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
The discussion presents a new perspective on mathematical language, emphasizing that mathematics lacks absolute right or wrong answers, focusing instead on the consistency of systems. It argues that understanding the relationships between concepts and their opposites is crucial for exploring mathematical ideas, as closed systems can lead to inconsistencies. The author introduces two levels of complementary concepts using set theory, highlighting the importance of structure over quantity in defining mathematical content. The conversation also touches on the reluctance to change familiar mathematical terms and concepts, suggesting that evolution in thought is necessary for deeper understanding. Overall, the dialogue encourages a reevaluation of how mathematical concepts are defined and related.
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:
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 176 ·
6
Replies
176
Views
21K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 211 ·
8
Replies
211
Views
24K
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
678