A Mathematical Term for Everything
Mr. Wymore
the rocket that takes him there. How is it that we can build
skyscrapers that seem to defy gravity yet the slope of their vertical
walls is undefined? The answer to a math problem should never be
“undefined”. Why didn’t they just define it?
So I tried it.
What resulted was amazing. I found a single math concept, a single
new number that fixed everything. I named it panvis. Just as zero is
the mathematical term for “nothing”, panvis is the mathematical term
for “everything”. It is simple and elegant. It brings symmetry to
the number system and proposes one possibly way to fix all the
problems with infinity that have led to these undefined answers.
I named it panvis and wrote a small paper about it. It requires some
changes in traditional definitions. But I think it has some promise.
If you are interested in discussing it (please don't skim it and send
a link to wikipedia's definition of infinity), I would appreciate any
insights.
scattered
> We can put a person on the moon but we cannot define the trajectory of
> the rocket that takes him there. How is it that we can build
> skyscrapers that seem to defy gravity yet the slope of their vertical
> walls is undefined? The answer to a math problem should never be
> “undefined”.
Why in the world not? By the way - a vertical line doesn't have a
slope, which doesn't mean that it has some sort of weird slope which
no one has yet succeeded in defining.
> Why didn’t they just define it
>
> So I tried it.
>
> What resulted was amazing. I found a single math concept, a single
> new number that fixed everything. I named it panvis. Just as zero is
> the mathematical term for “nothing”, panvis is the mathematical term
> for “everything”. It is simple and elegant. It brings symmetry to
> the number system and proposes one possibly way to fix all the
> problems with infinity that have led to these undefined answers.
>
> I named it panvis and wrote a small paper about it. It requires some
> changes in traditional definitions. But I think it has some promise.
> If you are interested in discussing it (please don't skim it and send
> a link to wikipedia's definition of infinity), I would appreciate any
> insights.
>
> http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4SWh9R0_MymNTRiZTIyNTMtNDdlMy00N...
7
> We can put a person on the moon but we cannot define the trajectory of
> the rocket that takes him there. How is it that we can build
> skyscrapers that seem to defy gravity yet the slope of their vertical
> walls is undefined? The answer to a math problem should never be
> “undefined”. Why didn’t they just define it?
>
> So I tried it.
>
> What resulted was amazing. I found a single math concept, a single
> new number that fixed everything. I named it panvis. Just as zero is
> the mathematical term for “nothing”, panvis is the mathematical term
> for “everything”.
You fallen for an old trap from set theory.
Does your 'everything' include 'itself'?
And if it truly includes everything,
then it must also include 'not itself' as well.
Thus your panvis goes up in smoke before it can materialize.
Jesse F. Hughes
> You fallen for an old trap from set theory.
> Does your 'everything' include 'itself'?
> And if it truly includes everything,
> then it must also include 'not itself' as well.
> Thus your panvis goes up in smoke before it can materialize.
This is the most bizarre attempt at expressing Russell's paradox that
I can recall.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Besides 'talking trash' is in some ways part of extreme mathematics."
-- James S. Harris
Mr. Wymore
> You fallen for an old trap from set theory.
> Does your 'everything' include 'itself'?
> And if it truly includes everything,
> then it must also include 'not itself' as well.
> Thus your panvis goes up in smoke before it can materialize.
Please enlighten me. You say it's an invalid set because it does not
include "not itself". But that is a semantic argument. Why can't it
be defined such that there is nothing that is not part of itself;
making "not itself" the thing that is wrong?
For example any number that is "something" cannot be zero. So it's
okay to say that zero is the empty set (setting zero equal to
something). But it's not okay to say everything is in a set because
that excludes things that are nothing?
I guess my question is, why can't I define it as "all things" and,
like any other set, exclude anything that is not "something" or "not
itself"? That would be no different than a set of all matter in the
universe which ignores the space because it's not "something" related
to this set.
I appreciate your help in this matter.
bvcv...@yahoo.com
contrary to teh extreme exegesis of the Copenhagenskool,
there is only one (the rest is Solopsism,
per David Deutsch's say-not .-)
> I appreciate your help in this matter.
thus:
strictly untrue; Kepler et al were using the program
of [Cardinal] Nicholas of Cusa; of course, since
you are apparently British, you've probably been indoctrinated
with the secular church of Newton, and/or the Harry Potter PS
curriculum
of the "Venetian Party" of England.
also, I keep on referring to the 2.5-page article
in *Math.Mag.* (MAA.org), that proves of the isometry
of inductive & deductive proofs,
also giving a formula to convert from one to the other.
the Royal Society attack on Leibniz was political;
he was actively being considered to be the PM,
by Queen Anne. (deny that, if you care to .-)
> With Gawd getting in the way it's small wonder the Xtian Romans
> produced no mathematicians of the earlier Greek calibre. :-)- Hide quoted text -
thus:
doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed
about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but
that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts
were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository.
thus:
he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may
be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up
than doctor Minkowski; can you say,
Most useless formalism of Century 20.1?
however, the real problem is your persistent use
-- with whomever else from the past & future --
of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it,
which is really, strictly relative or active (as in,
That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying
to read this ****).
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
--Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf
--Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html
--The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon...
--In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
fishfry
<9769bfff-b7ee-4396...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
"Mr. Wymore" <wym...@ymail.com> wrote:
I skimmed a little and you would might be interested in googling
"Riemann sphere."
7
> On Jan 5, 12:28 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> You fallen for an old trap from set theory.
>> Does your 'everything' include 'itself'?
>> And if it truly includes everything,
>> then it must also include 'not itself' as well.
>> Thus your panvis goes up in smoke before it can materialize.
>
> Please enlighten me.
What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
The problem is that if one existed, then the other didn't exist in the
first place!
Thats the same problem with an object that tries to include everything.
If some function existed that destroys an object that tries to be
everything, then it must be included within the object
that includes everything. And poof.. the whole thing vanishes because
if one existed then the other did not exist in the first place.
If your 'panvis' is now defined as everything EXCEPT some function
that destroys 'panvis', then its a mental challenge to use
it in a meaningful way because clearly this new 'panvis' is suddenly
a bit smaller than what it could be. And it could be even smaller
and become worthless as new exceptions are added. For example, will
your 'panvis' contain both the immovable object and an irresistable
force? The answer is no. So the new definition of 'panvis' is
that it contains everything EXCEPT some function that destroy
'panvis' AND ALSO EXCEPT any immovable objects, AND ALSO EXCEPT any
irresistable forces.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Mr. Wymore wrote:
>
>> On Jan 5, 12:28 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You fallen for an old trap from set theory.
>>> Does your 'everything' include 'itself'?
>>> And if it truly includes everything,
>>> then it must also include 'not itself' as well.
>>> Thus your panvis goes up in smoke before it can materialize.
>>
>> Please enlighten me.
>
>
> What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
> The problem is that if one existed, then the other didn't exist in the
> first place!
>
> Thats the same problem with an object that tries to include everything.
> If some function existed that destroys an object that tries to be
> everything, then it must be included within the object
> that includes everything. And poof.. the whole thing vanishes because
> if one existed then the other did not exist in the first place.
I must say, this explanation of Russell's paradox just gets better and
better.
This is still Russell's paradox, right?
--
"But remember, as long as one human being follows the rules of
mathematics, then mathematics as a human discipline survives.
Right now I'm that one human being, so mathematics survives."
-- James S. Harris
kibby
What the heck?
I feel like there's one giant ongoing joke in this thread that's
eluding me.
Mr. Wymore
> What happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force?
> The problem is that if one existed, then the other didn't exist in the
> first place!
>
> Thats the same problem with an object that tries to includeeverything.
> that includeseverything. And poof.. the whole thing vanishes because
> if one existed then the other did not exist in the first place.
>
> that destroys 'panvis', then its a mental challenge to use
> it in a meaningful way because clearly this new 'panvis' is suddenly
> a bit smaller than what it could be. And it could be even smaller
> and become worthless as new exceptions are added. For example, will
> your 'panvis' contain both the immovable object and an irresistable
> force? The answer is no. So the new definition of 'panvis' is
> 'panvis' AND ALSO EXCEPT any immovable objects, AND ALSO EXCEPT any
> irresistable forces.
I see your point here. And I appreciate you taking the time to
explain. I think I was working with Type Theory. But it's rusty so I
need to look a few things over and re-group.
I'll start a new thread with some clearer questions. Again, I
appreciate all the comments.
(I even appreciated your comment bcbv...@yahoo.com... except after
the first paragraph is was very confusing. I will mention that I am
not at all British. My name sometimes throws people off.)