December 6th, 2017, 10:39 AM  #1 
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Relative Mathematics
In every R there exists an integer zero element ( 0 ) ( 0 ) =/= 0 0 = (0) ( 0 ) : possesses the additive identity property ( 0 ) : does not possess the multiplication property of 0 ( 0 ) : possesses the multiplicative identity property of 1 The zero elements ( 0 ) and ( 0 ) in an expression of division can only exist as: (0)/( 0 ) 0 + ( 0 ) = 0 = ( 0 ) + 0 ( 0 ) + ( 0 ) = 0 1 + ( 0 ) = 1 = ( 0 ) + 1 0 * ( 0 ) = 0 = ( 0 ) * 0 1 * ( 0 ) = 1 = ( 0 ) * 1 n * ( 0 ) = n = ( 0 ) * n Therefore, the zero element ( 0 ) is by definition also the multiplicative inverse of 1 . And as division by the zero elements requires (  0 ) as the divisor ( x / ( 0 )) is defined as the quotient ( x ) . 0 / n = 0 0 / ( 0 ) = 0 n / ( 0 ) = n 0 / 1 = 0 1 / ( 0 ) = 1 1 / 1 = 1 ( 1/( 0 ) = 1 ) The reciprocal of ( 0 ) is defined as 1/( 0 ) 1/(0) * ( 0 ) = 1 (0)^(1) = ( 1/( 0 ) = 1 (0)(0)^(1) = 1 = ( 0 )^(1) Any element raised to ( 1 ) equals that elements inverse. 0^0 = undefined 0^(0) = undefined 1^0 = 1 1^(0) = 1 Therefore, all expressions of ( 0 ) or ( 0 ) as exponents or as logarithms are required to exist without change. Therefore, division by zero is defined. Therefore, the product of multiplication by zero is relative to which integer zero is used in the binary expression of multiplication. Transitivity is not applicable to the additive identity elements. 
December 6th, 2017, 11:06 AM  #2  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,313 Thanks: 2447 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
And yet again you fail to answer the point that I made. A New Relative Mathematics  
December 6th, 2017, 12:09 PM  #3  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
As I disagree with you on both accounts. Nothing further is needed between us.  
December 6th, 2017, 12:37 PM  #4 
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,597 Thanks: 546 Math Focus: Yet to find out. 
Hey.. Déjà vu

December 6th, 2017, 12:50 PM  #5 
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  It is not appropriate of you to make comments not on topic. Do you have a point? I would listen to all you share carefully just as I did with v8archie......further if I cared I could provide links to other forums with this...where people agree his point is "pointless"...I will not do so...I will move on....perhaps you should do the same...in whatever direction that takes you... but passive aggressive replies are not the answer. 
December 6th, 2017, 12:55 PM  #6 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,313 Thanks: 2447 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
Ah, we're not attempting to do mathematics any more. This is all makebelieve.

December 6th, 2017, 01:19 PM  #7  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 829 Thanks: 244  Quote:
Is this a new number ?  Mathematics  Science Forums  
December 6th, 2017, 01:20 PM  #8  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
Please note I stated for all in this thread "A New Relative Mathematics" "That this is a exercise in theory. And nothing more" Perhaps in light of this you should give me a break.  
December 6th, 2017, 01:44 PM  #9  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
 
December 6th, 2017, 02:00 PM  #10 
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 829 Thanks: 244  

Tags 
mathematics, relative 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
A New Relative Mathematics  Conway51  Number Theory  47  December 6th, 2017 09:43 AM 
Relative Mathematics  Conway51  Applied Math  53  April 22nd, 2016 06:40 AM 
DDH not hard relative to...?  Joolz  Computer Science  0  October 1st, 2012 12:38 PM 
relative min or max or neither  ArmiAldi  Calculus  4  March 11th, 2008 04:42 PM 