1+1=2 and hypothesis

[philipishin]

Every equation of the relativity is just the way to understand through to solve one question of math.

1+1=2 step by step.

And we just add the feeling into the equation as the hypothesis.

I hope to make a big new theory without the relativity.

The number is just enough now.

Maybe another thing would happen as we understand the way through the math in logical way.

The experience is just in the way of the math problem, again too.

[ajb]

Every equation of the relativity is just the way to understand through to solve one question of math. 1+1=2 step by step.

This is true. We have to understand the mathematics carefully before we can really look for physical interpretations, this is the case with all theories.

 

And we just add the feeling into the equation as the hypothesis.

So I would call this an interpretation, some description of what is going on in physical terms that hopefully helps us understand what is going on. This should of course all be links with comparisons of the predictions of the theory and experimental results.

 

I hope to make a big new theory without the relativity.

Without Einsteinian relativity? Good luck. One important aspect of any such theory is how in some limit you do recover special and/or general relativity. All serious theories that I know of like this are those that contain "small" anomalies or other very small violations. This would explain why we have not seen such violations in nature. You will have to search the literature for estimates on the permitted level of such violations.

 

Maybe another thing would happen as we understand the way through the math in logical way. The experience is just in the way of the math problem, again too.

Almost for sure. As you build and develop ideas, new and unforeseen directions of research will emerge. This is almost always the case. The initial ideas grow and "mutate" into things not always so close to the original idea. Well, that is my experience anyway.

[philipishin]

Study after experience.

 

You need to study the number formula at the school before you experience your own way to count the number. And then you can explain your number for you.

[Mordred]

Study after experience.

 

You need to study the number formula at the school before you experience your own way to count the number. And then you can explain your number for you.

 

I'm sure I'm not reading what you mean correctly considering that AJB is an assistant professor at the Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Acadamy of Sciences at Warsaw. As I seriously doubt my interpretation of this post

 

so I'd say he has definitely studied the number system. Can you explain in more clarity what your meaning is?

Edited July 19, 2014 by Mordred

[Acme]

Every equation of the relativity is just the way to understand through to solve one question of math.

1+1=2 step by step. ...

Russell & Whitehead did it in more-or-less 86 pages.

Principia Mathematica

##"From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2." Volume I, 1st edition, page 379 (page 362 in 2nd edition; page 360 in abridged version). (The proof is actually completed in Volume II, 1st edition, page 86, accompanied by the comment, "The above proposition is occasionally useful.") ...

Alas, Gödel showed their system was incomplete. Therefore, 1+1=2 may not be sufficient for solving every equation/proposition of relativity.

In his 1944 Russell's mathematical logic, Gödel offers a "critical but sympathetic discussion of the logicistic order of ideas":[22]

"It is to be regretted that this first comprehensive and thorough-going presentation of a mathematical logic and the derivation of mathematics from it [is] so greatly lacking in formal precision in the foundations (contained in *1-*21 of Principia) that it represents in this respect a considerable step backwards as compared with Frege. What is missing, above all, is a precise statement of the syntax of the formalism. Syntactical considerations are omitted even in cases where they are necessary for the cogency of the proofs . . . The matter is especially doubtful for the rule of substitution and of replacing defined symbols by their definiens . . . it is chiefly the rule of substitution which would have to be proved" (Gödel 1944:124)[23]

[ajb]

I am at a bit of a loss as to what philipishin wants to disucss here. I expect the language is not helping with the clarity of the posts.

 

@philipishin so try again, what is it you would like to disucss with the people here?

[philipishin]

It means 1+1=2 step by step.

It is logic to figure out all of the math problem.

All math is by 1+1=2.

 

Using this, An infinite series are two ways.

Block number existing as they are to repeat,

or all of them are Zero as the standard logic.(=no denominator as zero.)

[studiot]

 

It means 1+1=2 step by step.

 

Sometimes, but not always.

For example see post#4 Rule 4

here, where 1+1=1

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84417-boolean-equation-truth-table/

 

 

All math is by 1+1=2.

 

There are other principles and processes.

 

For example

 

"The triangle is the smallest closed polygon."

 

"The Hairy Ball Theorem"

 

etc

Edited July 22, 2014 by studiot

[Strange]

It means 1+1=2 step by step.

It is logic to figure out all of the math problem.

All math is by 1+1=2.

 

Are you referring to the set-theoretical definition of the natural numbers? Or the Peano axioms?

 

Not all mathematics can be defined in terms of integer addition.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Strange

[ajb]

It means 1+1=2 step by step.

It is logic to figure out all of the math problem.

All math is by 1+1=2.

I don't think everything can simply be reduced to 1+1 =2. Anyway, to prove this you need some starting axioms. Maybe you want a set theoretical argument or start from the Peano axioms (as Strange suggests). Either way, proving 1+1 =2 can be done, but for me it is not very interesting. Have fun with it.

[philipishin]

The puzzle for physics and chemistry

 

We can work on freely as Time machine, if it fits on 100% formula.

1. All atoms make the molecule as puzzle.

2. We can do the math for the physics formula as KG*M/SEC

 

If the math meaning equals with the physics formula by itself, than it is 100% as time machine formula to understand it perfectly. So the math is just the method to explain the physics formula.

 

But I believe that the math theory would be the 100% physics formula, so it is the perfect world, someday. I hope to be it.

[ajb]

So the math is just the method to explain the physics formula.

Mathematics is of course also the method to write the formula.

 

 

 

I am still at a loss as to what you really want to discuss here. It could just be a language problem and something is getting lost in translation.