Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
summarizing the difference between Old Math and New Math #1256 Correcting Math 3rd ed
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 6, 2012, 5:17:17 PM11/6/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
So good, I made a lot of progress in this brief time of exposing
Cantor's fakery of infinity. And today is the last day I want to do
this math for I need to complete the Atom Totality physics book.
So let me summarize in these closing posts.
Cantor was all wrong about infinity because he failed to do what must
be done first. Precisely define finite with respect to infinite and
that entails specifying a number which is the borderline between the
two. I researched and found the number pi*10^603 is the number in
which most of the theorems of mathematics hold true. For example the
surface area of the pseudosphere is said to be equal to the sphere at
infinity. So if pi*10^603 is infinity, then that condition becomes
true for the pseudosphere and sphere. This number which I call 10^603
for short is the number that most theorems of mathematics are true
theorems.
And if Cantor had taken 10^603 as the borderline, then Cantor could
have given a valid proof that the Rationals form a 1-1 Correspondence
with Naturals, and not is invalid proof argument.
When infinity is properly defined by its borderline, a lot of things
in mathematics change and change for the better. In this New Math, the
Reals become the same set as the Rationals. In this New Math, the
Reals have a smallest nonzero Real and it is 10^-603 and where we have
no number in between 0 and 10^-603. We do if we want to work with
infinite numbers such as 10^-700 or 10^-1206, but we must keep clear
in mind what is a finite number and what is a infinite number and the
borderline reminds us of which is which.
Now the Calculus is improved by New Math, because there are tiny holes
between successive Reals. Those tiny holes are like the pixels in
computer science. And in the Calculus, in order for Calculus to exist
in the first place, it needs holes between successive Reals to form
integrals of picket fences and those fences must have a nonzero width.
By having holes the width is always 10^-603 width. And in forming the
derivative or slope or tangent, in Old Math they had a continuity of
points between any two points, so they had a blizzard infinity of
points to deal with whenever you tried to construct a slope or
tangent. In New Math, every successive Real has a empty space between
it and the next Real, that allows the construction of the correct
angle between two points that are successive. You need an empty space
of room to construct the proper slope or tangent.
So that we see Calculus requires empty space between successive points
of a graph. And Calculus is enhanced by New Math and its borderline
with finite to infinity.
In Old Math, they compensated for their destruction of the Calculus
with its absolute continuity by injecting the "limit concept". The
limit concept is simply a sweeping under the rug of the fact that you
cannot have a Calculus when you do not have holes between successive
numbers.
Now to the even larger picture. When you define finite to infinity
properly, you end up with finite numbers opposed to infinite numbers.
We should see the finite numbers as the area in which mathematics is
100% precise as a science. And when we trespass into the infinite
numbers, we do so at the mercy of we are at the risk of imprecision.
So mathematics is the subject of precision and that means finite realm
is where mathematics is conducted. When we use infinite numbers we are
in breakdown territory and our mathematics starts falling apart the
deeper we venture into infinite numbers. The concept of irrational
number or transcendental number are two concepts that are no longer
mathematics, but broken down mathematics. All the Reals are all the
Rationals and they reside from 0 to 10^603. If we wanted the square
root of 2, we have to trespass into the infinite numbers with 1206
digits to the right of the decimal point of 1.414...
If we multiply that square root of 2 of 1206 digits we end up with a
string that has 2.0000..00 and has 603 digits of zeroes (at least the
computer I used years ago said it had 603 digits of 0s when using 1206
digits in multiplying).
So, in New Math, with finite and infinite precisely defined, much of
Old Math is tossed out as bad thinking, imprecise thinking.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Cantor's fakery of infinity. And today is the last day I want to do
this math for I need to complete the Atom Totality physics book.
So let me summarize in these closing posts.
Cantor was all wrong about infinity because he failed to do what must
be done first. Precisely define finite with respect to infinite and
that entails specifying a number which is the borderline between the
two. I researched and found the number pi*10^603 is the number in
which most of the theorems of mathematics hold true. For example the
surface area of the pseudosphere is said to be equal to the sphere at
infinity. So if pi*10^603 is infinity, then that condition becomes
true for the pseudosphere and sphere. This number which I call 10^603
for short is the number that most theorems of mathematics are true
theorems.
And if Cantor had taken 10^603 as the borderline, then Cantor could
have given a valid proof that the Rationals form a 1-1 Correspondence
with Naturals, and not is invalid proof argument.
When infinity is properly defined by its borderline, a lot of things
in mathematics change and change for the better. In this New Math, the
Reals become the same set as the Rationals. In this New Math, the
Reals have a smallest nonzero Real and it is 10^-603 and where we have
no number in between 0 and 10^-603. We do if we want to work with
infinite numbers such as 10^-700 or 10^-1206, but we must keep clear
in mind what is a finite number and what is a infinite number and the
borderline reminds us of which is which.
Now the Calculus is improved by New Math, because there are tiny holes
between successive Reals. Those tiny holes are like the pixels in
computer science. And in the Calculus, in order for Calculus to exist
in the first place, it needs holes between successive Reals to form
integrals of picket fences and those fences must have a nonzero width.
By having holes the width is always 10^-603 width. And in forming the
derivative or slope or tangent, in Old Math they had a continuity of
points between any two points, so they had a blizzard infinity of
points to deal with whenever you tried to construct a slope or
tangent. In New Math, every successive Real has a empty space between
it and the next Real, that allows the construction of the correct
angle between two points that are successive. You need an empty space
of room to construct the proper slope or tangent.
So that we see Calculus requires empty space between successive points
of a graph. And Calculus is enhanced by New Math and its borderline
with finite to infinity.
In Old Math, they compensated for their destruction of the Calculus
with its absolute continuity by injecting the "limit concept". The
limit concept is simply a sweeping under the rug of the fact that you
cannot have a Calculus when you do not have holes between successive
numbers.
Now to the even larger picture. When you define finite to infinity
properly, you end up with finite numbers opposed to infinite numbers.
We should see the finite numbers as the area in which mathematics is
100% precise as a science. And when we trespass into the infinite
numbers, we do so at the mercy of we are at the risk of imprecision.
So mathematics is the subject of precision and that means finite realm
is where mathematics is conducted. When we use infinite numbers we are
in breakdown territory and our mathematics starts falling apart the
deeper we venture into infinite numbers. The concept of irrational
number or transcendental number are two concepts that are no longer
mathematics, but broken down mathematics. All the Reals are all the
Rationals and they reside from 0 to 10^603. If we wanted the square
root of 2, we have to trespass into the infinite numbers with 1206
digits to the right of the decimal point of 1.414...
If we multiply that square root of 2 of 1206 digits we end up with a
string that has 2.0000..00 and has 603 digits of zeroes (at least the
computer I used years ago said it had 603 digits of 0s when using 1206
digits in multiplying).
So, in New Math, with finite and infinite precisely defined, much of
Old Math is tossed out as bad thinking, imprecise thinking.
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Larry Harson
Nov 6, 2012, 6:20:15 PM11/6/12
to
On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:17:21 PM UTC, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> So good, I made a lot of progress in this brief time of exposing
>
> Cantor's fakery of infinity. And today is the last day I want to do
>
> this math for I need to complete the Atom Totality physics book.
[snipped]
> So good, I made a lot of progress in this brief time of exposing
>
> Cantor's fakery of infinity. And today is the last day I want to do
>
> this math for I need to complete the Atom Totality physics book.
There's no electromagnetism content, so I'm flagging this as abusive cross posting, which comes under "other".
Larry.
Larry.
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 6, 2012, 7:43:23 PM11/6/12
to
The Calculus cannot exist in a mathematics of absolute continuity in
Reals. The Calculus needs holes between successive Reals.
But that information is far above the pity little mind of Larry
Harson. And I am flagging Larry Harson as a British person that hates
Americans and cannot resist throwing darts at American scientists. I
am flagging Larry Harson for the normal people of Great Britain to go
and pick up Larry Harson and place him into a insane asylum. You are a
disgrace to the UK and scientists around the world.
AP
Larry Harson
Nov 7, 2012, 5:33:18 PM11/7/12
to
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 12:43:23 AM UTC, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:20 pm, Larry Harson <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:17:21 PM UTC, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > > So good, I made a lot of progress in this brief time of exposing
>
> >
>
> > > Cantor's fakery of infinity. And today is the last day I want to do
>
> >
>
> > > this math for I need to complete the Atom Totality physics book.
>
> >
>
> > [snipped]
>
> >
>
> > There's no electromagnetism content, so I'm flagging this as abusive cross posting, which comes under "other".
>
> >
>
> > Larry.
>
> >
>
> > Larry.
>
>
>
> The Maxwell Equations are four equations of Calculus of Mathematics.
>
> The Calculus cannot exist in a mathematics of absolute continuity in
>
> Reals. The Calculus needs holes between successive Reals.
But engineers and scientists use Maxwell's equations and TRUNCATED real numbers in their programs to model antennas, propagation of electromagnetic fields through plasmas, synchrotron radiation etc. Your thoughts on the contintuity of reals is irrelevant to professionals in the real world(pun intended;)actually modelling Maxwell's equations for a living.
> On Nov 6, 5:20 pm, Larry Harson <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 10:17:21 PM UTC, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > > So good, I made a lot of progress in this brief time of exposing
>
> >
>
> > > Cantor's fakery of infinity. And today is the last day I want to do
>
> >
>
> > > this math for I need to complete the Atom Totality physics book.
>
> >
>
> > [snipped]
>
> >
>
> > There's no electromagnetism content, so I'm flagging this as abusive cross posting, which comes under "other".
>
> >
>
> > Larry.
>
> >
>
> > Larry.
>
>
>
> The Maxwell Equations are four equations of Calculus of Mathematics.
>
> The Calculus cannot exist in a mathematics of absolute continuity in
>
> Reals. The Calculus needs holes between successive Reals.
> But that information is far above the pity little mind of Larry
>
> Harson. And I am flagging Larry Harson as a British person that hates
>
> Americans and cannot resist throwing darts at American scientists.
> am flagging Larry Harson for the normal people of Great Britain to go
>
> and pick up Larry Harson and place him into a insane asylum. You are a
>
> disgrace to the UK and scientists around the world.
Larry.
0 new messages