The Martian and the Earthman - and the limit concept

[matt grime]

the d we are referring to is the absolute value of some real number, so it is not negative, what are you getting at now?

 

[Organic]

the proof is based on the assumption that a statement is either true or false

and this way of thinking is limited to 0_redundancy_AND_0_uncertainty information form, which is a one and only one proper sub_system of infinitely many information forms that can be ordered and explored by Math Language.

The paradigm shift is based on the idea that there are infinitely many ordered information forms where any combination of them can be a basis to another information model that can be explored and used to develop new point of views on Math fundamental concepts like axiom, number, set, limit, operation, logic, function, infinity and so on.

Shortly speaking, I am talking about infinitely many combinations of infinitely many information forms upon infinitely many scales that can be ordered by infinitely many symmetry and information's clarity degrees.

Do you think that it will be a wise thing to simply ignoring all this and stick only in one and only one information form of 0_redundancy_AND_0_uncertainty?

 

[matt grime]

As you've not managed to show one single use of your new point of view, or explain the meaning of almost any of the terms you use, I think we can safely ignore your view.

 

[Organic]

Complementary Logic universe ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/BFC.pdf ) is an ordered logical forms that existing between a_XOR_b and a_AND_b.

For example:

Let XOR be #

Let AND be &

Let a,b,c,d stands for uniqueness, therefore logical forms of 4-valued logic is:

              Uncertainty
  <-Redundancy->^
    d  d  d  d  |
    #  #  #  #  |
    c  c  c  c  |
    #  #  #  #  |
    b  b  b  b  |
    #  #  #  #  |
   {a, a, a, a} V
    .  .  .  .
    |  |  |  |
    |  |  |  |
    |  |  |  | <--(First 4-valued logical form)
    |  |  |  |
    |  |  |  |
    |&_|&_|&_|_
    |
    ={x,x,x,x}


   {a, b, c, d}
    .  .  .  .
    |  |  |  |
    |#_|  |  |
    |     |  | <--(Last 4-valued logical form)
    |#____|  |      
    |        |
    |#_______|
    |
    ={{{{x},x},x},x}

[b]
============>>>

                Uncertainty
  <-Redundancy->^
    d  d  d  d  |          d  d             d  d
    #  #  #  #  |          #  #             #  #        
    c  c  c  c  |          c  c             c  c
    #  #  #  #  |          #  #             #  #   
    b  b  b  b  |    b  b  b  b             b  b       b  b  b  b
    #  #  #  #  |    #  #  #  #             #  #       #  #  #  #   
   {a, a, a, a} V   {a, a, a, a}     {a, b, a, a}     {a, a, a, a}
    .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .
    |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |
    |  |  |  |       |&_|_ |  |       |#_|  |  |       |&_|_ |&_|_
    |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
    |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
    |  |  |  |       |     |  |       |     |  |       |     |
    |&_|&_|&_|_      |&____|&_|_      |&____|&_|_      |&____|____
    |                |                |                |
    {x,x,x,x}        {x,x},x,x}       {{{x},x},x,x}    {{x,x},{x,x}}     
 
                                      c  c  c
                                      #  #  #      
          b  b                        b  b  b          b  b
          #  #                        #  #  #          #  #         
   {a, b, a, a}     {a, b, a, b}     {a, a, a, d}     {a, a, c, d}
    .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .       .  .  .  .
    |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |       |  |  |  |
    |#_|  |&_|_      |#_|  |#_|       |  |  |  |       |&_|_ |  |
    |     |          |     |          |  |  |  |       |     |  |
    |     |          |     |          |&_|&_|_ |       |#____|  |
    |     |          |     |          |        |       |        |
    |&____|____      |&____|____      |#_______|       |#_______|
    |                |                |                |
    {{{x},x},{x,x}} {{{x},x},{{x},x}} {{x,x,x},x}      {{{x,x},x},x} 

   {a, b, c, d}
    .  .  .  .
    |  |  |  |
    |#_|  |  |
    |     |  |  
    |#____|  |      
    |        |
    |#_______|
    |    
    {{{{x},x},x},x}
[/b]

A 2-valued logic is:

    b   b 
    #   #    
    a   a     
    .   .   
    |   |   
    |&__|_   
    | 
    
    [B]a   b     
    .   .   
    |   |  <--- (Standard Math logical system fundamental building-block) 
    |#__|   
    |[/B]

Do you start to understand the triviality of Standard Math logical system,
when each n has several ordered logical forms between a_AND_b and a_XOR_b?

Please look again at these ordered information forms http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ETtable.pdf , but now instead of numbers please look at them as infinitely many unique logical forms that are "waiting" to be explored and used by us.

I hope that you start to understand the flexibility of any language, when you examine it from the level of the information concept.

 

[moshek]

kaiser.
thank you for asking me :

"how do you define a "mathematical true"?

so :


"Mathematical true is a unification of the local property of an object
to it Global property by the two size of the Klein Bottle "



Moshek

p.s :

Since i am not talking about Euclidian mathematic please read before:

www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17243

 

[kaiser soze]

Moshek,

I do not understand your definition, but anyhow, according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996 :

Belief:

\Be*lief"\, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele['a]fa. See Believe.] 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.


So in any case, you can see that whatever your definition of a "mathematical truth" is, as long as it stays within the domains of sciense can not be compared with a belief.

Kaiser.

 

[moshek]

Matt,

Why do you even bother arguing with Organic? Can't you see that his actions are not
Motivated by curiosity or pure interest, instead they are motivated by beliefs. You can
Not argue with beliefs. Arguing with Organic, is like arguing with an orthodox person about the existence of god. It is Organic's BELIEF that mathematicians are wrong, and for that matter, that he KNOWS mathematics and practicing it. It is his belief that the he has found a "new type" of infinity, and that this is the "right one". Arguing with Organic is a just a waste of time, since he does not really want to learn or do anything practical with his ideas.

Kaizer

Thank you for sharing with me what Webster wrote about believe.

My definition to mathematics like Organic is defiantly not in way science see mathematics. but science after Einstein need a new mathematics when the observer is part of the universe, and not the modeling attitude of Newton.
the only way to do that shift is by new definition to the concept of a number like Organic have share with you !

Best
Moshek

 

[matt grime]

No, Moshek, Mathematics was remarkably unmoved by Einstein. What people choose to do with the practical implications doesn't alter the mathematics. Newtons equations are still consistent, that they don't work all the time has nothing to do with mathematics. You and Organic both need to learn more of the maths that is out there before you start making these laughable claims about the suitability of your language/dialogue/theory. In particular it might do for you to adhere to some of the basic ettiquette of generalization: you have not redefined the natural numbers, you have defined a new object (in some loose sense) that might conceivably have some relation to the natural numbers.