March 13th, 2018, 07:16 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,301 Thanks: 94  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,.........,n1 Rational Numbers: 0, 1/n, 2/n, 3/n,.....(n1)/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. 
March 13th, 2018, 10:56 AM  #2 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,780 Thanks: 482 
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"? Last edited by Maschke; March 13th, 2018 at 11:13 AM. 
March 13th, 2018, 11:21 AM  #3 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 275 Thanks: 92 
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. Last edited by skipjack; March 13th, 2018 at 08:28 PM. 
March 13th, 2018, 07:49 PM  #4 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,780 Thanks: 482  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.

March 14th, 2018, 12:18 AM  #5  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 275 Thanks: 92  Quote:
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 onpoint 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 onesided 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/proofstyle 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.  
March 14th, 2018, 08:52 AM  #6  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,301 Thanks: 94  Quote:
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.  
March 14th, 2018, 09:24 AM  #7 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 18,719 Thanks: 1536 
You might as well leave out "n → ∞".

March 14th, 2018, 02:48 PM  #8 
Math Team Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 11,862 Thanks: 768 
zylophone noun 1. a musical instrument consisting of a graduated series of wooden bars, usually sounded by striking with small wooden hammers. Ahem 
March 14th, 2018, 03:07 PM  #9 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,780 Thanks: 482  
March 14th, 2018, 05:29 PM  #10 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,236 Thanks: 2412 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  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.


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 