April 4th, 2009, 08:49 PM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0  Cohesive Term Theory
"Cohesive Terms" or "Blazys Terms" as they are otherwise known, were invented by yours truly about a decade ago. They are especially designed for use in number theory, for the purpose of offering the discerning mathematician an alternate representation of the basic, (one exponentiation, one multiplication) algebraic term: where represent non negative integers. There were many reasons for their developement. Among them is the fact that in the representation: the variables all have the same intrinsic domain, which is: I tend to think of math as both a game and a language anyway, so to me, this is kind of like writing: tuna = fish, cobra = fish, zebra = fish. Therefore, I thought it would be fun to see if the variables in the basic term: could be operated on in a way that caused them to assume unique domains, so that as a language, both the variables and their domains would more resemble: tuna = fish, cobra = snake, zebra = horse. In other words, since it was never done before, I wanted to rewrite the term: in a way such that each and every variable had (and was therefore defined by) it's own unique domain, so I wrote: where the domains of the variables are now: I then divided both sides by so as to obtain: and to my surprise, I discovered that I could no longer "cross out" the cancelled 's, nor could I substitute for unless This made sense, because if represents a composite number, then cancelling the largest possible factor would leave only some prime number: and since prime numbers don't have exponents, it must be the case that and . I knew then that I had invented a fundamental algebraic term that was "superior", in that it automatically necessitates the elimination of the exponent when the largest possible factor is cancelled. In other words, my newly invented term was better at representing primality than the other term. I then decided to test my newly invented term on the concept of "coprimality", and to my utter amazement, found that the "Proof Of The Beal Conjecture" practically wrote itself! (That's why I'm quite certain that it's both true and correct, and that it will, in time, be verified.) I named my new invention "cohesive terms", because they retain their cancelled ,s and allow them to get "crossed out" if and only if the true and correct value of the exponent is in place. I then came to the realization that these "cohesive terms" must be perfectly consistent with the rest of mathematics, because logarithms are perfectly consistent with the rest of mathematics. Thus the name "Cohesive Term Theory". You know, I have often been accused of trying to "rewrite the fundamentals of mathematics". That's not the case at all! Nothing could be further from the truth! All I wanted was to introduce an alternate way of writing That's all! You know, ten years ago, the only known way to express: was to write: which in my view, is both inadequate and unsatisfactory because it implies either that primes have exponents other than unity, or that the cancelled factor was not the largest possible factor. Now, for the first time in the history of mathematics, we have a new and fundamentally different way of expressing: which is, of course: I think that's a good thing! It's more variety and possibilities at the fundamental level, so in my estimation, it makes math more fun and less boring (not to mention more accurate and more powerfull). My last thread is a prime example of the kind of venom that is often spewed at me, so know this: I'm not forcing anyone to use, or even look at my invention. You can call me a "troll", "kook", "crank", "crackpot" or any other hatefull and derogatory word of your choosing. I couldn't care less! If you don't like my invention, don't use it! There are, after all, two ways to write a fundamental (one multiplication, one exponentiation) algebraic term.., my way, and the conventional way. You should at least be happy that my invention gives us a choice! Don. 
April 4th, 2009, 09:07 PM  #2  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Cohesive Term Theory Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
 
April 4th, 2009, 10:01 PM  #3  
Newbie Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0  Re: Cohesive Term Theory
CRGreathouse said: Quote:
CRGreathouse said: Quote:
CRGreathouse said: Quote:
Quoting CrGreathouse: Quote:
CRGreathouse said: Quote:
Please show me. Write (T/T)c^z in a way other than whats in my post. On second thought, please lock this thead, I'm done here.  
April 4th, 2009, 10:28 PM  #4  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Cohesive Term Theory Quote:
for d = sqrt(c). You may be interested in my thread here: http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=168091  
April 4th, 2009, 10:43 PM  #5 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0  Re: Cohesive Term Theory
I'm done. Please lock this thread! Don. 
April 4th, 2009, 10:47 PM  #6  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Cohesive Term Theory Quote:
It's not hard to come up with rearrangements. Would you like a formal proof that there are infinitely many rearrangements?  
April 4th, 2009, 11:25 PM  #7 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0  Re: Cohesive Term Theory
To: CRGreathouse: I believe you. I'm not a professional mathematician, and wasn't aware such esoteric concepts and constructs even exist. My idea is fundamental, but It seems to me that you don't see any beauty or even the slightest modicum of merit in my "cohesive term", so I really think that I'm wasting my time here. Thanks for the good suggestion that you gave me on the proof, but it seems that you can't help me with that anymore either. Don. 
April 4th, 2009, 11:57 PM  #8  
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  Re: Cohesive Term Theory Quote:
Quote:
I hope the tips help. Quote:
 
April 5th, 2009, 01:01 AM  #9 
Newbie Joined: Mar 2009 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0  Re: Cohesive Term Theory
Thus, my own website is killing me. You are a good friend. Now please close this thread, as I obviously have work to do and won't have much time to reply to others posts. Better yet, just take it down. I will be back when I clear things up. Don. 
April 5th, 2009, 01:41 AM  #10 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2007 From: Chicago Posts: 1,701 Thanks: 3  Re: Cohesive Term Theory
Since the OP has requested several times for this thread to be closed, I will do so.


Tags 
cohesive, term, theory 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Sum to nth term  rnck  Applied Math  3  August 23rd, 2012 07:17 PM 
nth term  Emilijo  Number Theory  2  December 25th, 2011 11:40 AM 
HCF/GCF is more appropriate term than GCD?  manjuvenamma  Number Theory  7  June 6th, 2011 05:16 PM 
Term by term differentiation  forcesofodin  Real Analysis  4  August 14th, 2010 05:50 PM 
Please help what term to use  leonid.ge  Algebra  1  September 25th, 2008 08:29 AM 