My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Real Analysis

Real Analysis Real Analysis Math Forum


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
March 13th, 2018, 07:16 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,390
Thanks: 100

Natural, Rational, and Real, Numbers

Natural, Rational, and Real, Numbers

m/n stands for mth of n, not division.

Natural Numbers: 1,2,3,4,.........,n
Rational Numbers: 1/n, 2/n, 3/n,.....n/n
Real Numbers: n → ∞, (0,1]

Or, you could start the natural numbers with zero:

Natural Numbers: 0,1,2,3,.........,n-1
Rational Numbers: 0, 1/n, 2/n, 3/n,.....(n-1)/n
Real Numbers: n → ∞, [0,1)

COMMENT:
As n → ∞ , m can also approach infinity.

Last edited by skipjack; March 13th, 2018 at 10:12 AM.
zylo is offline  
 
March 13th, 2018, 10:56 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,956
Thanks: 547

Where you from in New Jersey, man? I grew up in East Paterson, which is now called Elmwood Park. 45 minutes down highway 4 from upper Manhattan. Used to take bus into NYC and go to Mets games back in the day.

ps -- What is "mth of n"?
Thanks from Joppy

Last edited by Maschke; March 13th, 2018 at 11:13 AM.
Maschke is offline  
March 13th, 2018, 11:21 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 428
Thanks: 144

I think this is very sad. You make thread after thread trying to convince us of something we'll never be convinced of using your method. Very sad how you waste all your valuable time like this.

Zylo, dude, why don't you learn some formal mathematics? Start with mathematical logic and proofs, and then work up to set theory and constructing the naturals, integers, etc. I'm willing to help you with this, as are many others here. That way, you'll at least have the background and the language to really argue this. Right now, you don't. And I don't mean that to say you're wrong, I'm just saying that all your posts come off as nonsense, and you keep posting them. Try to get through some books and work all the problems, and at least you'll be able to post without appearing to write nonsense all the time.

Why do you do this anyway? We're not gonna convince you. You're definitely not gonna convince any of us. Maybe you're having fun creating these threads? I can definitely say these threads are fun for me, so thanks a lot there. But after a while, doesn't it feel like you're wasting time? Don't get this message the wrong way please, I just find this very curious.
Thanks from Denis and topsquark

Last edited by skipjack; March 13th, 2018 at 08:28 PM.
Micrm@ss is offline  
March 13th, 2018, 07:49 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,956
Thanks: 547

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micrm@ss View Post
I can definitely say these threads are fun for me, so thanks a lot there.
Zylo is strangely compelling to some. Interesting that you have the bug. They're wrapped a little tight over that that other forum, don't you think? I prefer a more open attitude toward all points of view. Nobody's forced to read.
Maschke is offline  
March 14th, 2018, 12:18 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 428
Thanks: 144

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Zylo is strangely compelling to some. Interesting that you have the bug. They're wrapped a little tight over that that other forum, don't you think? I prefer a more open attitude toward all points of view. Nobody's forced to read.
I do agree with you. I really like reading nonconventional theories. To me, zylo makes no sense, but I love trying to make sense of his ideas, how difficult that it is.
After all, Cantor was seen as a crank by some eminent mathematicians in the day, although many also saw immediately that there was something to it.

I very much agree with the Hilbert school of math that math is just a game of symbols, but that for me immediately implies that nonstandard branches of math are viable and should be studied. Strict finitism for example I find intriguing, and I have spent quite some time trying to make it work, but to no success. In either case, everybody doing math has some kind of internal logic, including zylo, and it is understanding and rigorizing this internal logic that makes things fascinating. Clearly zylo does not agree with either classical logic, or ZFC, but I'm not clear as to where he agrees.

I saw some threads of him on LA which were surprisingly good, I expected some nonsense but they were actually accurate and on-point answers. If only he would take the time to really study classical logic and ZFC, I think he could go far and I'd love discussing with him. But right now, I fear it's a bit of a one-sided conversation.....

It's funny. I have tried to teach math privately to a number of people. Some people got it immediately, others had a lot of problems. The main criticism from the latter group was that mathematicians make their books to hard and too dry. They intentionally make it difficult to discourage others. I always tell them that this rigor and theorem/proof-style actually makes things EASIER for me. They don't believe it. But what I want to say is that there is a big divide between professionals and amateurs, a divide that is very hard to bridge. As a professional you are constantly being drilled in being precise and rigorous. After a while you do it so much that you prefer it. The amateur does not go through this painful experience and keeps himself with intuitive and nonprecise arguments. The amateur does not understand the rigor of the professional. And the professional finds the language of the amateur way too vague to spend time on. This is a sad state of affair, because this means that all communication is impossible. I know that you like being crystal clear and it deepens your understanding, but I don't think zylo is really helped by that. I fear the only solution is zylo learning some rigor, and I doubt he wants this.
Thanks from Maschke and Joppy
Micrm@ss is offline  
March 14th, 2018, 08:52 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,390
Thanks: 100

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Where you from in New Jersey, man? I grew up in East Paterson, which is now called Elmwood Park. 45 minutes down highway 4 from upper Manhattan. Used to take bus into NYC and go to Mets games back in the day.

ps -- What is "mth of n"?
Lambertville. Grew up in Manhattan.

if n=4: 1,2,3,4, then 2 is 2nd (2th) of 4 and 3 is 3rd (3th) of 4

As for the other comments, OP is quite simple and transparent. Sorry, you either get it or you don't.

Personally, I think it's exquisite.
zylo is offline  
March 14th, 2018, 09:24 AM   #7
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 19,163
Thanks: 1638

You might as well leave out "n → ∞".
skipjack is online now  
March 14th, 2018, 02:48 PM   #8
Math Team
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Posts: 12,752
Thanks: 860

zylophone
noun
1.
a musical instrument consisting of a graduated series of wooden bars,
usually sounded by striking with small wooden hammers.

Ahem
Thanks from Joppy
Denis is offline  
March 14th, 2018, 03:07 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 1,956
Thanks: 547

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Lambertville. Grew up in Manhattan.
What a great experience. I love Manhattan. I imaging kids growing up there must be much more worldly and self-reliant than kids from the suburbs.

What part of Manhattan did you grow up in?
Maschke is offline  
March 14th, 2018, 05:29 PM   #10
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,327
Thanks: 2451

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
As for the other comments, OP is quite simple and transparent. Sorry, you either get it or you don't.

Personally, I think it's exquisite.
You make it sound like it's not just a list of examples of some numbers. On that basis it looks like more of the usual nonsense, only less clearly explained.
v8archie is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Real Analysis

Tags
natural, numbers, rational, real



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Real Numbers and Natural Numbers zylo Topology 14 May 10th, 2017 01:57 AM
Selecting a Natural and a Real Uniformly at Random AplanisTophet Number Theory 67 April 19th, 2017 03:23 PM
The paradox between prime numbers and natural numbers. Eureka Number Theory 4 November 3rd, 2012 03:51 AM
natural numbers ! rose3 Number Theory 1 January 13th, 2010 08:41 AM
natural numbers from sets....not very natural jinjouk Number Theory 12 June 3rd, 2008 06:11 AM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.