1. Watch the image below. If we combine the two triangles we get different results. Triangles will be replaced with the number 3 (because triangles have three angles), the results obtained with the number as a geometric object angles. Connecting the two triangles is the mathematical operations of addition
a + b = c
1.3 +3 = 3
2.3 +3 = 4
3.3 +3 = 5
4.3 +3 = 6
5.3 +3 = 7
6.3 +3 = 8
7.3 +3 = 9
8.3 +3 = 10
9.3 +3 = 12
The current mathematics has the answer (4.3 +3 = 6), it is impossible for the other, the reality is that this may be true.
I'll show you a review of mathematics that solves problems, join ...

2. ### Related Discussions:

• I think you will have to explain this in more detail. I have no idea what your diagram or your list of numbers is supposed to represent.

1.3 +3 = 4.3
2.3 +3 = 5.3
3.3 +3 = 6.3
4.3 +3 = 7.3
5.3 +3 = 8.3
6.3 +3 = 9.3
7.3 +3 = 10.3
8.3 +3 = 11.3
9.3 +3 = 12.3

• The current mathematics has the answer (4.3 +3 = 6)
Math doesn't say that if you stick 2 triangles on top of each other the result always has 6 sides.
That doesn't make sense.
You can't just call something that isn't addition, "addition", and then reason as though it was just what we usually call addition.

• Oh good grief. I think you are right.

ms.math does seem to think that arbitrary arrangements of geometric shape represent simple arithmetic.

Well, I have come across some daft ideas, but this one is a classic.

• ms. math, let's just pretend this is logical and correct. This implies that 3=4=5=6=7... etc. and in general, that every integer equals all integers. We simply can't have this. It pretty much obliterates mathematics and its entire purpose altogether.

At least you're thinking outside the box, but you can't just assume these geometric arrangements actually mean something. Where's the reasoning behind your implications?

• Originally Posted by epidecus
ms. math, let's just pretend this is logical and correct. This implies that 3=4=5=6=7... etc. and in general, that every integer equals all integers. We simply can't have this. It pretty much obliterates mathematics and its entire purpose altogether.

At least you're thinking outside the box, but you can't just assume these geometric arrangements actually mean something. Where's the reasoning behind your implications?
This is the solution for my math, you can figure it out because (1-3. they points numbers, 5.-9. add to the dynamic numbers, words that do not exist in the current mathematics)
1.3 + (.0)3 = 3
2.3 +(.1)3 = 4
3.3 +(.2)3 = 5
4.3+3 = 6
5.33Rd1(6)d2(7)+3 = 7
6.33Rd1(6)d2(8)+3 = 8
7.33Rd1(6)d2(9)+3 = 9
8.33Rd1(6)d2(10)+3 = 10
9.33Rd1(6)d2(12)+3 = 12

when present mathematics there is no solution what is possible in real life, then you need to find a new basis which has the answers to all the problems.

A different approach, a mathematical space that has two starting points (natural and realistic axiom - a natural geometric object and a real geometric object) in a mathematical space is monitored geometrical relationship between the object (function, numbers, logic equations, ..., are different names relations geometrical object).
Natural geometric object - along the natural (Figure AB)
point the natural properties of longer, its beginning (A) and end (B) - the current point math is not defined.
Natural longer merge points. Each new geometric object should come from natural and long previous geometrical object (this is achieved by association of concepts and new concepts not as an axiom by the current math).
The following post is made to demonstrate the first evidence

• At least you know this isn't and shouldn't be standard-established mathematics. But since you claim this to be your own personal formalization, I'll look into it. But mind this, I'll only take it seriously if it shows potential of properly formalizing whatever it is your doing, and most importantly that it helps contribute to the understanding of the subject and the purpose of mathematics in general.

So I read your post, but I still can't really understand your ... system (let's just call it that).

Before diving into your abstraction, mind explaining your terminology first? What are "point" and "dynamic" numbers supposed to mean? What's the basic premise of this whole thing?

• Originally Posted by epidecus
What are "point" and "dynamic" numbers supposed to mean? What's the basic premise of this whole thing?
step by step and we'll get to those terms
theorem - two (more) natural merge in the direction of longer AB

experiment (realization theorem)

we get the following geometric objects
1. final (n, in Figure 1.2.3.) Along
2. infinite (n, in Figure 4.) along a one-way infinite

• Hi again Ms. Math

step by step and we'll get to those terms
No problem

theorem - two (more) natural merge in the direction of longer AB
This is unclear, so I'm pretty much lost to begin with. What is "AB"? What does "natural merge" mean? Unless you specify these fundamental elements, your model isn't properly formalized, which means its whole purpose is defeated. If you could, try reformulating your statement so that it introduces me to your model.

• I showed this to my husband just now and some questions emerged in the ensuing 'conversation'.

1. How can this construction be used to create an addition where the answer is 1 or 2?

2. When we look at the visual presentation of those triangles, (from that first link) what method is there for representing those triangles in such a way that you don't have to know the answer before aligning the 2 triangles to show the answer? Normally when we add we don't presume to know the answer. The way that document is set out, you have to know the answer before you start.

3. We wondered if this was the result of one of those ghastly "creative maths teaching" exercises where the students are asked to come up with their own versions of standard arithmetic calculation methods.

• Originally Posted by epidecus
Hi again Ms. Math
I'm a man, I have 42 years
Originally Posted by epidecus

This is unclear, so I'm pretty much lost to begin with. What is "AB"? What does "natural merge" mean? Unless you specify these fundamental elements, your model isn't properly formalized, which means its whole purpose is defeated. If you could, try reformulating your statement so that it &lt;em&gt;introduces &lt;/em&gt;me to your model.
translations by Google Translate, "AB" or "natural along" and "point" are geometric objects
that does not prove (Figure AB, A, B).you only have initial geometric object (natural long), the only possible next geometric object is to connect the (natural long) in the natural direction of the first segment AB (Need: plane, angle, defined space, ...)
I showed this to my husband just now and some questions emerged in the ensuing 'conversation'.

1. How can this construction be used to create an addition where the answer is 1 or 2?
2. When we look at the visual presentation of those triangles, (from that first link) what method is there for representing those triangles in such a way that you don't have to know the answer before aligning the 2 triangles to show the answer? Normally when we add we don't presume to know the answer. The way that document is set out, you have to know the answer before you start.
3. We wondered if this was the result of one of those ghastly "creative maths teaching" exercises where the students are asked to come up with their own versions of standard arithmetic calculation methods.
1.depends on how much is n (finite or infinite form)
2.do not know the answer until you connect the two triangles (two polygon), I only showed an example that there is something present mathematics there is no solution, there is a solution if you put mathematics on other grounds (that is, in fact, all mathematics applies different geometrical object in mathematics space)
3.I am not a student of education, and I have 12 years of school, I do math as a hobby, watching the phenomena in the real world, I realized that math if we put on other grounds may lead to new knowledge

• Originally Posted by ms.math
translations by Google Translate, "AB" or "natural along" and "point" are geometric objects
Ms MATH, you appear to be a sock-puppet of the previously banned member who wrote all the SRDANOVA MATHEMATICS nonsense? Is that correct?
http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...thematics.html

• A lack of response to me indicates that the answer is yes.

Maybe it's the (I'm inferring) lack of English fluency, a lack of sense in proper forum presentation, or maybe both ... but whatever the reason, there seems to be no reason. No reason behind throwing out all these unorthodox, baseless ideas. No reason behind developing a new geometric system. No reason in recurrently posting this on a forum that has recurrently pushed it away... which is somewhat unfortunate as I was expecting some bright spot that would eventually come from this.

• A quick search (why do I do these things) shows that Ms Math (M Srdna, M Bilanica, Kumarevo, etc) whoever he/she is, has pasted the same stuff one pretty much every forum out there.

There is definitely a language problem: the text seems to be poorly translated by Google. But there is also a presentation problem; it would appear that no attempt is made to explain what any of this means.

Oh, and of course, there is the minor problem that it is all complete meaningless tosh.

I have no idea what compels someone to keep posting nonsense. But to keep posting nonsense in a form that makes it incomprehensible with no attempt to explain it or improve the presentation ...

• pošto me ne shvatate , evo vam rad o pojavi prostog broja uređen po matematičkoj notaciji , matematički časopisi nisu hteli da ga objave , pogledajte da li vredi.
because I do not get it, here's the work of the occurrence arranged by the sheer number of mathematical notation, mathematical journals refused to publish it, see if it's worth.

• mathematical journals refused to publish it
What a surprise.

• Originally Posted by ms.math
because I do not get it, here's the work of the occurrence arranged by the sheer number of mathematical notation, mathematical journals refused to publish it, see if it's worth.
For the trivial mathematical concepts and derivations involved in your document, you'll need to get the attention of a real mathematician. I am not. But based off this paper, it's clear that you're well-versed in your own notational system, and possibly knowledgeable in the subject of mathematics as a whole (though deluded in some aspects). If you're a real mathematician, then why not have reliable peers review your work? Because this is obviously not working on a science forum.

Now the following are problems I do feel I can rightly point out... Whether your notation is standard or not, you have not introduced us to it. Throwing out seemingly arbitrary functions and identities without a single hint of background explanation does not help.

Also, at the end, it seems you're saying that you can derive some new kind of prime number. And 4 is included in the sequence... I'm not sure what to say here.

• Originally Posted by Strange
I have no idea what compels someone to keep posting nonsense. But to keep posting nonsense in a form that makes it incomprehensible with no attempt to explain it or improve the presentation ...
I have no idea either... Posting something 26 times without success and expecting us to magically accept it all of a sudden will not work sadly. Try again Dr. Seuss.

• theorem - infinite point dc longer be replaced {(0), (0,1), ... (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), ...} circular and set position.
evidence

We got a new geometric object - along the numerical

• Originally Posted by ms.math
theorem - infinite point dc longer be replaced {(0), (0,1), ... (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), ...} circular and set position.
evidence

We got a new geometric object - along the numerical
Ms. Math, have you considered professional (medical) help?

Speculation - all along down along down. 25 or 6 to 4. chicago from chicago. evidence.

we got new crazy. along the garden path..

colorless green sheep sleep furiously.

time flies like an arrow - fruit flies like a banana.

• Originally Posted by Strange

Ms. Math, have you considered professional (medical) help?

Speculation - all along down along down. 25 or 6 to 4. chicago from chicago. evidence.

we got new crazy. along the garden path..

colorless green sheep sleep furiously.

time flies like an arrow - fruit flies like a banana.
f I'm crazy then you do not read my "mess", because who makes me crazy even crazier if you consistently read my writing - if you are a "great mathematician" then fix the first post (sep.02.2012)
who wants to learn and make sense to criticize - let you go

• Originally Posted by ms.math
then fix the first post
a) It is incomprehensible (as are all your posts)
b) Based on what others have worked out it is obviously nonsense.

So my translation of it would be: "Gooble, frack triangle waffle along blub point shuggle three clonk". That makes exactly as much sense as anything you write.

You have two problems:
2) You keep posting in incomprehensibly bad English.

Advice: Take a year or two to learn English to a level where you can communicate. Then try presenting your ideas again. At least people might know what you are trying to say and be able to enter a dialogue to explain why your ideas are wrong.

For example, paragraphs such as this are not English. They are just meaningless jumbles of words.
"AB" or "natural along" and "point" are geometric objects
that does not prove (Figure AB, A, B).you only have initial geometric object (natural long), the only possible next geometric object is to connect the (natural long) in the natural direction of the first segment AB (Need: plane, angle, defined space, ...)
Until you have the language skills to communicate what you want to say, you are just wasting everyone's time.

• I agree with Strange's message, albeit to a weaker extent. "ms. math", I was going to explain to you what you should do first so that we can properly understand you and hence reasonably critique your work... however I have decided I won't even go further as what you've shown so far merits no mathematical significance.

Right now this same very thread just popped up on scienceforums.net... Same overlapping triangles thrown out of nowhere. If anything, the members over there will have a much stronger reaction to this than we've had.

• Theorem - the length between points 0 and all points (separately) on the number the longer the new relationship
proof - look along the numerical
We got a set of natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, ...},
example of the difference and the number of points on the number exceed:
Item 5 and No. 5 are two different things, point 5 is the point number 5 is the length between points 0 and 5 points along the numerical

• Originally Posted by John Galt
serbian-Previous post would look like in Serbian
teorema - dužina između tačke 0 i svih tačaka ( svaka za sebe) na brojevnoj duži je novi odnos
dokaz -pogledaj brojevnu duž
dobili smo skup prirodnoh brojeva N={0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,...} ,
primer o razlici tačke i broja na brojevnoj duži:
tačka 5 i broj 5 su dva razlićita pojma , tačka 5 je tačka , broj 5 je dužina između tačke 0 i tačke 5 na brojevnu duž

write in latex (translation someone with Serbian to English - after 10 Theorem) whereof will be clearer - I'm through google translators I understand (your questions and your comments on my presentation)

• 2.4 Mobile Number
Theorem-Natural numbers can be specified and other numerical
point other than the point numeric 0th
Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2)
the number 2
www12.jpg
Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 2
www13.jpg
Ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 2
www14.jpg
...

• 2.5 Gap numbers
Theorem- number and mobile number of no contact, ( number and mobile number without contact) and mobile number without con-
clock, ..., in numeric longer.
EVIDENCE - number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact, gets
a gap of 2 (.1.) 2
www15.jpg
number 2 and number mobile 2 no contact, getting the
2 (.2.) 2
www16.jpg
number 2 and number mobile 2 no contact, getting the gap
2 (.3.) 2
www17.jpg
...
(number 2 and mobile number 2 no contact) and mobile number 1
no contact, getting a gap of 2 (.1.) 2 (.1.) 1
www18.jpg
...
Gap set of numbers GN={ a |(.bn.)cn| (a, bn, cn) "belongs" N, bn> 0}

• 2.6 Moving of gap number
Theorem-gap numbers can be entered and the second numerical
point other than the point numeric 0
EVIDENCE-ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is
gap 2 (.1.) 1
www21.jpg
Ratio (length) numeric point (1) and the numerical point of (5) is gap 2 (.1.) 1
www22.jpg

Ratio (length) numeric point (2) and the numerical point of (6) is gap 2 (.1.) 1
www23.jpg
...

• Out of curiosity, have people who speak your language given you any feedback on these ideas?

• 2.7 Points of number
Theorem - Number of numeric longer has a point, it could be the opposite
write.
EVIDENCE - Number 5 has a point: (.0), (.1), (.2), (.3) (.4) (.5). Opposite may
write: (.. 0), (​​.. 1), (​​2 ..) (.. 3), (​​4 ..) (.. 5).
www19.jpg
Emptiness 2 (.3.) 1 has a point: (.0), (.1), (.2), (.3) (.4) (.5), (.6). can
Write the opposite: (.0), (​​.. 1), (.. 2), (​​3 ..) (.. 4), (​​5 ..) (.. 6)
www20.jpg

• 2.8 comparability of natural numbers

Theorem-Two (more) numbers are comparable to know
Who is the greater (equal, smaller), which is the point of (.. 0) away from the
numerical point of 0th
EVIDENCE - Two issues: 5> 3 (item number 5 (.5) away from the point
number 3 (.3)) 5 has a number of third 4 = 4 (item number 4 (.4) and the number of points
4 (.4) are equidistant) 4 is equal to 4 .2 <6 (item number 6 (.6) is
distance from point number 2 (.2) 2 less than 6 . ). (= {>, =, <}, a). (b.

Three issues: a). (b). (c
www28.jpg
...

• Out of curiosity, have people who speak your language given you any feedback on these ideas?

• Ms.math, do you know anything about algebra?

Ms.math, do you know anything about algebra?

It's a lot of chocolate with hazelnuts, or is it something else?
---------
Theorem-number (number of gaps) and mobile number (mobile Gap
number) are in contact, the movable point number (mobile number gaps)
(.0) Varies according to the number of counts (number of gaps) and connect.
EVIDENCE - 3 + (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 + (.. 3) = 3.
www24.jpg
3 + (.1) 3 = 4 or 3 + (.. 2) = 4
www25.jpg
3 + (.2) 3 = 5 or 3 + (.. 1) 3 = 5
www26.jpg
3 + (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 + (.. 0) 3 = 6 or 3 +3 = 6
www27.jpg
With this solution we get the first 4 solutions, the other will have to wait!!

• Out of curiosity, have people who speak your language given you any feedback on these ideas?

• Originally Posted by Strange
Out of curiosity, have people who speak your language given you any feedback on these ideas?
I will debate with you when you give the answer at the beginning of this post, to prove that the current mathematics has solutions
or not enough "intelligence" to understand things (see sci fi series Stargate SG1 - Stargate antlantis, there are characters who resonate alien science, and you watch me as an alien phenomenon - so try to know the things that connect with my statement, if you come in stack will be of some use to you).
----------------------------------------------------
2.10 comparability of gaps
Theorem-gap parts of which are not (. an.) Are added to the store
addition (.. 0) and compared as natural numbers.
EVIDENCE - 4 (.5.) 3 followed by 4 + (.. 0) 3 = 7, a(.b.)c Followed a+ (.. 0) c = d.

6 (.5.) 2 (.4.) 3 followed by 6 + (.. 0) 2 + (.. 0) 3 = 11 , a(.b.)c(.d.)e followed by a+(.. 0) c + (.. 0) e = f

3 (.3.) 5 (.2.) 7 (.3.) 4 followed by 3 + (.. 0) + 5 (.. 0) 7 + (.. 0) 4 = 19, a(. b. ) c (. d.) e (. f) g follows
a + (.. 0) c + (.. 0) e + (.. 0) g = h.
...

• Originally Posted by ms.math
Originally Posted by Strange
Out of curiosity, have people who speak your language given you any feedback on these ideas?
I will debate with you when you give the answer at the beginning of this post
The trouble is, I cannot answer your question because your posts are incomprehensible. That is why I ask about people who speak your language. I am curious whether the problem is just one of language or something else.

• [QUOTE=Strange;370236]
Originally Posted by ms.math

The trouble is, I cannot answer your question because your posts are incomprehensible. That is why I ask about people who speak your language. I am curious whether the problem is just one of language or something else.
If you are contacted by people who speak my language (Serbian) can bring us together, to them in their language explained, and those in your English, - ms.biljanica@gmail.com

• 2:11 Subtraction

Theorem-The addition of a long relationship where the merged, deleted the ratio (a), the rest remains.
EVIDENCE -
3 - (.0) 3 = 0 or 3 - (.. 3) 3 = 0
www29.jpg
3 - (.1) 3 = 1 (.2.) 1 or 3 - (..2) = 1 (.2.) 1
www30.jpg
3 - (.2) 3 = 2 (.1.) 1 or 3 - (.. 1) 3 = 2 (.1.) 1
www31.jpg
3 - (.3) 3 = 6 or 3 - (.. 0) 3 = 6
www32.jpg
_____________________________________________
to see if you think like mathematicians who created the current math, it's a plane geometry:
1 - a triangle that has no surface
2 - which has similarities with some triangle polygon
3 - that triangle has angles> 180 °

• 2.12 - Contrary seizure

Theorem - The addition of a long relationship where together, this relationship remains (a), the rest are deleted.

EVIDENCE - 3 w (.0) 3 = 3 or 3 w (.. 3) 3 = 3

www33.jpg
3 w (.1) 3 = 2 or 3 w (.. 2) 3 = 2
www34.jpg
3w (.2) 3 = 1 or 3 w (.. 1) 3 = 1
www35.jpg
3 w (.3) 3 = 0 or 3 w (.. 0) 3 = 0
www36.jpg
The general form aw (. q) b = c or aw (.. q) b = c, w-replacement surgery opposite subtraction (Figure stands)

Theorem - The gap between the sums of the two gaps.

EVIDENCE - 1 (.2.) 1w (.0) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.3.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1 w(.. 3) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.3.) 0

www37.jpg

1 (.2.) 1w (.1) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1 w(.. 2) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0

www38.jpg

1 (.2.) 1w (.2) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.3.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1w (.. 1) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.3.) 0

www39.jpg

1 (.2.) 1w (.3) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0 or 1 (.2.) 1w (.. 0) 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 0 = 0 (.1.) 1 (.1.) 1 (.2.) 0

www40.jpg

The general form aw (. q) = c or aw (.. q) = c
w-sign on an operation (the picture shows)

• I made a little better notation that my speech was clearly - PDF below (in Serbian, there will be an English translation)

• 2.14, subtract Gap

Theorem - The addition of a relationship gaps where gapstogether, this relationship is deleted, leaving the rest.

EVIDENCE - 1/.2/1 [0] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.2/0 or 1/.2/1 [.3] 0/.1/1/.1/0 =0/.2/0
www41.jpg
1/.2/1 [1] 0/.1/1/.1/0 =0/.1/2/.1/0 or 1/.2/1 [.2] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/2/.1/0
www42.jpg
1/.2/1 [2] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/1/.3/0 or 1/.2/1 [.1] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/1/.3/0
www43.jpg
1/.2/1 [3] 0/.1/1/.1/0 =0/.1/1/.1/1/.2/0 or 1/.2/1 [.0] 0/.1/1/.1/0= 0/.1/1/.1/1/.2/0
www44.jpg
The general form of a [q] = c or a [. q] = c.

• 2:15 gap contrary seizure
Theorem - The addition of a relationship gaps where gaps together, he remains, the rest is deleted.
EVIDENCE - 1/.2/1 [3]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0 or
1/.2/1 [.0]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0
www45.jpg
1/.2/1 [2]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0 or
1/.2/1 [.1]0/.1/1/.1/0=0/.1/0
www46.jpg
1/.2/1 [1]0/.1/1/.1/0=0 or
1/.2/1 [.2]0/.1/1/.1/0=0
www47.jpg
1/.2/1 [0]0/.1/1/.1/0=0 or
1/.2/1 [.3]0/.1/1/.1/0=0
www48.jpg
The general form a [q] b = c, and a [. q] b = c.

• Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
as long as the readers, I'm going to publish my knowledge
2:16 opposite numbers "2.2,2.2,2.5,2.7" - "from which previous evidence proving the new concept"
Theorem - The numbers have the same number of points, length becomes void and rotation.
EVIDENCE - 4 0/.4/0
www49.jpg
1/.1/3 0/.1/1/.3/0
www50.jpg

• This has gone on long enough. Msmath is a sock puppet, apparently, and is posting complete gibberish. He will be gone, shortly.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement