## Complementary Associations Theory

Hello Dear people,

In the attached address you can find A new approach for the definition of a NUMBER, which is based on the complementary
concept: http://www.geocities.com/complementa...y/CATpage.html

I'll appreciate your remarks and insights.

Thank you.

Yours,

Doron
 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Kenneth Wilson, Nobel winner for physics, dies>> Two collider research teams find evidence of new particle Zc(3900)>> Scientists make first direct images of topological insulator's edge currents

 I'll appreciate your remarks and insights.
What do I think?
Nice pic, shame about the rest!

The One[!:)]

Hi the one,

Yours,

Doron

## Complementary Associations Theory

Dear Doron,

Let me tell you that your abstract is even bound with problems... Let's dissect it, shall we?

 A and B are sets. q and p are numbers of R (the set of all real numbers).
No problem here. Maybe you should add "suppose" and change the second assumption so it becomes:

suppose A and B are sets.

suppose q and p are real numbers.

Now here lies the first problem:

 Option 1: q and p are members of A , but then q is not equal to p .
By saying "option 1", do you mean "case 1"?

Btw let me tell you that you didn't mention anywhere that p is not equal q, so we cannot say "then q is not equal to p".

Let me give you an example.

suppose q and p are real numbers.

Now, q and p can both be 7, can't they (because there are no restrictions). Which means if a set A contains p, then A contains q. That means....

q and p are members of A

Which is case 1. But they are not different! So we CANNOT conclude that

but then q is not equal to p

You should address this problem before we continue the rest. You MAY have a great and revolutionary idea (which, I'm so sorry to say that I doubt), but you need to present it in a stepwise logical manner.

Did you mean:

suppose q and p are real numbers, with p not equal q.