The Foundations of a Non-Naive Mathematics

[sparkster]

Please give your detailed explanation why do you think it is wrong?

See my edit. Also, I find that you saying that your fractal analogy is better or less abstract than a rigorous mathematical proof to be absurd in the highest degree.

 

[Hurkyl]

Are you relied upon by employers and applicants alike to certify you know what you claim to know? And you do realize there's a difference between being forced to pass examination to receive a diploma and having ideas forced on you?

Can you please show how I force you to agree with me?

You refuse to participate in a discussion that don't involve your ideas, and when you were allowed to post in the math forum, you attempted several times to take over threads where mathematics was being discussed.

If we use a structural point of view in this case, then 0.9999... is a one dimensional path of a base 10 fractal, that exists upon infinitely many scale levels that cannot reach 1.

0.999... is not a "one dimensional path". You've provided no definition of terms "base 10 fractal", "infinitely many scale levels". And obviously, since there is no definition available for these terms, you obviously cannot know that it "cannot reach 1".

Also we can say that 0.999... = 0.9+0.09+0.009+0.0009+... and we can clearly see that this sequence cannot reach 1.

What sequence? 0.999... is a decimal number. 0.9+0.09+0.009+... is an infinite sum (which equals 1, which can easily be computed from the fact that this is a geometric series) In any case, it is not clear that "this sequence cannot reach 1".

Therefore 0.999... < 1.

As you have not made any valid statements yet, you cannot conclude that 0.999... < 1.

Another example:

Please look at this beautiful Koch Fractal http://members.cox.net/fractalenc/fr6g6s.577m2.html

Now let us say the there is a 1-1 map between each fractal level of 0.9999... to each different blue level of Koch Fractal.

0.999... is not a fractal, and I'm fairly sure there is no such term as "fractal level". Furthermore, you are merely saying (aka assuming) there is a 1-1 map between two things; unless you can show this assumption is true, you cannot be sure that any of your conclusions are true.

0.9999... = 1 if and only if we cannot find anymore a 1-1 map between some 0. ...9 to some Koch Fractal blue level

What is 0. ...9? And you've given no reason why this statement should be true.

Since Koch Fractal can be found in infinitely many blue levels and each blue level has a 1-1 map with some 0. ...9 fractal level, then we can conclude that 0.999... < 1.

Ignoring what comes before "each blue level", I think this actually logically follows from your previous statements. However, you've suggested no reason why your previous statements might be true.

Also we can say that 0.999... = 1 if and only if the outer contour of this multi-leveled Koch Fractal can be a smooth curve with no sharp edges.

You've given no reason why we can say that.

It is clear that the outer contour line is not a smooth contour in any arbitrary examined scale level.

It is true that the boundary of the Koch snowflake is not smooth. You've not given any definition of "scale level".

Therefore 0.999... < 1.

Again, this follows from previous statements, but you've given no reason to think those previous statements are true.

From this model you also can understand what is a "leap".

No, I cannot.

In short, any transition between a non smooth curve to a smooth curve, cannot be done but by a phase transition leap that also can be described by a smooth_XOR_no-smooth connection.

You've not provided definitions for "Transition", "phase transition leap", or "smooth_XOR_no-smooth connection".

This model is better than any "abstract" mathematical definition, which leads us to "prove" that 0.9999... = 1.

Better in what way?

Also by this "proof" we simply ignore infinitely many information forms that can be found in 0.9999... fractal.

Since there is nothing about the real numbers called "infinitely many information forms" nor is 0.999... a fractal, ignoring these is a good thing.

Now think how many information forms are ignored by this trivial and sterile approach of standard Matt (oops, Math).

[/quote]

I can't, seeing how you've not said what you mean by "information form".

 

[Lama]

See my edit. Also, I find that you saying that your fractal analogy is better or less abstract than a rigorous mathematical proof to be absurd in the highest degree.

Your "rigorous" proof depends on excluded-middle black_XOR_white reasoning.

therefore you cannot deal with the complexity of 0.999... case.

Only Included-middle reasoning can deal with the complexity of this fractal.

In short, your "rigorous" proof is nothing but the image of your trivial black_XOR_white reasoning method.

 

[Lama]

Hurkyl,

also please read this http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf to understand why I call 0.999... a path of a fractal.

 

[Hurkyl]

To what proof are you referring?

 

[Lama]

Do you really have no simple ability to conclude that the base value expansion method is actually a fractal?

Please look at pages 3,4 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf

 

[matt grime]

the limit of a sequence is something that is NEVER reached. hence defined as such 1 IS the limit of .9+.09+.009...

presumably excpeting say, the constant sequences, and the eventually constant sequences then.

you shold stop, you're just showing up your ignorance.

 

[Lama]

Assume that .99.. < 1. Then 1/3(.999) < 1/3 (1), and .33... < 1/3. A contradiction...

There is no contradiction here beacue 0.333... < 1/3 for the same reasons that 0.999... < 1, which clearly can be understood here http://p071.ezboard.com/fthelanguageofmathematicsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=2.topic

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, then, here's a cute question:

If 0.333... isn't the decimal representation of 1/3, then what is?

 

[Lama]

A cute answer:

1/3 is not a fractal where 0.333... is a single path of a fractal.

They are not the same number exactly as 0.999... and 1 are not the same number.

When your logical system is based on an Included-Middle reasoning, the internal structural properteis of any mathematical element, cannot be ignored anymore.

 

[matt grime]

doron, when you talk about "number" can we absolutely clarify that you mean the real numbers as we understand them in, say, calculus? Yes or No. because we are talking about these real numbers, and it is not clear what you are talking about since you've never offered an alternative explanation, hence our presumption you are using the real numbers as we know them already. You still appear to think that it is important what representative we use for a number, when it isn't: 1 and 2-1 are the same number, yet appear different, the same as 1/2 and 2/4. and if you're about to say something involving your new fangled terms, you must define what they are, and you must stop referring to things as the real numbers, when they aren't.

 

[Lama]

yet appear different,

Let us take your Idea and also say that you and I are the same person yet appear different, any number is actually zero yet appear different, and so on ,and so on...

By my system 'integral' and 'differential' are complementary properties, which simultaneously preventing/defining each other, and the result is infinitely many numbers that have internal complexity, which is based on symmetry/information complementary relations, that can be found on infinitely many different scales.

Multiplication and addition are their complementary internal operations.

The standard R members are based on one and only one building-block of my new system,
And its common property is: 0_redundancy_AND_0_uncertainty.

This building-block also standing in the basis of the excluded-middle reasoning.

Because of this limitation, a number is based only on the quantity concept, which through it 0.999… and 1 are look the same.

But when the minimal conditions for the existence of a number are both structural and quantitative, then 0.999… and 1 are different things.

 

[matt grime]

Oh dear, is that the best you can do? That makes it very easy to prove that what you are talking about aren't the real numbers, that's fine, but just don't say that they are [the real numbers] that's all. For instance, they could be thought of as representing some cauchy sequences, where they are different cauchy sequences, that doesn't stop them representing the same real number, in fact by definition, nothing more nor less, they must represent the same real number.

So, Doron, if it's a spade call it a spade, don't confuse objects like this, it only leads you to speak even more confusingly than you already do. And so all that you conclude applies only to your set of numbers not the real numbers. CF hurkyls post on your cardinal/organic number mistakes about 20 posts back.

You and I are different as human beings, yet if all that were required is a representative of a human being both of us are equivalent, in this arm wavy non-mathematical rubbish.

 

[Lama]

What you call real numbers are a shadow of my system.

Can you separate between something to its shadow?

 

[Lama]

CF hurkyls post on your cardinal/organic number mistakes about 20 posts back.

If you mean to these posts https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=266256&postcount=77 https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=267486&postcount=104 then since N,Q and R members are the shadows of my number system, I can talk about them by using my number system,
and this is exactly what I did here: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NewDiagonalView.pdf

 

[matt grime]

No, you can't, since in your system 0.999... and 1 are not equal, then you may not use them to talk about the real numbers where they are equal. Irrespective of your philosophical objections to that fact.

Just because S<T is a containment of sets does not imply that results about T mean anything about S.
A trivial example: In R there are no non-trivial ideals yet Z possesses many.

Incidentally, what do you mean by shadow? that's not a mathematical term, at least not in this context (it is in optimization). If you insist on using odd terms at least tell other people about them.

 

[hello3719]

A cute answer:

1/3 is not a fractal where 0.333... is a single path of a fractal.

They are not the same number exactly as 0.999... and 1 are not the same number.

When your logical system is based on an Included-Middle reasoning, the internal structural properteis of any mathematical element, cannot be ignored anymore.

is 1/2 still equal to 0.500... ?

 

[Lama]

Matt, think simple, if I say (and show) that standard system is the shadow of my system it means that I can explain your system by my system but you cannot explain my system by your system, because your system is no more than the quantitative shadow of my system.

 

[Lama]

is 1/2 still equal to 0.500... ?

If you take 000... as no information then 1/2=0.5

 

[hello3719]

so in your system the division operation will never yield a result with an infinite decimal expansion ?

What about pi ? how would you represent it ?

 

[Lama]

Well hello3719, there is no 'my system' here, because you can find the whole standard system as some particular case of this system.

For example, let us say that x,y system is a particular case of x,y,z system where z is ignored in this case.

We can do any x,y thing by an x,y,z system, but not vise versa.

My system can yields results with an infinite decimal expansions, for example please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/9999.pdf pages 3,4.

Now for pi:

In the standard quantitative-only system, the internal information form of each number is ignored (by the analogy: we ignore z) ; therefore the fractal structure (that can be shown above in pages 3,4) of the decimal method is omitted and as a result, for example 1/3=0.33333...

But if any number is not less than quantitative/structural information form, we have the ability to distinguish between 1/3 and 0.333... by both quantitative and structural properties.

In short, we have more possibilities to do Math, and in the case of pi, each different base value define a new fractal of pi where the quantitative sum of each fractal is less then pi constant.


Also please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf including its entire links.

 

[terrabyte]

even in the current system, .333... does not accurately represent the number 1/3.

1/3 is a closed expression. .333... is open ended to and beyond infinity. to make it short, 1/3 is complete and rational, .333... is a continuing process to infinity and as such is irrational.

 

[hello3719]

even in the current system, .333... does not accurately represent the number 1/3.

1/3 is a closed expression. .333... is open ended to and beyond infinity. to make it short, 1/3 is complete and rational, .333... is a continuing process to infinity and as such is irrational.

you are not using the usual definition of "irrational", irrational merely means that it cannot be expressed as a ratio of 2 integers.

 

[zeronem]

even in the current system, .333... does not accurately represent the number 1/3.

1/3 is a closed expression. .333... is open ended to and beyond infinity. to make it short, 1/3 is complete and rational, .333... is a continuing process to infinity and as such is irrational.

A rational number is a number that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers.

A rational number can be expressed as either a fraction, or as a decimal number. If the decimal representation of a number goes on forever without repeating any pattern, then that number is an irrational number.

In this case, .33333... has a repeating pattern, and therefore is a rational number.

 

[hello3719]

But if any number is not less than quantitative/structural information form, we have the ability to distinguish between 1/3 and 0.333... by both quantitative and structural properties.

In short, we have more possibilities to do Math, and in the case of pi, each different base value define a new fractal of pi where the quantitative sum of each fractal is less then pi constant.

did you know that the "/" sign only represents the division operation ?

We can't talk about quantitive and structural properties when we compare an operation to its result.

Can you tell me how would you OBTAIN Pi ? You only showed how you would represent it not how you knew it was around 3.14.

 

[terrabyte]

you are not using the usual definition of "irrational", irrational merely means that it cannot be expressed as a ratio of 2 integers.

exactly. CANNOT be expressed. 1/3 is a complete expression. .333... is an incomplete expression. it cannot EVER be completed, to infinite digits or beyond.

the LIMIT of the expression .333... is 1/3 which means it will NEVER reach that number, no matter how many digits you extend it out to.

get it yet?

 

[hello3719]

exactly. CANNOT be expressed. 1/3 is a complete expression. .333... is an incomplete expression. it cannot EVER be completed, to infinite digits or beyond.

the LIMIT of the expression .333... is 1/3 which means it will NEVER reach that number, no matter how many digits you extend it out to.

get it yet?

LOL. Exactly .333... CAN BE EXPRESSED as a ratio of integers. Seems you have a flaw in your logic.

 

[Lama]

Pi is the ratio between circle's perimeter and circle's diameter.

We can take this ratio and represent it in infinitely many different quantitative/structural ways ,where '/' is not a division operation but a relation sign.

But no one of the representation is equal to pi constant.

 

[hello3719]

Pi is the ratio between circle's perimeter and circle's diameter.

We can take this ratio and represent in infinitely many different quantitative/structural ways ,where '/' is not a division operation but a relation sign.

What do you mean by '/' is a relation sign ? define relation sign

 

[hello3719]

Pi is the ratio between circle's perimeter and circle's diameter.

Please devise a method to find it using your more "complete system".

 

[Lama]

If you think that when I write quantitative/structural I mean quantitative divided by structural then to make it clearer I explained that '/' is used here to say that there is a mutual interactions between the two concepts.

 

[Lama]

Please devise a method to find it using your more "complete system".

1) No consistent system can be a complete system, and my system is incomplete.

2) Multi leveled parallel/serial Turing machine model, which uses any useful combination of my information building-blocks , instead of using only the binary buiding-block (which standing in the basis of the current Turing machine).

 

[hello3719]

If you think that when I write quantitative/structural I mean quantitative divided by structural then to make it clearer I explained that '/' is used here to say that there is a mutual interactions between the two concepts.

no, I meant when you write 1/3 we are talking about a division, and .33... is THE RESULT of the operation. This means that you can't compare the result with the operation.

 

[hello3719]

1) No consistent system can be a complete system, and my system is incomplete.

2) Multi leveled parallel/serial Turing machine model, which uses any useful combination of my information building-blocks , instead of using only the binary buiding-block (which standing in the basis of the current Turing machine).

I didn't say that it was complete, i said that you assumed before that our "actual" system is a mere shadow of yours , didn't you ?
If yes, then could you please show me in detailed steps how would you obtain Pi.

 

[Lama]

1/3 is not just an arithmetical operation of 1 divided by 3, but it is also the Q member 1/3.

The same we can say about pi (which is a R member), for example:

If the diameter is 1 then pi is pi/1.

Now you, can take 1/3 or pi and use the base value expansion method, which is a fractal way to represent numbers.

But because some fractals can be found in infinitely many different scale levels, then from the quantitative point of view they never fully represent 1/3 or pi.