# 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/complementarytheory/CATpage.html

I'll appreciate your remarks and insights.

Thank you.

Yours,

Doron

The One
Nice pic

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

The One

Hi the one,

Yours,

Doron

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.