My Math Forum Relative Mathematics

 Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum

 December 6th, 2017, 11:39 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, 12:06 PM   #2
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,599
Thanks: 2585

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Conway51 Transitivity is not applicable to the additive identity elements.
This sentence still doesn't make sense.

And yet again you fail to answer the point that I made. A New Relative Mathematics

December 6th, 2017, 01:09 PM   #3
Banned Camp

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 153
Thanks: 3

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie This sentence still doesn't make sense. And yet again you fail to answer the point that I made. A New Relative Mathematics
Thank you for your time...I will consider all you have shared carefully.

As I disagree with you on both accounts. Nothing further is needed between us.

 December 6th, 2017, 01:37 PM #4 Senior Member   Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 621 Math Focus: Yet to find out. Hey.. Déjà vu Thanks from JeffM1
December 6th, 2017, 01:50 PM   #5
Banned Camp

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 153
Thanks: 3

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Joppy Hey.. Déjà vu
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, 01:55 PM #6 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,599 Thanks: 2585 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra Ah, we're not attempting to do mathematics any more. This is all make-believe.
December 6th, 2017, 02:19 PM   #7
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 891
Thanks: 269

Quote:
 further if I cared I could provide links to other forums with this...where people agree his point is "pointless"
Yes I see you got a second response in this forum 8 minutes ago, given that your scattergun seeded that forum as the same time as your previous thread here which garnered 47 replies to add to the 7 in this thread.

Is this a new number ? - Mathematics - Science Forums

December 6th, 2017, 02:20 PM   #8
Banned Camp

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 153
Thanks: 3

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie Ah, we're not attempting to do mathematics any more. This is all make-believe.
I am fine with make believe mathematics. If you do not wish to participate...that if fine....however...you should leave me be.

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, 02:44 PM   #9
Banned Camp

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 153
Thanks: 3

Quote:
 Originally Posted by studiot Yes I see you got a second response in this forum 8 minutes ago, given that your scattergun seeded that forum as the same time as your previous thread here which garnered 47 replies to add to the 7 in this thread. Is this a new number ? - Mathematics - Science Forums
Lol....this is on exactly 27 forums buddy....keep looking....then stop replying unless you have something to add/suggest or change....

December 6th, 2017, 03:00 PM   #10
Senior Member

Joined: Jun 2015
From: England

Posts: 891
Thanks: 269

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Conway51 Lol....this is on exactly 27 forums buddy....keep looking....then stop replying unless you have something to add/suggest or change....
So how many people exactly are you bothering in total?

 Tags mathematics, relative

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Conway51 Number Theory 47 December 6th, 2017 10:43 AM Conway51 Applied Math 53 April 22nd, 2016 07:40 AM Joolz Computer Science 0 October 1st, 2012 01:38 PM ArmiAldi Calculus 4 March 11th, 2008 05:42 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top