

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to decide whether or not you've broken the rules. Members here have asked you questions, so I suggest you go back and answer them.

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 ...

[hypervalent_iodine]

Or you could go back and read the thread yourself. However, since you seem incapable of doing so:

 

So, then, why aren't you trying to explain it better so that we will understand?

Are you going to have a meaningful conversation? Demonstrate some way in which this new math can be used? Address some of the questions raised?

You did attempt to address the above concern by answering the question of another member; I posted it because it was not answered sufficiently, as seen in the following dialogue:

 

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.

I must have missed this. All I've seen is seemingly random posting. Can you please, in explicit detail, show what you have calculated that is 'impossible' in current mathematics?

 

 

 

 

You then tried to respond to this by telling Bignose to go back and read the OP, as if his criticisms were born out of thin air. Again, not an acceptable way to respond to someone genuinely trying to figure out what you're trying to achieve.

 

He then posted this:

 

 

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

Start at the back third of most any university level college calculus text, as well as http://www.amazon.com/Div-Grad-Curl-All-That/dp/0393925161/ will give you a good start on vectors.

 

Vectors is a very, very wide field, and I am not going to type it all into this forum. Once you learn the above, you will learn that you can use operators on a vector or group of vectors and be able to re-create the pictures you posted. Specifically, translation, rotation, and possibly dilation operators.

 

Have you seen one of those video games with advanced graphics? To render them, the GPU is constantly applying operators to vectors to create those images.

 

 

 

Which you promptly ignored. This was followed by a post from Melina:

 

 

 

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 ...

Ms. you have confused yourself with pictures and math. When I take 1+1, I will always get two. You put two triangles on top of each other, and you still end up with two triangles. The problem is what you see.

 

 

 

Which was also ignored.

 

You then claimed that the only 'meaningful response' was from Bignose, who claimed that he could easily replicate your diagrams with 2D vectors, but that he hadn't given a solution )and so you continued to soapbox). What he actually told you that it was too much to go into on a forum and instead directed you to sources to learn for yourself (ignored by you). This prompted the following:

 

 

 

Heck, I don't even have to invoke 2-D vectors to replicate what you are doing there. Well-defined functions would just fine.

 

Replace "3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3." with A(x, y) = x + y -3

 

Replace "3 + (.1) 3 = 4 or 3 + (.. 2) = 4" with B(x, y) = x + y - 2

 

Replace "3 + (.2) 3 = 5 or 3 + (.. 1) 3 = 5" with C(x, y) = x + y - 1

 

Replace "3 + (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 + (.. 0) 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6" with D(x, y) = x + y

 

This is essentially what you are doing anyway... replacing the + operator with a combination of my A, B, C, D functions above. You dot and double-dot notation could just as easily be replaced with A, B, C, D.

 

Lastly, considering your quote that you only reply to "meaningful questions" ... I'd actually like one from my very first reply in this thread answered.

 

Namely, how is this an improvement over the tried an true? Instead of the tried and true addition operator, how is replacing it with some number of dots and an additional digit an improvement?

 

And then secondly, is there any practical application?

 

And THEN, will you retract your statement about how this is impossible in current mathematics? Because now I've provided at least two methods with the current mathematics that shows it can be done...

You again tried to address the bolded section, while ignoring the rest of it, but this was refuted in the next post by Bignose, who was able to describe your example using existing mathematics.

 

!

Moderator Note

The tl;dr of it is this: people have shown you that what you are trying to illustrate here can already be done and done better by preexisting methodology. You have been asked numerous times to show where your solution can be used where those that already exist cannot. I'll grant you that you genuinely did try to answer that question once, however the single time you actually tried to answer that question, it was shown that your example could easily be solved without the need to resort to your solution. You have yet to address that (claiming that your solution has fewer characters doesn't count and isn't relevant, just FYI) and you have yet to address how the math shown in your OP is in any way useful.

 

Before you decide to post more of your math here, you need to address what I've quoted in this post and address it properly. That means you don't get to tell people to go back and read the OP; the people responding to your post and engaging in your thread have quite obviously done that.

 

Last chance.

 

[ms.math]

Bignose, on 26 Sept 2012 - 23:32, said:

So, then, why aren't you trying to explain it better so that we will understand?

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, ...)

 

 

 

Bignose, on 30 Oct 2012 - 00:20, said:

 

Are you going to have a meaningful conversation? Demonstrate some way in which this new math can be used? Address some of the questions raised?

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 ...

 

 

Bignose, on 31 Oct 2012 - 23:31, said:

 

 

ms.math, on 31 Oct 2012 - 19:54, said:

 

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.

I must have missed this. All I've seen is seemingly random posting. Can you please, in explicit detail, show what you have calculated that is 'impossible' in current mathematics?

you only have a? b = c, what "?" represents the current math when there is more than one solution (c)

 

 

Ms. you have confused yourself with pictures and math. When I take 1+1, I will always get two. You put two triangles on top of each other, and you still end up with two triangles. The problem is what you see.

when you connect the two triangles you can see the following (I painted them out to see what emerges) - triangle, rectangle, pentagon, ... , 12-angle

 

 

 

Bignose, on 23 Nov 2012 - 06:05, said:

 

 

Heck, I don't even have to invoke 2-D vectors to replicate what you are doing there. Well-defined functions would just fine.

 

Replace "3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3." with A(x, y) = x + y -3...

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 ...)

[hypervalent_iodine]

You are not Galileo and this is not the church, it's a privately owned and operated forum. If you want to post your ideas and not have to respond to criticism or questions, start a blog. If you insist on posting here, then we have to insist that you follow the rules like everyone else. If you wish to respond to moderator notes or other staff actions, please use the report feature or PM someone.

[Phi for All]

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 ))

Perfect! Could you now mention something about the Nobel prize you'll be winning shortly? No pressure, but it would really help me out.

[Bignose]

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 ...)

Wow. This is really your reply? To the person who has been the most interactive with you about it? All I have been doing is asking questions, and trying to correct false statements -- e.g. 'this can't be done in the current mathematics'. I actually was trying to help you think about how to present your idea further in order to make it more clear.

 

And then, ultimately, asking you to follow the rules of this forum is not 'censorship'. It IS asking you to follow the rules you specifically agreed to when you chose to join this forum. Enforcing rules =/= censorship. Furthermore, you don't have any rights to post anything you want here. In fact, none of us do except the site owner. If you want that right, you need to start your own website. Then YOU can post whatever YOU want, and enforce the rules there however YOU want.