My Math Forum Natural, Rational, and Real, Numbers

 Real Analysis Real Analysis Math Forum

 March 13th, 2018, 08:16 AM #1 Senior Member   Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,621 Thanks: 117 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 11:12 AM.
 March 13th, 2018, 11:56 AM #2 Senior Member   Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,126 Thanks: 618 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 12:13 PM.
March 13th, 2018, 08:49 PM   #4
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,126
Thanks: 618

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Micrm@ss 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.

March 14th, 2018, 01:18 AM   #5
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 684
Thanks: 222

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke 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.

March 14th, 2018, 09:52 AM   #6
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,621
Thanks: 117

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Maschke 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.

 March 14th, 2018, 10:24 AM #7 Global Moderator   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,089 Thanks: 1902 You might as well leave out "n → ∞".
 March 14th, 2018, 03:48 PM #8 Math Team   Joined: Oct 2011 From: Ottawa Ontario, Canada Posts: 13,780 Thanks: 970 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
March 14th, 2018, 04:07 PM   #9
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,126
Thanks: 618

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo 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?

March 14th, 2018, 06:29 PM   #10
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,550
Thanks: 2550

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo 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.

 Tags natural, numbers, rational, real

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post zylo Topology 14 May 10th, 2017 02:57 AM AplanisTophet Number Theory 67 April 19th, 2017 04:23 PM Eureka Number Theory 4 November 3rd, 2012 04:51 AM rose3 Number Theory 1 January 13th, 2010 09:41 AM jinjouk Number Theory 12 June 3rd, 2008 07:11 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top