The Foundations of a Non-Naive Mathematics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the foundational concepts of a proposed non-naive mathematical framework, as presented by the original poster. It includes definitions of mathematical objects such as sets, multisets, and axioms that govern their relationships and properties. The scope encompasses theoretical exploration of mathematical structures and their implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster introduces a set of axioms defining concepts such as tautology, sets, multisets, and urelements, emphasizing their foundational roles in the proposed framework.
  • Some participants discuss the duality concept, suggesting that each element of the Real-Line possesses both local and global properties.
  • There is a claim that a point can only be defined using equality, while a segment can be defined using inequalities or equality, indicating a distinction between these two building blocks.
  • Participants explore the implications of the axioms of independence, complementarity, and minimal structure on the understanding of mathematical objects.
  • Some participants propose that the Real-Line exhibits properties of both absolute and relative systems, influenced by the definitions of points and segments.
  • There are references to graphical models and diagrams that are suggested as aids for understanding the proposed concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various interpretations of the axioms and concepts, indicating that multiple competing views remain. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the definitions or implications of the proposed framework.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex definitions and relationships that may depend on specific interpretations of terms such as "tautology," "set," and "urelement." Some mathematical steps and assumptions are not fully resolved, leaving room for further exploration.

  • #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 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · 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
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K