Originally 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
...If each notation represents more then one value then there is a difference between those trees (finite of infinte).Can you tell which one is which? I can't.
{...,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, , , |
... V /[b]1[/b]_1
[b]1[/b]_2
/ \[b]0[/b]_1
[b]1[/b]_4
/\ /[b]1[/b]_1
/ [b]0[/b]_2
/ \[b]0[/b]_1
... [b]1[/b]_8
\ /[b]1[/b]_1
\ [b]1[/b]_2
\/ \[b]0[/b]_1
[b]0[/b]_4
\ /[b]1[/b]_1
[b]0[/b]_2
\[b]0[/b]_1
/[b]1[/b]_1
[b]1[/b]_2
/ \[b]0[/b]_1
[b]1[/b]_4
/\ /[b]1[/b]_1
/ [b]0[/b]_2
/ \[b]0[/b]_1
... [b]0[/b]_8
\ /[b]1[/b]_1
\ [b]1[/b]_2
\/ \[b]0[/b]_1
[b]0[/b]_4
\ /[b]1[/b]_1
[b]0[/b]_2
\[b]0[/b]_1
... /[b]1[/b]_2
[b]1[/b]_4
/ \[b]0[/b]_2
[b]1[/b]_8
/\ /[b]1[/b]_2
/ [b]0[/b]_4
/ \[b]0[/b]_2
... [b]1[/b]_16
\ /[b]1[/b]_2
\ [b]1[/b]_4
\/ \[b]0[/b]_2
[b]0[/b]_8
\ /[b]1[/b]_2
[b]0[/b]_4
\[b]0[/b]_2
/[b]1[/b]_2
[b]1[/b]_4
/ \[b]0[/b]_2
[b]1[/b]_8
/\ /[b]1[/b]_2
/ [b]0[/b]_4
/ \[b]0[/b]_2
... [b]0[/b]_16
\ /[b]1[/b]_2
\ [b]1[/b]_4
\/ \[b]0[/b]_2
[b]0[/b]_8
\ /[b]1[/b]_2
[b]0[/b]_4
\[b]0[/b]_2
...What is the connection between not ignoring the structural propertyThis is why I think your approach is fundamentally flawed. You are focusing so hard on answering the question "What are these things?", but the question is irrelevant!
What is the connection between not ignoring the structural property
of the natural numbers and the question "What are these things?"
If both RT AND LF are in C, then C must be a finite set.
if RT AND LF are in C AND C is a non-finite set, then the structural property of our information ... collapsed into itself ... and cannot be used as an input by Math language
Therefore the expression 2^aleph0 cannot exist and we cannot construct the transfinite universes.
I did more then thet, it can be found here:Exercise: try defining "structural property" without making any reference to what a natural number "is".
You cannot translate my ideas by your mathematical tools, because you ignore the information structure of the Binary tree as irrelevant to you, and looking only on its quantitative "shadow" that falling on the "real line".Or, if I may try and translate into Organic-speak:
If P causes our information to collapse, then P cannot be true.
So you did not understand me then:And how does 2^aleph0 relate to anything above this statement in your post?