The Foundations of a Non-Naive Mathematics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the foundational concepts of a non-naive mathematical framework proposed by the user Lama, as detailed in the document "No-Naive-Math.pdf." Key axioms include the definitions of tautology, sets, multisets, and urelements, which are foundational to Lama's approach. The framework emphasizes the identity of a thing to itself and the relationship between points and segments in a mathematical context. The discussion also critiques traditional mathematical definitions, asserting that they fail to capture the complexity of real numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tautology and its implications in logic.
  • Familiarity with set theory, including concepts like sets, multisets, and singleton sets.
  • Knowledge of urelements and their role in set theory.
  • Basic comprehension of mathematical axioms and their applications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Read "No-Naive-Math.pdf" to explore Lama's axioms and definitions in detail.
  • Study the concept of tautology in depth, particularly its application in mathematical logic.
  • Investigate the differences between traditional set theory and Lama's proposed framework.
  • Examine the implications of the axiom of duality in mathematical operations and structures.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for mathematicians, logicians, and theoretical researchers interested in alternative mathematical frameworks and the foundational principles of set theory.

  • #511
So ex-xian and kaiser soze,

If you still cannot understand by reading my work that I cannot write what I write without a deep understanding of standard reasoning, then you have no ability to see beyond what you learned in your school of thought.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #512
Lama said:
So ex-xian and kaiser soze,

If you still cannot understand by reading my work that I cannot write what I write without a deep understanding of standard reasoning, then you have no ability to see beyond what you learned in your school of thought.
Prove that you have this understanding. You offered to before! Here, I'll quote you again.
Lama said:
Please demonstrate some fundamental mathematical idea, which can clearly show that I do not understand (again, not disagree with, but do not understand) its standard interpretation.
If you don't, you've just lost what little credibility you might have retained.
 
  • #513
Ex-xian,

Do you know what is a fundamental Mathematical Idea (and I do not mean to some basic techniques to prove things)?
 
Last edited:
  • #514
Do the problems, which you asked for, or admit that you can't. It's as simple as that.

A correction: the operation for the abelian group problem should have been circle addition, not addition. Addition isn't an operation for Zmodn.
 
  • #515
It seems that for every single question that is asked of Lama, he either cuts and pastes old posts or posts a link to his book. This has gone on for 26 pages, and there is no indication that it will not go on for another 26, if left on its own. Since there is no need to waste bandwidth at PF on that sort of back-and-forthing, I'm putting a stop to it now.

Here's that link again: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf

Apart from that, say goodnight to this thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
658
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
991
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K