Complementary Associations Theory

[Doron Shadmi]

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

 

[Doron Shadmi]

Hi the one,

..., shame about the rest!

Please be more specific.

Yours,

Doron

 

[agro]

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.

Please reply

Thank you