All of Godel's (Goedel) work in logic is fakery, none of it worthy of attention; because most depended on a sloppy concept of infinity

No point in reading or studying anything from Godel. He was so stupid in Logic, that it escaped his attention that the AND connector is the add, and not the OR connector. So dumb was Godel in logic that he believed all his life that AND truth table was TFFF, when in reality it was TTTF. The only time a AND connector is false is when there is no true statement available at all. When everything is false, is the time that AND is false. And here we have a klutz of logic, spending his entire life in Logic and never smart enough to realize AND is the ADD of Logic, not OR.

Godel was so stupid in Logic, that OR is the choice connector, chose between A or B and thus Subtraction, not addition.

Yet this crippled mind of Godel is touted as some brilliant person because of his silly daft ideas of completeness and consistency. His fake proofs all hinge on the notion that Infinity is poorly defined. Infinity has no borders. But if you realize that Infinity has a borderline, you cannot use infinity to pull your stupid fake proof along.

So Godel is a man that was too dumb to realize AND was Add and not OR, and then, why would any rational person think that such a failure of Logic has anything to say about math completeness or consistency. He could not even tell the difference between add and subtract.

I should put this as a Comment in the ARRAY.

Now, one aspect of Godel that should have alerted people that he was bad in thinking, is that he kept thinking people were trying to poison him. And so he decided on starving to death, rather than eat some food he was deluded into thinking it was poison. Now, do you think a person of that type of mind can find truths of Nature of a complex form? No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.

AP

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-15 10:47:49 UTC

Its written Gödel, not Godel and also not Goedel

Kurt Friedrich Gödel (* 28. April 1906, † 14. Januar 1978)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
No point in reading or studying anything from Godel. He was so stupid in Logic, that it escaped his attention that the AND connector is the add, and not the OR connector. So dumb was Godel in logic that he believed all his life that AND truth table was TFFF, when in reality it was TTTF. The only time a AND connector is false is when there is no true statement available at all. When everything is false, is the time that AND is false. And here we have a klutz of logic, spending his entire life in Logic and never smart enough to realize AND is the ADD of Logic, not OR.
Godel was so stupid in Logic, that OR is the choice connector, chose between A or B and thus Subtraction, not addition.
Yet this crippled mind of Godel is touted as some brilliant person because of his silly daft ideas of completeness and consistency. His fake proofs all hinge on the notion that Infinity is poorly defined. Infinity has no borders. But if you realize that Infinity has a borderline, you cannot use infinity to pull your stupid fake proof along.
So Godel is a man that was too dumb to realize AND was Add and not OR, and then, why would any rational person think that such a failure of Logic has anything to say about math completeness or consistency. He could not even tell the difference between add and subtract.
I should put this as a Comment in the ARRAY.
Now, one aspect of Godel that should have alerted people that he was bad in thinking, is that he kept thinking people were trying to poison him. And so he decided on starving to death, rather than eat some food he was deluded into thinking it was poison. Now, do you think a person of that type of mind can find truths of Nature of a complex form? No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.
AP

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-15 10:55:50 UTC

Anyway reading about Gs birthplace is much more fun than APs nonsense:

There are several legends connected with the City of Brno; one of the best known is the Legend of the Brno Dragon.[114] It is said that there was a terrible creature terrorizing the citizens of Brno. [...] In reality the dragon was a crocodile, the preserved body of which is now displayed at the entrance of the Old Town Hall.

Next to the "dragon" at the Old Town Hall the town's second well-known emblem is displayed. [..] According to the story, a local man wagered to fell the tree, to make a wheel out of it, and to roll the wheel to the city of Brno, all this within a single day. Since the whole achievement was considered impossible by normal human means, the man was later believed to have called on the devil for assistance, and he died in poverty as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brno#Legends_connected_with_Brno

Post by b***@gmail.com
Its written Gödel, not Godel and also not Goedel
Kurt Friedrich Gödel (* 28. April 1906, † 14. Januar 1978)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

Dan Christensen

2017-06-15 12:14:58 UTC

No point in reading or studying anything...

AP is a notorious crank and the worst front-page hog here at sci.math. He really and truly believes that 10^666 is an infinite number and that the entire universe is just one gigantic plutonium atom. But these are just the worst of his idiocies. Every day here brings another dozen or so.

Dan

Markus Klyver

2017-06-15 13:24:36 UTC

What? (p ∧ q) iff both p and q are true. You might think of NAND.

Dan Christensen

2017-06-15 22:44:43 UTC

The idiot AP truly believes that 10^666 is an "infinite number." He also believes that the entire universe is just one gigantic plutonium atom.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So Godel is a man that was too dumb to realize AND was Add and not OR,

No, it is you, Archie, who is too dumb to understand simple truth tables.

AND: See http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=truth+table+a+and+b

OR: See http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=truth+table+a+or+b

Dan

g***@gmail.com

2017-06-16 08:53:37 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
No point in reading or studying anything from Godel. He was so stupid in Logic,

Everything was going dandy in LOGIC back in the early 20TH!

Modus Ponens was deriving new theorems from old!

LEFT & LEFT->RIGHT -> RIGHT

AXIOM & INFERENCE RULE -> THEOREM

AND THEN MORE THEOREMS!

THEOREM & INFERENCE RULE -> THEOREM

WHERE WILL IT END ?

then GODEL stuffed it up for 100 years

basically EVERYONE who mentions GODELS PROOF is LYING

LIARS! LIARS! LIARS!

YOU CANT DO

LEFT & LEFT->RIGHT -> RIGHT!

TRY IT!

OK.... LOOK OVER THE ENTIRE LIST OF THEOREMS....

SO LEFT = [0+X=X]

OR LEFT = [S(X)>X]

OR LEFT = [X-X=0]

WRONG!

THEN ARTURO COMES ALONG TO SCI.MATH AND SAYS....

PROOF(<ABC>,C)

WORKS USING 1ST ORDER LOGIC IN ARITHMETIC ONLY!

WRONG! WRONG! LIARS LIARS LIARS!

PSSSSST! GUESS WHAT?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

MODUS PONENS IS 2ND ORDER LOGIC!

you heard it here first!

Dan Christensen

2017-06-16 22:14:54 UTC

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
No point in reading or studying anything from Godel. He was so stupid in Logic,

Everything was going dandy in LOGIC back in the early 20TH!
Modus Ponens was deriving new theorems from old!
LEFT & LEFT->RIGHT -> RIGHT

Maybe you messed up the bracketing. A & [A -> B] -> B is indeed a tautology.

See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=truth+table+(a+%26+(a%3D%3Eb))%3D%3E+b

Dan

Jan

2017-06-16 17:22:41 UTC

The spelling is "Goedel". I thought you spoke German?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
that should have alerted people that he was bad in thinking, is that he kept thinking people were trying to poison him.

That has nothing to do with the validity (or not) of his work which must
stand on its own, obviously.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And so he decided on starving to death, rather than eat some food he was deluded into thinking it was poison. Now, do you think a person of that type of mind can find truths of Nature of a complex form?

Sure, life is non-trivial, it's not a Hollywood movie. Besides, he developed
his condition long after proving his theorem. His writings in general are
very lucid and sane.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.

No, sorry, there is no such connection a priori. Examples too numerous to
mention.

--
Jan

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-16 21:39:53 UTC

AP is totally brainless and he only speaks spammalunga.

Post by Jan
The spelling is "Goedel". I thought you spoke German?

g***@gmail.com

2017-06-18 08:21:43 UTC

Post by Jan

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.

No, sorry, there is no such connection a priori. Examples too numerous to
mention.
--
Jan

You should read RUPERTS ideas on what qualifies as "CONSTRUCTING" a GODEL Statement.... really! just use Well Formed Formula E.B.N.F construction rules.

[RUPERT]

Let's say you have some theory T in some first-order language. I'm assuming that this is a first-order language with at most countably many sorts of variables, and that the number of non-logical symbols are finite, and when I speak of a theory in such a first-order language I'm speaking of a set of sentences in that language which is deductively closed in classical first-order logic. I am also assuming that there is some interpretation of the first-order language of arithmetic in the language of this theory.

Now, let's say that you are given a set of axioms for the theory with the property that the characteristic function of that set is primitive recursive, and let's say you are actually given some specification of that function as a primitive recursive function. Let's also assume that, relative to the previously mentioned interpretation of the first-order language of arithmetic in the language of the theory, every primitive recursive relation is strongly representable in the theory. Let us assume, in addition, that the theory is consistent.

Then, given the specification of the characteristic function of the set of axioms, as a primitive recursive function, there's an effective procedure for constructing the Gödel sentence of the theory. It is a sentence in the language of the theory, and it is not provable or disprovable in the theory. Furthermore, it is the image under the interpretation previously mentioned of some sentence in the first-order language of arithmetic.

HINT: 1OL or 2OL ?

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-16 21:09:12 UTC

ARRAY of Mathematics, using the Conservation Principle on proofs

Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
____________________________

...,

Statement of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: The integral of calculus is the area under the function graph, and the derivative of calculus is the dy/dx of a point (x_1, y_1) to the next successor point (x_2, y_2). The integral is area of the rectangle involved with (x_1, y_1) and (x_2, y_2), and the derivative is the dy/dx of y_2 - y_1 / x_2 - x_1. Prove that the integral and derivative are inverses of one another, meaning that given one, you can get the other, they are reversible.

....,

.....,

Proof of FTC::

From this:
/|
/ |
/----|
/ |
/ |
_____

To this:

______
| |
| |
| |
----------

You can always go from a trapezoid with slanted roof to being a rectangle, by merely a midpoint that etches out a right triangle tip which when folded down becomes a rectangle.

....,

Comment::
Here we see that a geometry diagram is ample proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And a geometry diagram is preferred for its simplicity and brevity, as the Pythagorean theorem started to do with mathematics in Ancient times. Other pieces and parts of the proof are scattered among the 10^60 facts and data of the Array of math. Here we show that a Statement is proven by a kernel of math knowledge-- you take a rectangle and procure a right triangle from the midpoint of the width and form a trapezoid for derivative and then reform back to a rectangle for integral. The derivative and integral pivot back and forth on a hinge at the midpoint of the rectangle width. The two operatives of integration and differentiation are reversible operators.

.....,

.....,

Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
____________________________

...,

Old Math statement of FTA:: The fundamental theorem of algebra states that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root. This includes polynomials with real coefficients, since every real number A is a complex number with an imaginary part equal to zero.

....,
Comment:: New Math statement theorem of FTA need not be so long, because in New Math we recognize that sqrt-1 is simply A/0 where A is a real-number (New Real Number).

Theorem-Statement of FTA:: given any polynomial with New Real Numbers, that there always exists at least one New Real Number, call it A, as a solution.

Proof of FTA: x^2 +1 = 0, goes to 1/x^2 = -1, with solution x=0 as 1/0 = sqrt-1, thus any polynomial is 1/polynomial = +-k has at least, one solution for A.

Comment:: Notice the beauty of the Statement of Theorem then Proof are almost identical in length of words. This is what happens when you have a true proof of a statement in mathematics.

Comment:: there is a huge fallout of this proof, in the fact that "i" an imaginary number is no longer needed because the Reals in 0 and any Real A where we have A/0 is a imaginary number and is a complex number. So, all of a sudden the Complex Plane and imaginary number dissolves out of math history into a gutter of shame. Whenever see "i" what that really is, is A/0 where A is any Real number.
....,

S_m

S_m+1

....,

Comment:: now the order of the ARRAY is desirable to be of a history order. But, in many cases, we can lump and repeat statements. Remember, the ARRAY is going to be huge. I am talking of volumes that would fill a entire library, just on math ARRAY. And of course, in our computer age, we have the ARRAY accessible by computer.
.....,

....,

.....,

......,

S_p+10^10

S_p+(10^10) +1

....,

....,

Comments::
No point in reading or studying anything from Godel (Goedel). He was so stupid in Logic, that it escaped his attention that the AND connector is the add, and not the OR connector. Spending a whole life in Logic, yet Godel was so dumb in logic that he believed all his life that AND truth table was TFFF, when in reality it was TTTF. The only time a AND connector is false is when there is no true statement available at all. When everything is false, is the time that AND is false. And here we have a klutz of logic, spending his entire life in Logic and never smart enough to realize AND is the ADD of Logic, not OR.

Godel was so stupid in Logic, that OR is the choice connector, chose between A or B and thus Subtraction, not addition. The OR truth table is actually FTTF since it is true only when a "choice is available".

Yet this crippled mind of Godel is touted as some brilliant person because of his silly daft ideas of completeness and consistency. His fake proofs all hinge on the notion that Infinity is poorly defined. Infinity has no borders. But if you realize that Infinity has a borderline, you cannot use infinity to pull your stupid fake proof along. So, just as Godel was ignorant of not knowing AND was Add, equally, he was ignorant that he misused the concept of infinity to make fake proofs.

So Godel is a man that was too dumb to realize AND was Add and not OR, and then, why would any rational person think that such a failure of Logic has anything to say about math completeness or consistency. He could not even tell the difference between add and subtract.

I should put this as a Comment in the ARRAY.

Now, one aspect of Godel that should have alerted people that he was bad in thinking, is that he kept thinking people were trying to poison him. And so he decided on starving to death, rather than eat some food he was deluded into thinking it was poison. Now, do you think a person of that type of mind can find truths of Nature of a complex form? No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.

Comment:: Only during the time of Archimedes Plutonium, do mathematicians begin to look at the personal character of mathematicians and of physicists, to ponder, if living a crazy life, means, that the science work offered by such a person-- is also, just plain crazy.

.....,

.....,

.....,

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/  whole entire Universe is just one big atom  where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Don Redmond

2017-06-17 16:39:13 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
ARRAY of Mathematics, using the Conservation Principle on proofs
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
____________________________
...,
Statement of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: The integral of calculus is the area under the function graph, and the derivative of calculus is the dy/dx of a point (x_1, y_1) to the next successor point (x_2, y_2). The integral is area of the rectangle involved with (x_1, y_1) and (x_2, y_2), and the derivative is the dy/dx of y_2 - y_1 / x_2 - x_1. Prove that the integral and derivative are inverses of one another, meaning that given one, you can get the other, they are reversible.
....,
.....,
/|
/ |
/----|
/ |
/ |
_____
______
| |
| |
| |
----------
You can always go from a trapezoid with slanted roof to being a rectangle, by merely a midpoint that etches out a right triangle tip which when folded down becomes a rectangle.

This is a proof? You just write two figures and say QED? You wouldn't to prove that all your folding actually does what you say it does? Otherwise I'll give my disproof of infinity borderline because I can turn any triangle into a rectangle.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Comment:: there is a huge fallout of this proof, in the fact that "i" an imaginary number is no longer needed because the Reals in 0 and any Real A where we have A/0 is a imaginary number and is a complex number. So, all of a sudden the Complex Plane and imaginary number dissolves out of math history into a gutter of shame. Whenever see "i" what that really is, is A/0 where A is any Real number.> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

As you, who knows the history of math backwards and forwards, should know Kronecker, in the late 1800s, gave a method of getting rid of complex numbers in the study of polynomials. So if your job was to dispose of complex numbers someone beat you to it.

Also, as you recall, Gauss' first proof of the FTA was a completely real variable proof.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium

Don

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-18 06:30:12 UTC

Post by Don Redmond

Examine your proof in Old Math-- your derivative is not part of the function graph except for a tangent point. Your integral is never a rectangle but a line segment. Your derivative as tangent to a point is never connected with the integral, so that you can shift the derivative any which way and not effect your line segment integral.

Ever think that is a horrifying pathetic understanding of both derivative and integral. Don, are you like all the other math professors-- never think-analyze, only memorize.

Post by Don Redmond

Ah, but he never did dispose of them did he. For Kronecker never realized that sqrt-1 was A/0 where A is -1. So no imaginary number ever existed for Kronecker to get rid of. How can you dispose of something when it never was there at all. Unless you think Kronecker wanted to dispose of 0 and A= any Real.

You see, Don, stick with me, as I make math simple and easy for you.

Post by Don Redmond
Also, as you recall, Gauss' first proof of the FTA was a completely real variable proof.

Now, here, I wish someone in the 1700s brought up the Conservation of math proof Principle, so that Gauss would not go polluting math with the hideous notion of vector fields. Gauss ended up polluting math by painting legs on snakes, so that you cannot tell apart what is a snake and what is a millipede.

I am in the midst of overturning Heaviside and Gauss pathetic math used on Maxwell Equations.

Math becomes a disease in old age, if you are not good at math, and that is what happened to both Heaviside and Gauss.

Post by Don Redmond

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium

Don

Say Don, are you going to include my name in your math history books? Please mention Atom Totality. For that is what the biggest question on the mind of G.H.Hardy was-- physics that ties both math and physics together into one.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-18 06:59:33 UTC

(snipped)

Post by Don Redmond
As you, who knows the history of math backwards and forwards, should know Kronecker, in the late 1800s, gave a method of getting rid of complex numbers in the study of polynomials. So if your job was to dispose of complex numbers someone beat you to it.

Ah, but he never did dispose of them did he. For Kronecker never realized that sqrt-1 was A/0 where A is -1. So no imaginary number ever existed for Kronecker to get rid of. How can you dispose of something when it never was there at all. Unless you think Kronecker wanted to dispose of 0 and A= any Real.
You see, Don, stick with me, as I make math simple and easy for you.

Speaking of disposing. At this moment in a different thread, I am discussing the history of the word "times" to mean multiply. I believe it is a hidden hand of God that moved humanity to see that times like a clock time is multiply. And in trying to unravel the first moment on Earth that a mind of an animal thought-- 3 times 5 or 5 times 10. The first time that happened must have involved rocks for throwing.

And thinking on that, the first time add or subtract or divide came up, was way way long before multiply. That multiply was the last of these 4 operators, for it is the most abstract of the 4.

Now for years I have tried to get rid of negative numbers, tried to get all of math graphed in the 1st Quadrant Only, where all numbers are positive.

And in recounting in history when the first time subtract was crossing in the mind of some animal. It was far far earlier than multiply. Multiply could only have occurred in some pre-human, some ape-line becoming human. But subtract would have occurred hundreds of millions, and probably billions of years before multiply. For you see, subtract is "missing". So the mother of some animal finds her young missing, her mind had done subtraction. Whether -1, or -2, missing.

So, now. applying that idea, to my desire to get rid of negative numbers.

Can we make a rule in Mathematics, that you can subtract only a "sizeable amount that cannot exceed positive numbers." So if you had 5 young you cannot subtract 6, at most subtract 5.

So we have in math a equation Y = 2x -3. Can we apply that rule, that subtraction only exists up to the largest positive number value. So the equation has no meaning for x=0 for x=1, but has meaning at x=2. Just as x/0 has no meaning and we cannot graph it, so to for subtraction beyond the largest positive value.

This makes added sense in the fact that division and subtraction are related intrinsically. So if there are limitations on division-- that is no division by 0, why not think that there are limitations on subtraction, so that you cannot subtract more than the largest positive value.

So an equation like Y = -x is just like asking Y = x/0

Or an equation like Y = x -5 would be undefined until you reach x=5.

In this manner, math would be undefined for not only division by 0 but undefined for subtraction that leads to a negative number.

I rather like that tone of thought. I think it will become successful.

AP

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-18 10:51:56 UTC

You should really read more issue of the journal of
paleo mathematics, the key to an understanding of
differentiation and integration, already by neanderthalers,

were brain farts, since the a) the smell accumulated,
which made them think about integration, b) the smell
dissipated, the caves had small ventilation, which made

them think about differentiation, so early ingravings
of caves don't show hunting as one might expect, but
are actually ventilation instructions for the caves.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And in recounting in history when the first time subtract was crossing in the mind of some animal. It was far far earlier than multiply. Multiply could only have occurred in some pre-human, some ape-line becoming human. But subtract would have occurred hundreds of millions, and probably billions of years before multiply. For you see, subtract is "missing". So the mother of some animal finds her young missing, her mind had done subtraction. Whether -1, or -2,

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-18 10:55:40 UTC

Since there was no lighting in the caves, they needed
a kind of brail script, which could be read by touching,

there are many accounts that show that these scripts,
not only contain advanced calculus, but also more

elementary introductions into the prerequesites of brain
fartology, such as paleo peano axioms etc.. etc...

Post by b***@gmail.com
You should really read more issue of the journal of
paleo mathematics, the key to an understanding of
differentiation and integration, already by neanderthalers,
were brain farts, since the a) the smell accumulated,
which made them think about integration, b) the smell
dissipated, the caves had small ventilation, which made
them think about differentiation, so early ingravings
of caves don't show hunting as one might expect, but
are actually ventilation instructions for the caves.

g***@gmail.com

2017-06-18 11:30:57 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
Since there was no lighting in the caves, they needed
a kind of brail script, which could be read by touching,
there are many accounts that show that these scripts,
not only contain advanced calculus, but also more
elementary introductions into the prerequesites of brain
fartology, such as paleo peano axioms etc.. etc...

THERE'S no complete LOGIC without PEANO AXIOMS (original variant, not an AXIOM SCHEMA that proves infinite functions exist like ADD() )

Take an Arithmetic Logic Unit as a Set of function calls that inputs 2 numbers and returns 1 number.

PUSH 2
PUSH 22
ALU FUNCTION ADD
ACCUMULATOR = 44

NOW COMPARE THIS TO THE FAR SUPERIOR PEANO AXIOMS! :-)

add( X 0 X )
add( X s(Y) s(Z) ) <- add( X Y Z )

Sure it counts 1 at a time.

Sure it takes a megabyte to write 1000000

But can the ALU do THIS?

add( s(0) V s(s(0)) ) ?

ANSWER
______

V = s(0)

Since s(0) + s(0) = s(s(0))

As you can see, LOGIC SOLVING uses the ONE FORMULA for addition and subtraction and works backwards from the answer.

Not only this, LOGIC SOLVERS can COUNT!

If the numbers are all in PEANO ARITHMETIC and the solution is s(s(s(0))) (THREE)

the LOGIC SOLVER tries 0 , s(0) , s(s(0)) , s(s(s(0))) BINGO!

Jan's expertised doesn't seem to cover EVAL(function) and LIST PROCESSING.
RE: Rupert's Axiom Copy Schema to evade 2OL Proof()

GIVE ME SOME AXIOMS! ANY AXIOMS!

Now, let's say that you are given a set of axioms for the theory with the property that

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-18 22:58:35 UTC

Yes now, i believe this is a beautiful solution for negative numbers.

Rule of Negatives: whenever the final answer of a equation is a negative number it is undefined. Only positive number solutions exist.

That means sine and cosine only become full waves at sin +1 and cos +1.

As for polynomials when you come to x^2 = -1 is undefined the same as -1/0 is undefined.

Mathematics learned long time ago to treat division by 0 as undefined, but sadly took until 21st century to realize a negative number answer was undefined as well.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-19 03:34:15 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Yes now, i believe this is a beautiful solution for negative numbers.
Rule of Negatives: whenever the final answer of a equation is a negative number it is undefined. Only positive number solutions exist.
That means sine and cosine only become full waves at sin +1 and cos +1.
As for polynomials when you come to x^2 = -1 is undefined the same as -1/0 is undefined.
Mathematics learned long time ago to treat division by 0 as undefined, but sadly took until 21st century to realize a negative number answer was undefined as well.

Yes, let us go for this.

I do not recall what year in school that these rules were crammed down my throat::

negative times positive is negative

positive times negative is negative

negative times negative is positive

What instead we teach negative numbers are infinite irrational numbers and are there just to occupy space. So whenever you come upon a negative number you treat it as if you treat A/0 as undefined.

So the only time you run into a multiplication is only when you have two positive numbers, hence no rules to learn.

And does that not make more sense, I mean, really, schools expect people to believe a negative number is some sort of reality? Like a person waiting for the school bus, and waiting for a negative school bus to pick him up and carry him to a negative imaginary school like some scene out of the Twilight Zone. Twilight Zone math.

Mathematicians never pause to reflect on their subject, asking, are we feeding people with a lot of rubbish. Even when the Cartesian Coordinate System was started, they never had negative numbers, figuring, negatives are just a misguided fruit-loop concept.

The only solutions to equations are positive numbers. The only solutions to polynomials if they have a solution are positive numbers.

There is one place that negative numbers are needed, but it is the only place I know of, is for symmetry in physics, so that you have -1 for charge and +1 for charge. You have quantum numbers symmetry of -1/2 and +1/2, but it is not as if these "localized uses" warrant all negative numbers fill as much of math as positive numbers. In certain situations we all for negative numbers having full rights as positive numbers. Negative numbers are like that big old klunky tool out in the workshop that you rarely need to use, just on a few occasions.

AP

Chris M. Thomasson

2017-06-19 04:24:10 UTC

Tell that to the bank.

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-19 05:23:11 UTC

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.

Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

So what Chris is stumbling over and stumbling upon is his bad case of being brainwashed early in life and now fully accepts the brainwash, and wants to pass that brainwash off on others.

Do we really think a bank account is negative dollars?

Like the mother animal some billion years ago finding here young ones gone, missing, is using subtraction. But she is not saying there exists negative young.

So what do we call a missing bank amount? We call it not -$1,112. but rather call it deficit of $1,112.

Now it is easier to write the negative sign "-" than to write deficit, and so we do that convenience ploy. But we should never mistake negative signs as being something "genuine real".

We have let and allowed mathematicians to become philosophers foisting their stupid idealisms upon us and at the threat of failing us, if we dare tell them they are stupid in mathematics.

They were not stupid with A/0 where A is any Real number, positive Real number, and they realized it was undefined. But mathematicians were too stupid to confine negative numbers as also-- undefined.

Now, if you throw out negative numbers. Well then, you have no problems with sqrt-1. Because you never work with negative numbers-- you dispose of them as soon as they arise, just like you dispose of A/0.

So, now, since imaginary numbers can never arise, because you dispose of them. Why in the world have mathematicians spent over 5 centuries worried about a algebra that has solutions? Why were they worried that x^2 = -1 should have a solution? Why not just dispose of all equations like that, as saying, nonsense?

Well, we may say that those 5 centuries were wasted centuries, because mathematicians were too naive to ever look at the big picture-- if division has rooms of "thou shalt not touch" and subtraction is related to division, then subtraction has numbers to ignore as much as we ignore A/0.

The only place in science and wisdom that the negative numbers need be used, is in just a few select spots of science-- physics where you want a negative charge versus a positive charge, other than that, negative numbers are a utter waste of time.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2017-06-19 05:58:58 UTC

Tell that to the bank.

Now think for a moment, if all mathematicians for the past 500 years had not all been naive, never looking at the big picture, always looking at the little chickenshat and spending time on shat.

What if there had been just one single mathematician in the past 500 years with his/her eyes on the big picture.

How much different would the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, have been if we had a big picture guy in math.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Like the mother animal some billion years ago finding here young ones gone, missing, is using subtraction. But she is not saying there exists negative young.
So what do we call a missing bank amount? We call it not -$1,112. but rather call it deficit of $1,112.
Now it is easier to write the negative sign "-" than to write deficit, and so we do that convenience ploy. But we should never mistake negative signs as being something "genuine real".
We have let and allowed mathematicians to become philosophers foisting their stupid idealisms upon us and at the threat of failing us, if we dare tell them they are stupid in mathematics.

So if we had a big picture guy in the past 500 years in Algebra, would have said this-- we cannot use A/0 and call it undefined, that is the internal mechanics of mathematics. And, since division is intricately related to subtraction, means we have wholescale ignoring to do of negative numbers.

That is the Logic behind this. For A/0 is undefined and subtraction is related to division, hence vast amount of negatives are undefined.

And since we cannot be picky choosy on what negatives are undefined, we cannot see a individual negative, means we ignore all negatives. Until, or unless they are a use-- such as physics negative charge, but otherwise-- totally ignore them.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
They were not stupid with A/0 where A is any Real number, positive Real number, and they realized it was undefined. But mathematicians were too stupid to confine negative numbers as also-- undefined.
Now, if you throw out negative numbers. Well then, you have no problems with sqrt-1. Because you never work with negative numbers-- you dispose of them as soon as they arise, just like you dispose of A/0.
So, now, since imaginary numbers can never arise, because you dispose of them. Why in the world have mathematicians spent over 5 centuries worried about a algebra that has solutions? Why were they worried that x^2 = -1 should have a solution? Why not just dispose of all equations like that, as saying, nonsense?

So, what would have the history of math been like if no-one bothered with FTA, herds of naive people quibbling over how many solutions for exponent 3?

What would a FTA look like where we obey the rule-- all negatives are undefined and are irrationals and infinites, just occupying Space, but useless to math.

What would a FTA look like under those circumstances?

I have a guess of what a pure true FTA would look like.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Well, we may say that those 5 centuries were wasted centuries, because mathematicians were too naive to ever look at the big picture-- if division has rooms of "thou shalt not touch" and subtraction is related to division, then subtraction has numbers to ignore as much as we ignore A/0.
The only place in science and wisdom that the negative numbers need be used, is in just a few select spots of science-- physics where you want a negative charge versus a positive charge, other than that, negative numbers are a utter waste of time.

I believe the pure and true FTA, where A/0 is undefined and no negative numbers arise, and if they do, they and the entire equation is undefined. So an equation like Y = -x is undefined or x^2 = -1 is undefined. We are never nervous when -5/0 or -1/0 arise for we say, undefined and ignore. But why be crazy when x^2 = -1 arises, and be naive and silly as to think i and -i are solutions.

So, this big picture guy would throw out the equation altogether.

And would ask, of only Positive Valued Equations or Polynomials, what is the pattern of solutions to those?

In Polynomials, only positive valued equations exist, and does that mean for each exponent of a positive valued polynomial have exactly N-1 solutions? Where N is exponent? Or, have just one and only one solution?

So, the real true blue question of Polynomial theory, was, you have a equation with a positive value solution. How many solutions per exponent?

AP

Chris M. Thomasson

2017-06-19 19:57:08 UTC

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

An overdrawn account?

[...]

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-19 20:09:17 UTC

The italians are the fathers of accounting, and they didn't need
negative numbers, nevertheless they can represent debitors and creditors.

How comes? (Hint: You get easily Peano/Landau negative
numbers bootstrapping from it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_accounting

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

An overdrawn account?
[...]

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-19 20:14:13 UTC

BTW: Based on some sources, the word algebra has a related
ethymology, algebra was mostly used to divide an inheritance.

I just notice, dunno since when, Google
renders some ethymology trees:
https://www.google.ch/?gws_rd=ssl#q=algebra+ethymology

Post by b***@gmail.com
The italians are the fathers of accounting, and they didn't need
negative numbers, nevertheless they can represent debitors and creditors.
How comes? (Hint: You get easily Peano/Landau negative
numbers bootstrapping from it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_accounting

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

An overdrawn account?
[...]

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-19 20:18:43 UTC

This Google feature seems to be dependent on some language setting,
not sure whether one needs to be logged in or something as well:

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/2c4d-IbO8sI

Post by b***@gmail.com
BTW: Based on some sources, the word algebra has a related
ethymology, algebra was mostly used to divide an inheritance.
I just notice, dunno since when, Google
https://www.google.ch/?gws_rd=ssl#q=algebra+ethymology

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

An overdrawn account?
[...]

Chris M. Thomasson

2017-06-19 20:18:28 UTC

Nice. Fwiw, if a person has 500$ in an account, then tries to use 600$,
the negative nature of the calculation acts like a sort of "signal" to
report a situation in which the person either gets their transaction
denied, or into a realm where they owe 100$, plus penalty fees.

;^)

Post by b***@gmail.com

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

An overdrawn account?
[...]

b***@gmail.com

2017-06-19 20:25:27 UTC

In accounting, strictly speaking, you would need to
split the transaction, into two parts:
- depleting your account, withdrawing $500
- get a credit(*) from the bank, withdrawing $100

Signal is a fine word for what the bank then does, in case
it really allows the second part of the transaction. It
will subsequently book some interest rate, and add to
the amount of what you owe the bank.

But the above can all be done without negative numbers.
And is still done practially often without negative
numbers, for reasons. You might see a negative number in
some printout, but this doesn't mean its not two positive

numbers in the system.

(*)
from Italian credito, from Latin creditum
"a loan, thing entrusted to another,"

Post by b***@gmail.com

Tell that to the bank.

Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.

An overdrawn account?
[...]

g***@gmail.com

2017-06-18 08:09:49 UTC