April 19th, 2018, 08:10 PM  #11  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
If one wants to contradict a commonly held belief "like I am"...then one should offer an example of what it is they are trying to contradict. I was showing everyone...that the reason why "we" say there can only be "one" additive identity is......and then showing how I circumnavigated it.......this WAS the appropriate type of link...perhaps you don't often try to show others what current contradictions exist for your arguments...but I am honest SDK... Address the idea....don't jabber....show some math if you disagree..and why.......not just why....that is how this is done!  
April 19th, 2018, 08:15 PM  #12  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 398 Thanks: 212 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics  Quote:
 
April 19th, 2018, 08:37 PM  #13  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
let me repeat that.... bc it is a PROOF....contradicting my statement....I NEEDED IT.....in order to show you why.... That very PROOF.....relies on the definition of the equalities sign for its argument.... I did NOT dis prove the PROOF...I agreed with it.....I invented a new form of equalities in order to solve the issue.... again you jabber......show some math...copy and paste from the link I provided if you are unable to do so on your own.......  
April 19th, 2018, 09:02 PM  #14 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 430 Thanks: 144 
God, why are crackpots always so arrogant...

April 19th, 2018, 10:49 PM  #15  
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,819 Thanks: 727 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  Quote:
Hey, if you want to create a system that allows you to define division by 0 then you seem to have done something. But don't expect it to have any validity for constructions that don't allow it. Dan  
April 19th, 2018, 11:15 PM  #16  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
It is that you can not have more than one additive identity in a field...under the current definition of equality... 1. I did NOT break this rule. 2. I proposed an alternative equality. as of yet I have heard nothing for why only one equality may exist in a field...please expand...very intriguing...  
April 20th, 2018, 03:32 AM  #17  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2017 From: United Kingdom Posts: 204 Thanks: 60 Math Focus: Algebraic Number Theory, Arithmetic Geometry  Quote:
That being said, to actually see if your idea leads to anything interesting, first you might actually want to define the symbol =. So far you've given a vague description of some properties you would like it to have, but you haven't actually told us exactly what it means to say a = b for elements a and b of your object. In particular, how could you define = so that it's not the case that 0 = (0), even though 0 = (0) (which means 0 and (0) are the same element)? Last edited by cjem; April 20th, 2018 at 04:30 AM.  
April 20th, 2018, 05:20 AM  #18  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 835 Thanks: 247  Quote:
What you say about the other forum has nothing to do with me. There and now here better pure mathematicians than I am have attempted to help you in various ways. There and here I have kept an open mind since I don't know what you are trying to achieve. I do realise that before commenting on your statements it is necessary to have a clear understanding of them, which is why I asked you to identify the Field concerned. The point about these algebraic sets is that Groups have at least one binary operation, Fields and Rings have at least two defined on them. The minimum operations must conform to certain rules (axioms) of a Field, Group or Ring as appropriate. Other operations may or may not also be defined with different rules. The sets therefore have elements and operations involving these elements. But there are two principles that stand out. 1) The principle that any application of one of the fundamental binary operations produces another member of the set. 2) The principle that one operation does not interfere with the axioms of another in any way whatsoever. This means you cannot 'get round' a rule you don't like. I'm sure you really know all this. But what you perhaps don't know is that you can create (define) an Extension Field which contains extra elements and / or operations such as your elements 0 or your operation = However, in line with principle2, you cannot use these to get around the basic ones that are required in any event. Does this help?  
April 20th, 2018, 06:49 AM  #19  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
Is this not the first real honest response to this thread? Thank you....I will consider deeply......!  
April 20th, 2018, 07:00 AM  #20  
Banned Camp Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 153 Thanks: 3  Quote:
I am the crank here...Thus I get treated like crap constantly....it is evidenced in every single post i have ever made......but look again....just like in this case....when something is presented I acknowledge it....what I don't understand is why you started treating me like crap.....observe our old conversations.....the mathematician's here are just as bad about their treatment of others then the other forum....observe romesk's replies to me. I challenge you.....re read some of this crap going back to 2012....I have strived to be "nice" and "polite"......yet these "mathematician's" you speak of....treat all people like me.....like pure and utter shit.  

Tags 
element, equivalency 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Ramanujan's inverse pi equivalency?  vptran31  Algebra  7  March 21st, 2014 08:21 AM 
Set with one element  blabla  Applied Math  3  April 12th, 2012 03:05 PM 
Identity Element  bewade123  Abstract Algebra  3  February 23rd, 2012 04:54 PM 
Combinations of twoelement set  roat00  Advanced Statistics  0  November 11th, 2011 03:24 PM 
Can a set with one element be a field?  AlgebraGirl  Abstract Algebra  4  June 3rd, 2011 07:44 AM 