A new point of view on Math language

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doron Shadmi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Language Point
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a new perspective on mathematical language and concepts, exploring the relationships between ideas in mathematics, particularly focusing on the notions of consistency, oppositional concepts, and the implications of these relationships on mathematical understanding. The scope includes theoretical considerations and conceptual exploration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that human perception of the world is relational, which may influence mathematical understanding.
  • One participant argues that in mathematics, there is no absolute right or wrong, only consistent or inconsistent systems.
  • A claim is made that an inconsistent system is not necessarily "wrong" but lacks interest, as it allows for proving anything without limitations.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes the importance of defining relationships between concepts and their opposites to avoid creating closed systems in mathematics.
  • One participant introduces a framework involving complementary concepts, suggesting that understanding structure may provide more information than merely considering quantity.
  • Specific mathematical expressions are presented, such as the relationship between power, emptiness, continuum, and discreteness, indicating a complex interplay of these ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of mathematical concepts and their relationships, with no clear consensus reached on the validity of the proposed ideas or frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on specific definitions of mathematical concepts that may not be universally accepted, and the discussion includes unresolved mathematical expressions and relationships.

Physics news on Phys.org
FYI the links at the bottom are invisible on my browser. (Opera 6.05)
 
I'm no mathematician, but it seems like the fundamental idea here is that we humans tend to see the world in relation to other things, that is we define the degree of something based on what we know of something else when there is no absolute wrong or right and I'm guessing that this tendency for a discreet world view is a part of math?
 
Hi Jammieg,

In Math there is no right or wrong.

All we can know is if some system is consistent or inconsistent.

An inconsistent system is not "wrong" but not interesting,
because through inconsistent system you can prove anything
without any limitations.

My fundamental idea is that if we use some concept in our system,
first of all we have to find and define its relations with its
opposite concept, otherwise our system is closed on itself under
one concept, and we lost our ability to explore this fundamental
concept.

In this case we can build an inconsistent system without even
knowing this.

I think that our abilities to find and define opposite concepts,
and the verity of the relations (if exist) between them, Is one of the most powerful tools that was developed through the evolution process.

Another thing is that no one (including mathematicians) wants
to change its familiar concepts or terms, but I think that if we
(again) learn from the evolution process, we find that in addition
to the variety concept (different axiomatic systems)
we have the mutation concept (changing familiar concepts or tems).



In my work I show two levels of complementary concepts by using
the set idea:

Power 0 = The simplest level of some set's content

Emptiness = Esim (sim for simplicity) = {} = 0 (without power symbol)

Continuum = Csim = {__} = 0^0

Discreteness = Dsim = {...} = Infinity many elements^0



Complementary Level A:

Content does not exit = {} = 0 <--> Content exists = ({__}~={...}) = 1
and level A is phase transition between 0(=on content) to 1(=content).


Complementary Level B:

{__} <--> {...}



By defining the relations between the above concepts, we find that the structure concept has more interesting information than the quantity concept because:

0^0 = infi^0 = 1 = content exists

and we can't distinguish between the contents by the quantity concept.


But it can be done by the structure concept because:

{__}~={...}

and we can learn that the structure concept has more information than the quantity concept.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Hurkyl,

Please use Windows Explorer-like browser.

My pdf file is bigger than the limitations of this forum, sorry.

(if it doesn't help please look at the private message that I
sent to you)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 176 ·
6
Replies
176
Views
22K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 211 ·
8
Replies
211
Views
25K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
11K