### Re: alternative mathematics

Posted:

**Sat May 28, 2011 9:15 pm UTC**I thought it is not allowed to edit posts or use red the way he's doing though, or am I misinterpreting the forum rules?

Page **3** of **4**

Posted: **Sat May 28, 2011 9:15 pm UTC**

I thought it is not allowed to edit posts or use red the way he's doing though, or am I misinterpreting the forum rules?

Posted: **Sat May 28, 2011 10:45 pm UTC**

achan1058 wrote:I thought it is not allowed to edit posts or use red the way he's doing though, or am I misinterpreting the forum rules?

I think he's being given a fair amount of leeway because of his difficulty expressing himself.

Posted: **Sun May 29, 2011 4:52 pm UTC**

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure no one is going to mistake his posts for mod posts.

Posted: **Sun May 29, 2011 5:33 pm UTC**

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, and I'm pretty sure no one is going to mistake his posts for mod posts.

Oh, I just assumed all the red text in his posts was you editing them to make sure the important bits didn't get missed.

Posted: **Sun May 29, 2011 6:41 pm UTC**

When he posted the other thread, I had thought he was using a concept of a basic distance as an analogue to induction (There is a point, for every point, there can be another point) but the branching nature is not particularly similar (though if restricted to finite length trees, it should be at least similar in power to induction, depending on equality relations)

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 3:53 am UTC**

The existing angles of 180 degrees, if you specify items may be quadrilateral, pentagon...

task. prove to be a real number result of division of two integers (a fraction)

Theorem- re-set set with two or more numbers that are equally apart

Ca A={1,2,3,4}-1s14 , 1-starting number ,s-tag srcko, 1-distance,4- last number, closed srcko

Cb A={3,6,9,12,...33}-3s333

Cc A={4,8,12,16,20,...}-4s4 open srcko

Cd ...

MS.7-re-set ( srcko)

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 5:43 am UTC**

Are you claiming that every real number is a ratio of two integers?

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 9:15 am UTC**

skeptical scientist wrote:Are you claiming that every real number is a ratio of two integers?

yes

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 9:27 am UTC**

OK. Can you give us an example?

What ratio of two numbers, when multiplied by itself, equals 2?

If you are using your line diagrams to give the answer, please also provide the detailed working of you multiplying them together, and the result equalling 2.

What ratio of two numbers, when multiplied by itself, equals 2?

If you are using your line diagrams to give the answer, please also provide the detailed working of you multiplying them together, and the result equalling 2.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 11:30 am UTC**

phlip wrote:OK. Can you give us an example?

What ratio of two numbers, when multiplied by itself, equals 2?

If you are using your line diagrams to give the answer, please also provide the detailed working of you multiplying them together, and the result equalling 2.

Don't be cruel man. He'll be up all night. And the night after that. And pretty much every night thereafter.

@kumavero: I'm sorry to say that it is not true that every real number can be written as the ratio of two numbers. This has been proven.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 11:38 am UTC**

Kurushimi wrote:Don't be cruel man. He'll be up all night. And the night after that. And pretty much every night thereafter.

I'm not trying to be cruel, the whole point of this thread (if we give the OP a huge benefit-of-the-doubt) is that they have some new system of maths that's more expressive than the standard one, or more general, or in some other way can do things the standard system can't. But is having trouble explaining it due to a language barrier.

If it turns out that, somehow, they're right, then maybe in their system square root of 2 is a ratio of two values... though those values wouldn't be integers, or likely even numbers, in the standard system.

If it turns out that, as most in the thread expect, they're wrong, then maybe, just maybe, they'll learn something in the attempt. It's at least theoretically possible.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 12:02 pm UTC**

phlip wrote:Kurushimi wrote:Don't be cruel man. He'll be up all night. And the night after that. And pretty much every night thereafter.

I'm not trying to be cruel, the whole point of this thread (if we give the OP a huge benefit-of-the-doubt) is that they have some new system of maths that's more expressive than the standard one, or more general, or in some other way can do things the standard system can't. But is having trouble explaining it due to a language barrier.

.

Yeah, I know. I was really just kidding.

But even if he did invent such a system, they wouldn't be what we're used to calling numbers at all. For one thing, they wouldn't have prime factors, and hence no prime numbers. (As a proof for the irrationality of the sqrt(2) can be done with the fact that every number has a unique prime factorization)

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 2:04 pm UTC**

kumarevo wrote:The existing angles of 180 degrees, if you specify items may be quadrilateral, pentagon...

task. prove to be a real number result of division of two integers (a fraction)

BTW I have the impression that your posts are always incomplete...

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 2:44 pm UTC**

I don't even see that he has defined addition yet in terms of his cycles, much less multiplication, so I can't understand how we could be expected to say anything about the ratio of two numbers. It's hard to tell, though. The record indicates that he definitely challenged us to do addition in different bases but then edited out the question, so I don't know if some people are using a deprecated definition of addition. But I'm pretty sure that even in that case he wouldn't have defined something more complicated than addition of the natural numbers.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 3:24 pm UTC**

Maybe it's just how I'm parsing his English, but it seems to me that

means "all rationals are real" rather than "all reals are rational".

Of course, it seems likely that this distinction, if present in Serbian, would not have been preserved in translation.

kumarevo wrote:task. prove to be a real number result of division of two integers (a fraction)

means "all rationals are real" rather than "all reals are rational".

Of course, it seems likely that this distinction, if present in Serbian, would not have been preserved in translation.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 3:36 pm UTC**

nehpest wrote:Maybe it's just how I'm parsing his English, but it seems to me thatkumarevo wrote:task. prove to be a real number result of division of two integers (a fraction)

means "all rationals are real" rather than "all reals are rational".

I'm assuming his response to my question clarifies that yes, he believes every real number is rational. But I suppose it's possible that he misunderstood my question.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 3:39 pm UTC**

I find it impossible to believe that kumarevo with his near perfect grasp of the english language could misunderstand your question.

On a plus side it looks like he took to annotating with green instead of red.

On a plus side it looks like he took to annotating with green instead of red.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 5:00 pm UTC**

kumarevo wrote:The existing angles of 180 degrees, if you specify items may be quadrilateral, pentagon...

task. prove ,to be a real number , result of division of two integers (a fraction)

With the commas it's clearer.

This is becoming more linguist and hieroglyphical than a mathematical

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 5:29 pm UTC**

I'm pretty sure he is claiming that all reals are rational. Not that it matters though. One of the claims is false, the other trivial. Neither make any sense in the framework that has been laid out (I think he has defined integers, but not multiplication/division, nor rationals, nor reals...)

Just to reiterate the important thing though:

Just to reiterate the important thing though:

phlip wrote:What ratio of two numbers, when multiplied by itself, equals 2?

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 5:35 pm UTC**

But guys, he has found an alternate mathematics.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 5:52 pm UTC**

kumarevo wrote:skeptical scientist wrote:Are you claiming that every real number is a ratio of two integers?

yes

[imath]\sqrt{2}[/imath] is a real number. What two integers make the ratio?

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 6:52 pm UTC**

So 314man is or has access to someone fluent in Serbian? Was the half-gibberish 314man mentioned from the paper or plain conversation? If it was the paper, this process will become a lot easier if someone communicates with him one on one in Serbian. If his normal writing is gibberish, and he cannot communicate in his presumably native language, it will be safe to say that he is just mad.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 8:30 pm UTC**

saus wrote:So 314man is or has access to someone fluent in Serbian? Was the half-gibberish 314man mentioned from the paper or plain conversation? If it was the paper, this process will become a lot easier if someone communicates with him one on one in Serbian. If his normal writing is gibberish, and he cannot communicate in his presumably native language, it will be safe to say that he is just mad.

The half-gibberish was from the paper. It's mostly grammar issues, although I don't really know it's a problem with his grammar or because he's just missing a lot of words. It's really short-hand writing.

On that note, I was going to some more parts translated, but I can't find the link to the rest of his work in serbian. I didn't download it when it was available so now I don't have access to it...

Also I'd rather not communicate just to see if someone is mad or not, it's not the reason I come to this forum.

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 9:53 pm UTC**

314man wrote:Also I'd rather not communicate just to see if someone is mad or not, it's not the reason I come to this forum.

But... why else would you come here?

Posted: **Mon May 30, 2011 10:31 pm UTC**

314man wrote:saus wrote:So 314man is or has access to someone fluent in Serbian? Was the half-gibberish 314man mentioned from the paper or plain conversation? If it was the paper, this process will become a lot easier if someone communicates with him one on one in Serbian. If his normal writing is gibberish, and he cannot communicate in his presumably native language, it will be safe to say that he is just mad.

The half-gibberish was from the paper. It's mostly grammar issues, although I don't really know it's a problem with his grammar or because he's just missing a lot of words. It's really short-hand writing.

On that note, I was going to some more parts translated, but I can't find the link to the rest of his work in serbian. I didn't download it when it was available so now I don't have access to it...

Also I'd rather not communicate just to see if someone is mad or not, it's not the reason I come to this forum.

Luckily, I caught the link when I quoted his original "numbers in different bases" post: http://hotfile.com/dl/118801130/38bae55 ... h.pdf.html

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 3:54 am UTC**

Theorem- re-set set with two or more numbers that are equally apart and a number that has nothing to do with srcko

Ca A={2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11}-2p_5s111 , p-pendant ,_-connection of two re-set

Cb A={6,9,12,15,18,19}-6s318_19p

Cc ...

MS.8-re-set (srclo+pendant)

a basis for proving the real =rational , feel a bit like a mathematician

next solution

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 3:56 am UTC**

No. That only includes terminating decimals. Which fraction, when multiplied by itself, gives 2?kumarevo wrote:a basis for proving the real =rational , feel a bit like a mathematician

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 4:01 am UTC**

No. That only includes terminating decimals. Which fraction, when multiplied by itself, gives 2?gmalivuk wrote:kumarevo wrote:a basis for proving the real =rational , feel a bit like a mathematician

when we get a reduction of function with two or more variables, I will give you the procedure so I calculate

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 4:02 am UTC**

If you're using functions with variables, then you're not talking about integer fractions any more.

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 1:38 pm UTC**

Here's a link of a much complete version of his axioms http://www.math10.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=431

. Most of it makes sense and is in fact nothing new except the real/ irrational bit which he still has to (try and won't be able to) prove .

. Most of it makes sense and is in fact nothing new except the real/ irrational bit which he still has to (try and won't be able to) prove .

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 3:43 pm UTC**

theorem: re-set set. frequency and srcko have a common point

Ca A={6,6,6,6,8,10,12,14,16}-6f4s216

Cb A={3,6,9,9,9,9,9,9,12,15,18,21}-3s39f6s321

Cc A={4,8,12,16,16,16}-4s416f3

Cd ...

MS.9-re-set (srcko + frequency(one point))

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 4:11 pm UTC**

I've never formally studied the theory, but could this be a sloppy unnecessarily-graphical construction of the p-adic numbers? If he's defining that finite and infinite sequences of natural numbers are equally elementary, then that would at least explain why he is arguing that there are no irrational numbers.

Posted: **Tue May 31, 2011 10:24 pm UTC**

It seems like he's treating infinity as a natural number, which is not true under normal definitions. Then again, he hasn't given us any alternative definitions of a number. Assuming only his first axiom, MS.0, it would seem impossible for him to create anything as complex as the natural numbers. Without something analogous to the Peano Axioms, the "1" and "2" that he's using have no relation to one another.

Posted: **Wed Jun 01, 2011 6:10 pm UTC**

Theorem: The number are moving along at a numerical

MS.10-mobility number

Posted: **Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:12 pm UTC**

Are you using that to define addition?

such that the first number is which number is on the top, and the second how much it is shifted forwards?

eg.

1.2.3.4.

_._.1.2

oh, wait, thats subtraction, so rather, a+b would be how far forwards the bottom one is moved, and what number on the bottom you pick, with the top being the answer?

Or are you defining a new type of number called a mobility number? If so, what could you use this mobility number for? If neither of these guesses are correct, I guess someone else will figure out what you mean.

such that the first number is which number is on the top, and the second how much it is shifted forwards?

eg.

1.2.3.4.

_._.1.2

oh, wait, thats subtraction, so rather, a+b would be how far forwards the bottom one is moved, and what number on the bottom you pick, with the top being the answer?

Or are you defining a new type of number called a mobility number? If so, what could you use this mobility number for? If neither of these guesses are correct, I guess someone else will figure out what you mean.

Posted: **Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:08 pm UTC**

Theorem: numbers a, b, c, ... are mutually comparable

Ca comparability of the two numbers a<b , a=b , a>b , basis of comparability , ( 3 opportunities )

Cb comparability of the three numbers - open c>a=b , (9 opportunities)

Cc comparability of the three numbers - glosed ( 27 opportunities )

Cd comparability of the four numbers - ...

MS.11-comparability of numbers

Posted: **Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:45 pm UTC**

kumarevo wrote:Cb comparability of the three numbers - open c>a=b , (9 opportunities)

Oh? I count 13.

a>b>c

a>c>b

b>a>c

b>c>a

c>a>b

c>b>a

a=b>c

a=c>b

b=c>a

a>b=c

b>a=c

c>a=b

a=b=c

Posted: **Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 am UTC**

My take is that he's trying to do some sort of directed graph of number comparison, without caring about transitivity. If you do that, you can get the 27 that he claims. But there are definitely better ways of doing it, like using a poset, which preserves transitivity. (IMO dropping transitivity is generally absurd, unless you have really good reasons for doing so.)skeptical scientist wrote:kumarevo wrote:Cb comparability of the three numbers - open c>a=b , (9 opportunities)

Oh? I count 13.

Posted: **Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:05 am UTC**

His diagram almost makes it look like > isn't a partial order (a>b>c>a>b..... looks possible) in which case there would be 3^3 different choices for connections between three nodes. That still doesn't explain where the number 9 came from though.

Posted: **Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:22 am UTC**

achan1058 wrote:My take is that he's trying to do some sort of directed graph of number comparison, without caring about transitivity.

My take is that he's just wrong, and multiplied the number of ways a and b can compare by the number of ways a and c can compare, and forgot/didn't realize that this is not enough to determine how b and c compare if a is larger/smaller than both.