Reeanination of the Real-Line

1. Jun 9, 2004

Shemesh

Reexamination of the Real-Line

If any local R member is also a global scale factor on the entire real-line and this duality recursively defines R members, then the real-line is a fractal as I show here:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Real-Line.pdf

Please show me what are the weak points here?

Last edited: Jun 9, 2004
2. Jun 9, 2004

Shemesh

An explanation of Vacuous Truth can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuously_true#Vacuous_truths_in_mathematics

If you look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Real-Line.pdf , you can see that by this model any member (or element) of R set can be simultaneously in both states:

1) As some unique number of the real line (a unique member of R set)

2) As a global scale factor on the entire real-line, which its product is the entire real-line included in itself according to this global scale.

There is no process here but a simultaneous existence of R set on infinitely many unique scale levels of itself.

Because of this self-similarity over scales, we can understand why some segment of the real line can have the magnitude of the entire real-line.

Please understand that we are not talking about some shape of a fractal, but on the infinitely many levels of non-empty elements, which are included in R set.

It is important to stress that there is one and only one magnitude to the real line, which is not affected by its fractal nature.

Last edited: Jun 9, 2004
3. Jun 9, 2004

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
What is an "ultimative fractal" ?

No, wait, what is "ultimative" ? Or, is that German ?

4. Jun 11, 2004

matt grime

1. You've not explained what global scale factor means, just used the words again.
2. if fractals have nothing to do with it why do you keep banging on about them
3. R is an infinite set, that is all youy're saying
4. magnitude has not been defined properly, given your weird views on cardinality and lack of understanding of the usage of words in proper mathematics youy should at least try to explain what you mean, though you will fail almost surely.

5. Jun 11, 2004