info
Google Groups unterstützt keine neuen Usenet-Beiträge oder ‑Abos mehr. Bisherige Inhalte sind weiterhin sichtbar.
Dismiss
My 200th published book-- Primes are ILL defined in Mathematics // Math focus by Archimedes Plutonium Preface: AP's 200th book of science// Primes are ILL defined in Mathematics // Math focus by Archimedes Plutonium. A shame that Galois invented
3 Aufrufe
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht
Archimedes Plutonium
20.08.2022, 01:08:2920.08.22
an
My 200th published book
Primes are ILL defined in Mathematics // Math focus
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: AP's 200th book of science// Primes are ILL defined in Mathematics // Math focus by Archimedes Plutonium.
A shame that Galois invented Groups, Ring,Field over the nonsense of quintic. But by 1830 in math history, it was not known that a Well Defined Equation of math had to have a positive nonzero number to the rightside of the equation at all times, and never be zero. Because the moment you do that, there never arises a problem of quintic.
And what Galois should have done with his time, was reason that groups rings and fields need to be invented for the purpose of a Well Defined Operator in mathematics.
It should not be AP that corrects all of Algebra of mathematics, but it should have been Galois or Gauss or Riemann to have done that by 1830.
Prime concept is a hallucination of Old Math. Ask any physicist where does the concept of prime arise in physics? It never does, and the reason being is mathematicians are kooks in defining prime.
Sure, mathematicians have known for centuries that primes have No Pattern, have No Formula. But you would then expect at least one marble of brain power from these mathematicians to notice that if No Pattern, No Formula, that something is wrong with the definition of primes.
What is wrong in the definition? It is simple and tells us why primes have no pattern, have no formula. To be Well Defined Operator, a operator must obey N#M = P where # is the operator (in our case, division) and N,M,P must be Counting Numbers to be well defined. So in other words a Well Defined operator over a set of numbers, must deliver to you when you operate N#M, must deliver to you another Counting Number P. Primes of Old Math only sometimes obeys that axiom of well defined. And, immediately we have numbers outside of Counting Numbers such as 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, etc etc.
Cover Picture: Is my photograph of my hand written formula of Well Defined Operator N # M = P. The N,M,P represent numbers from a given set. The symbol # represents the operator. A operator is well defined if all N,M,P are inside the given set. The operator is ILL defined if some P are not inside the original set.
Product details
• ASIN : B0BB6PWW2B
• Publication date : August 18, 2022
• Language : English
• File size : 384 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 64 pages
• Lending : Enabled
Primes are ILL defined in Mathematics // Math focus
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: AP's 200th book of science// Primes are ILL defined in Mathematics // Math focus by Archimedes Plutonium.
A shame that Galois invented Groups, Ring,Field over the nonsense of quintic. But by 1830 in math history, it was not known that a Well Defined Equation of math had to have a positive nonzero number to the rightside of the equation at all times, and never be zero. Because the moment you do that, there never arises a problem of quintic.
And what Galois should have done with his time, was reason that groups rings and fields need to be invented for the purpose of a Well Defined Operator in mathematics.
It should not be AP that corrects all of Algebra of mathematics, but it should have been Galois or Gauss or Riemann to have done that by 1830.
Prime concept is a hallucination of Old Math. Ask any physicist where does the concept of prime arise in physics? It never does, and the reason being is mathematicians are kooks in defining prime.
Sure, mathematicians have known for centuries that primes have No Pattern, have No Formula. But you would then expect at least one marble of brain power from these mathematicians to notice that if No Pattern, No Formula, that something is wrong with the definition of primes.
What is wrong in the definition? It is simple and tells us why primes have no pattern, have no formula. To be Well Defined Operator, a operator must obey N#M = P where # is the operator (in our case, division) and N,M,P must be Counting Numbers to be well defined. So in other words a Well Defined operator over a set of numbers, must deliver to you when you operate N#M, must deliver to you another Counting Number P. Primes of Old Math only sometimes obeys that axiom of well defined. And, immediately we have numbers outside of Counting Numbers such as 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, etc etc.
Cover Picture: Is my photograph of my hand written formula of Well Defined Operator N # M = P. The N,M,P represent numbers from a given set. The symbol # represents the operator. A operator is well defined if all N,M,P are inside the given set. The operator is ILL defined if some P are not inside the original set.
Product details
• ASIN : B0BB6PWW2B
• Publication date : August 18, 2022
• Language : English
• File size : 384 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 64 pages
• Lending : Enabled
0 neue Nachrichten