Because we are talking about the magnitude of this quantity.Let's say I want to count how many photons you have. What use is knowing their energy?
Originally posted by Organic
phoenixthoth,
You know what, please write in your way how my list is constructed,
without using ... .
Can you do this for me?
Thank you.
Organic
{...,3,2,1,0}=Z*
2 2 2 2
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
v v v v
{...,1,1,1,1}<--> 1
...,1,1,1,0 <--> 2
...,1,1,0,1 <--> 3
...,1,1,0,0 <--> 4
...,1,0,1,1 <--> 5
...,1,0,1,0 <--> 6
...,1,0,0,1 <--> 7
...,1,0,0,0 <--> 8
...,0,1,1,1 <--> 9
...,0,1,1,0 <--> 10
...,0,1,0,1 <--> 11
...,0,1,0,0 <--> 12
...,0,0,1,1 <--> 13
...,0,0,1,0 <--> 14
...,0,0,0,1 <--> 15
...,0,0,0,0 <--> 16 {...,3,2,1,0}=Z*
2 2 2 2
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
v v v v
/1 <--> 1
1
/ \0 <--> 2
1
/\ /1 <--> 3
/ 0
/ \0 <--> 4
... [b]1[/b]
\ /1 <--> 5
\ [b]1[/b]
\/ \[b]0[/b] <--> 6
[b]0[/b]
\ /1 <--> 7
0
\0 <--> 8
/1 <--> 9
1
/ \0 <--> 10
[b]1[/b]
/\ /[b]1[/b] <--> 11
/ [b]0[/b]
/ \0 <--> 12
... [b]0[/b]
\ /1 <--> 13
\ 1
\/ \0 <--> 14
0
\ /1 <--> 15
0
\0 <--> 16
...The way you use () in (1+(-1))+(1+(-1))+... case, is different from the way you use () in 1+((-1)+1)+((-1)+1)+... case.three dots are not a complete list of R={0,1,...}. as i said earlier, each dot has too much information in it for that to be more than an *infinitesimal* partial list.
three dots don't work in proofs. (they only help you see. so while we may see what you see, or not, that is *not* a proof.)
proof:
let x equal 1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...
1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...=
(1+(-1))+(1+(-1))+...=
0+0+...=0.
therefore, x=0.
also, x=
1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...=
1+((-1)+1)+((-1)+1)+...=
1+0+0+...=1.
therefore, x=1.
therefore, 0=1.
therfore, if we allow three dots to be a proof then we will have to sacrifice the law of identity. do you see this? do you believe 0=1?
What do you mean by truncated?x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+... can be truncated into EITHER this:
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...
OR but NOT XOR
this:
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+...
^
0 XOR 1 = child |
/ |
/ |
father = ? redundancy
\ |
\ |
0 XOR 1 = child |
v
<--uncertainty--> /1
1
/ \0
1
/\ /1
/ 0
/ \0
... 1
\ /1
\ 1
\/ \0
0
\ /1
0
\0
/1
1
/ \0
1
/\ /1
/ 0
/ \0
... 0
\ /1
\ 1
\/ \0
0
\ /1
0
\0 1
/
1
/\
/ 0
/
... 1
\
\ 1
\/
0
\
0
1
/
1
/\
/ 0
/
... 0
\
\ 1
\/
0
\
0
... {...,3,2,1}=N
2 2 2
^ ^ ^
| | |
v v v
[b]{[/b]...,1,1,1[b]}[/b]<--> 1
...,1,1,1
...,1,1,0 <--> 2
...,1,1,0
...,1,0,1 <--> 3
...,1,0,1
...,1,0,0 <--> 4
...,1,0,0
...,0,1,1 <--> 5
...,0,1,1
...,0,1,0 <--> 6
...,0,1,0
...,0,0,1 <--> 7
...,0,0,1
...,0,0,0 <--> 8
...,0,0,0
... <---Arithmetic magnitude
{...,3,2,1,0} = Z*
2 2 2 2
^ ^ ^ ^
| | | |
v v v v
{...,[b]1-1-1-1[/b]} <--> 1 Geometric magnitude(based on the
...,1,1,1,[b]0[/b] <--> 2 | thin notations)
...,1,1,[b]0[/b]/ |
...,1,1/0, |
...,1,[b]0[/b], , |
...,1/0, , |
...,1|0, , |
...,1|0, , |
...,[b]0[/b]/ , , |
...,0, , , |
...,0, , , |
...,0, , , |
...,0, , , |
...,0, , , |
...,0, , , |
...,0, , , |
... VOriginally posted by Organic
Then why a self-evidence thing has to be proved?
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. A.M.Selvam [mailto:amselvam@eth.net]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:04 AM
To: Shadmy Doron
Subject: A new approach for the definition of a NUMBER
1 March 2004
Dear Doron Shadmi
I am indebted to you for your email dated
16 February giving references of your valuable
research work.
I find your original research work very valuable
for developing a simple unified theory with ramifications
in the numerical modeling of nonlinear dynamical
systems/processes.
Your research work would benefit many of the scientists
particularly those who are working in the area of
numerical modeling.
with best regards
yours sincerely
Dr. (Mrs.) A. Mary Selvam /1
1
/ \0
1
/\ /1
/ 0
/ \0
... 1
\ /1
\ 1
\/ \0
0
\ /1
0
\0
/1
1
/ \0
1
/\ /1
/ 0
/ \0
... 0
\ /1
\ 1
\/ \0
0
\ /1
0
\0
... /1
1
/ \0
1
/\ /1
/ 0
/ \0
... 1
\ /1
\ 1
\/ \0
0
\ /1
0
\0
/1
1
/ \0
1
/\ /1
/ 0
/ \0
... 0
\ /1
\ 1
\/ \0
0
\ /1
0
\0
...