Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: New number set

  1. #1 New number set 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    Hi friends
    I am trying to construct a new number set which dosn't have the problem
    of division by zero and the square root of negative value
    so here is the basic

    All arithmitic rules and notions are the same as those of Reals set
    except the following statements
    0^2=1
    if a and b are positive reals and a*b=c
    then
    a * -b = c "if a>b"
    a * -b = -c "if a<=b"
    -a * -b = -c
    if a=b^n then Root(a) =b "without absolute value"

    The rest is the same as the traditional R set


    so as a result we have this solultions for old problems :

    SquareRoot(-1)=-1 " since -1 * -1 = -1 "

    1/0 = 0

    0^0 = 0^(1-1) = 0^1 * 0^-1 = 0 * 0=0

    So is there any chance this can be correct or at least can be changed so it respects the norm ?

    thanks


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Well, I see two things wrong with your current line of thinking.

    Mainly, you seem to be operating under the misconception that there's a problem with division by zero and imaginary numbers. That said, it can be fun to try and work out new stuff. Just don't be surprised if it doesn't work out perfectly.

    Other than that, your definition of multiplication is not continuous. I think this would lead to some serious problems, but I can't be absolutely sure right off hand. Anyway, to make sure that your structure can do at least some of what the real numbers can do, you should make sure it conforms to the field axioms.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    Hi magimaster what does it mean " definition of multiplication is not continuous" ?

    and what if we add the rule 0^-1=1 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: New number set 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by dirbax

    if and are positive reals and
    then
    "if "
    "if "
    -a * -b = -c
    if then "without absolute value"

    The rest is the same as the traditional R set


    so as a result we have this solultions for old problems :

    " since "





    So is there any chance this can be correct or at least can be changed so it respects the norm ?

    thanks
    It's much more pleasurable with latex. As shown.

    You seem to be under the contention that there is an anvalidity to division with zero's, which would be my main point by the way.
    Only the mind can think twice simultaneously about a subject, but only one thing can inexorably come out of it. A choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    How much background do you have in advanced mathematics? We did some stuff like this as part of a class I took in college. Abstract algebra maybe? Anyway, there's a whole bunch of formal rules you can use to examine what you've constructed and see any problems it will have. But it's been years and I don't remember them
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •