Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A new point of view on Math language

  1. Jul 31, 2003 #1
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    FYI the links at the bottom are invisible on my browser. (Opera 6.05)
  4. Jul 31, 2003 #3
    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?
  5. Aug 1, 2003 #4
    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

    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: Aug 1, 2003
  6. Aug 1, 2003 #5
    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: Aug 1, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook