I am very interested in opinions on the Axiom of anti-foundation and the work of Jon Barwise. Can we imbed ZFC in some version of non-well founded sets?
Godel expresses wff's in odd numbers every number is prime relative to its own base n = n(n/n)=n(1_n) (primes do not include division by other numbers) Goldbach's Conjecture "every even number is the sum of two primes" n + n = 2n Godel's expression does not include even numbers in his defintion of wff's - they are therefore "undecidable" (o + e) = o is always odd so is undecidable because of the existence of even numbers (e+e) = e (o and e are sets of numbers). Note that the product of differing powers of prime numbers is zero, since the graphs of x^m and x^n only intersect at x = 0 so (x^n)(x^m) = 0. (the reason powers form a basis in polynomial space). Proof of Fermat"s Theorem for Village Idiots c = a + b c^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Expansion) c^n = a^n + b^n iff f(a,b,n) = 0 f(a,b,n) 0 c^n a^n + b^n QED Pythgoras is wrong, Fermat is correct even for n = 2. Someone go tell the physicists (Especially Einstein and Pauli) and also for multinomials (tell the cosmetologists..) (Hint: Wiles had to use modular functions, which are only defined on the positive half of the complex plane.) there are no negative numbers: -c= a-b, b>a iff b-c=a, a >0, a-a = 0, a=a if there are no negative numbers, there are no square roots of negative numbers. The ""complex" plane is affine to the real plane (1^2 1, sqr(1^2) = 1 2qr(1) (Russsell's Paradox; a number can't both multiply and not multiply itself). more on this on the physicsdiscussionforum (dot org)
Awesome!
Cheers!
I am very interested in opinions on the Axiom of anti-foundation and the work of Jon Barwise. Can we imbed ZFC in some version of non-well founded sets?
Interesting... I'm not familiar with the work of Jon Barwise. Any good reading material you recommend?
Mhm okay I’ll give it a chance.
Please do 😉
Godel expresses wff's in odd numbers
every number is prime relative to its own base n = n(n/n)=n(1_n) (primes do not include division by other numbers)
Goldbach's Conjecture "every even number is the sum of two primes" n + n = 2n
Godel's expression does not include even numbers in his defintion of wff's - they are therefore "undecidable"
(o + e) = o is always odd so is undecidable because of the existence of even numbers (e+e) = e
(o and e are sets of numbers).
Note that the product of differing powers of prime numbers is zero, since the graphs of x^m and x^n only intersect at x = 0 so (x^n)(x^m) = 0. (the reason powers form a basis in polynomial space).
Proof of Fermat"s Theorem for Village Idiots
c = a + b
c^n = [a^n + b^n] + f(a,b,n) (Binomial Expansion)
c^n = a^n + b^n iff f(a,b,n) = 0
f(a,b,n) 0
c^n a^n + b^n QED
Pythgoras is wrong, Fermat is correct even for n = 2. Someone go tell the physicists (Especially Einstein and Pauli)
and also for multinomials (tell the cosmetologists..)
(Hint: Wiles had to use modular functions, which are only defined on the positive half of the complex plane.)
there are no negative numbers: -c= a-b, b>a iff b-c=a, a >0, a-a = 0, a=a
if there are no negative numbers, there are no square roots of negative numbers. The ""complex" plane is affine to the real plane (1^2 1, sqr(1^2) = 1 2qr(1) (Russsell's Paradox; a number can't both multiply and not multiply itself).
more on this on the physicsdiscussionforum (dot org)
I will have to read this comment more carefully. Thanks. Bookmarked!
@@RahulSam If you want to discuss it further, let me know. I'll buy the beer and pizza!
@@RahulSamyou cant even distinguish this as crankyness?