My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news


Thanks Tree3Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
June 15th, 2017, 09:28 PM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Albuquerque, USA

Posts: 9
Thanks: 0

Infinity Boundlessness

Set containment is the general basis for infinity boundlessness. Numbers describe the thing, a set of numbers describes a set of things. To describe boundlessness, the number takes on the property of the boundlessness itself.

To describe boundlessness set property one must understand the two end points, inside identity, and outside encapsulation.

Inside identity could be thought of as the quantification on the inside, or the number as the number.

Outside encapsulation or the set property could be thought of as that which the number is describing.

Infinity as a concept or true neverendingness could be thought of as the superset. It encompasses all set potential. Through that it contains the true neverending identity of all neverendingness potential.

From the outside in, set potential can be described as macro boundlessness achieving like micro boundless property towards identity.

From the inside out, identity becomes that which can achieve set potential through becoming like like macro boundlessness within micro boundlessness.

Macro boundlessness is like the open set.

Micro boundlessness is like the set neverending.

Set property as that which is being described by the quantification can be understood more like an operation against the number but at the only point operation can reach number.

Towards macro boundlessness opens the quantification up towards relative gamma identity. At infinite gamma recursion there is a direction input-output relation value of all input identity at full value that means the operation has achieved like value. This is the gamma operation identity, which is where potential for identity to have property opens up into property potential. It represents infinity at value. This is potential for identity changed into.

To fill in the set with value requires operational precision. Towards micro boundlessness is towards the zero point described by infinite recursive zeta precision. This closes open property potential towards described property. This is identity consisting of change into it.

Combined with knowledge of equal an opposite reaction of space to backwards space and operation to backwards operation respectively directly correlated to the above two, one can achieve the understanding that math is not a freeform tool to describe physical meaning, but instead has a more concrete relation to the description of physical existence.

Last edited by skipjack; June 15th, 2017 at 11:13 PM.
kirving is offline  
 
June 16th, 2017, 07:20 AM   #2
Math Team
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Alabama

Posts: 2,515
Thanks: 640

I am completely mystified by this. You repeatedly use the term "infinity boundlessness" without defining this or explaining it. In the rest, you seem to be talking about an "unbounded" set.

Perhaps this is a language problem. You say "To describe boundlessness set property one must understand the two end points, inside identity, and outside encapsulation."
What do you mean by "inside identity" and "outside encapsulation"? What precisely do you mean by "identity" and "encapsulation"?

Also, you are using the phrase "end points" while a general set does NOT necessarily have "end points". Apparently you are talking about intervals of real numbers rather than general sets. But even intervals do not necessarily have end points. Finite intervals, such as [a, b], (a, b], [a, b), or (a, b) have two endpoints. "Half infinite" intervals, such as $\displaystyle [a, \infty)$, $\displaystyle (a, \infty)$, $\displaystyle (-\infty, a)$, and $\displaystyle (-\infty, a]$ have a single endpoint. The set of all real numbers, $\displaystyle (-\infty, \infty)$ does not have "endpoints". In particular, the symbols $\displaystyle \infty$ and $\displaystyle -\infty$ are not real numbers and do not indicate "endpoints".

I have never seen the terms "macro boundlessness" and "micro boundlessness". How are they defined?

(I am hoping this is just a poor translation and not some joke where you have put together words at random - because, frankly, that is what it looks like.)

Last edited by skipjack; June 16th, 2017 at 11:00 AM.
Country Boy is offline  
June 16th, 2017, 09:12 AM   #3
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,854
Thanks: 2228

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirving View Post
Combined with knowledge of equal an opposite reaction of space to backwards space and operation to backwards operation respectively directly correlated to the above two, one can achieve the understanding that math is not a freeform tool to describe physical meaning, but instead has a more concrete relation to the description of physical existence.
I can only assume, given a New Mexico location and the style, that this is what Google Translate made of a paragraph of Spanish.

What I do understand of it is wrong though. Maths is precisely a tool to (approximately) describe reality. It describes reality only to the extent that the axiom system in operation describes the basic elements of that reality.
v8archie is offline  
June 16th, 2017, 09:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,414
Thanks: 342

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
I can only assume, given a New Mexico location and the style, that this is what Google Translate made of a paragraph of Spanish.
Because they speak Spanish in New Mexico?

In any event, the people who make Google translate are the same people writing the software for self-driving cars. Not very reassuring IMO.
Maschke is offline  
June 16th, 2017, 10:55 AM   #5
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,854
Thanks: 2228

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Because they speak Spanish in New Mexico?
I suspect that some people do, yes.

Google Translate is actually remarkably good (between English and Spanish) as long as what you have written is of high grammatical and syntactic quality. But it is only a tool and the results always need some reviewing.

I expect that cars are easier. Grammatical forms are very slippery and loose in many cases. People and objects on the street are quite stable by comparison.
v8archie is offline  
June 16th, 2017, 08:21 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 299
Thanks: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
Grammatical forms are very slippery
Yes, just like roads can be. I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with self-driving cars... I can see Lake Superior from my window, so it gets cold in my neck of the woods. I can't imagine those things driving on ice and snow like we do for half the year around here. Rush hour traffic, merging onto highways, or even things like railroad crossings all seem like recipes for disaster to me.
AplanisTophet is offline  
June 16th, 2017, 08:39 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 679
Thanks: 283

I cannot imagine that the original post made any sense in any language, whether originally written in English, Spanish, Navaho, Zuni, or whatever.

I have two alternatives to suggest. One is that it is the joint work product of what I shall call out of ignorance the Gnomon Team. I have been fearful for some time of them getting together in a Bourbaki-inspired collaboration. The other possibility is that some high spirited student is experimenting with whether he (no female would waste her time on it) can write something totally meaningless that strikes reasonably intelligent people as profound. Mathematics is not the field for it. A site on post-structural semiotics might be more fertile ground.
JeffM1 is online now  
June 16th, 2017, 08:45 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,414
Thanks: 342

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM1 View Post
One is that it is the joint work product ...
I think that's it.
Maschke is offline  
June 17th, 2017, 01:28 PM   #9
Newbie
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Albuquerque, USA

Posts: 9
Thanks: 0

Macro boundlessness is the idea of the open potential of the infinite bounds or the identity of the openness. The reason this is called such is because from the open range inwards (or the large side of infinity boundlessness)

Micro boundlessness is like the endlessness of the identities filling in the infinite bounds. The reason this is called such is because from the position of identity, finite starts reaching infinite through finite infinite sets. It is like the small side, micro, of neverendingness potential.

Quote:
What I do understand of it is wrong though. Maths is precisely a tool to (approximately) describe reality. It describes reality only to the extent that the axiom system in operation describes the basic elements of that reality.
There is one reality, there is one math, they only fit together in one properly smart way. This is what I was trying to imply. Set potential and identity achieving property value at property potential is basically what existence is doing, and what I was describing in my OP.

Change caused by potential for change within basic isness can break free from the uniformity of that model into contrasted identity.

Last edited by kirving; June 17th, 2017 at 01:36 PM.
kirving is offline  
June 17th, 2017, 01:55 PM   #10
Newbie
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Albuquerque, USA

Posts: 9
Thanks: 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Country Boy View Post
I am completely mystified by this. You repeatedly use the term "infinity boundlessness" without defining this or explaining it. In the rest, you seem to be talking about an "unbounded" set.

Perhaps this is a language problem. You say "To describe boundlessness set property one must understand the two end points, inside identity, and outside encapsulation."
What do you mean by "inside identity" and "outside encapsulation"? What precisely do you mean by "identity" and "encapsulation"?

Also, you are using the phrase "end points" while a general set does NOT necessarily have "end points". Apparently you are talking about intervals of real numbers rather than general sets. But even intervals do not necessarily have end points. Finite intervals, such as [a, b], (a, b], [a, b), or (a, b) have two endpoints. "Half infinite" intervals, such as $\displaystyle [a, \infty)$, $\displaystyle (a, \infty)$, $\displaystyle (-\infty, a)$, and $\displaystyle (-\infty, a]$ have a single endpoint. The set of all real numbers, $\displaystyle (-\infty, \infty)$ does not have "endpoints". In particular, the symbols $\displaystyle \infty$ and $\displaystyle -\infty$ are not real numbers and do not indicate "endpoints".
I consider the outside encapsulation of the idea of the set an end point of understanding.

For example, if one were to draw a number line with two end points where one represented all the numbers in the set, and the other represented a circle drawn around the set, the two end points encapsulate the importance of what it means to be the identity.

The line between the two end points is the first dimension of potential for change. If you used the right trigonometry waves between the two points it would represent how the outside circle is being described by the inside identity.

This similar concept could be thought of as how a regular one dimensional 0 to infinity range could be described by the following idea.

Set described by identity:

This is potential for identity changed into. Calculus or the integration of derivatives is how operation can meet value by opening up the potential for value into as well the operation into it.

Identity meeting description of set:

This is identity consisting of change into it. Trigonometry or the math of ratios is how open potential for value achieves precise value as a set of operations

In this exact way integration of derivatives and trigonometry mean something to each other. This is value meaning description being achieved by ratios.

The idea is at potential for value ratios describe change value, deratives describe functional change, integration brings it back to value, gamma identity operates value it open into the next level of potential for value. It's a loopback of how to describe identity with all the math.
kirving is offline  
Closed Thread

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Tags
boundlessness, infinity



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Infinity Microlab Math 61 May 29th, 2017 07:36 PM
Infinity (?) kfarnan Calculus 3 August 29th, 2011 10:47 AM
Infinity. deanmullen10 Applied Math 10 July 30th, 2010 01:18 AM
Solve X where -infinity>x>infinity -DQ- Algebra 5 September 14th, 2009 05:13 AM
infinity fibonaccilover Applied Math 9 July 26th, 2009 08:07 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.