Prev: sci.math-survey and math textbook survey of defining "finite number" #308; Correcting Math
Next: Survey of Math Professors defining "finite number" #305; CorrectingMath
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 18 Jan 2010 01:34
Now here is Wikipedia talking about Real Numbers:
--- quoting Wikipedia on Real Numbers ---
A real number may be either rational or irrational; either algebraic
or transcendental; and either positive, negative, or zero. Real
numbers are used to measure continuous quantities. They may in theory
be expressed by decimal representations that have an infinite sequence
of digits to the right of the decimal point; these are often
represented in the same form as 324.823122147… The ellipsis (three
dots) indicate that there would still be more digits to come.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

So that the concept of Finite-number in the history of
mathematics has always been the definition that a number is finite if
its leftward string from the decimal
point ends in repeating zeroes-- so that 891 is finite-number because
it is ....0000891

So anyone and everyone in the history of mathematics who has accepted
the Reals has accepted that as the definition of finite-number.

I am the first in the history of mathematics to say that
mathematics, the whole of mathematics is inconsistent
and contradictory because of the lack of precision in defining "finite-
number". The only way to make a precision definition is to pick a
large number and call it the end of finiteness. I look to physics of
the Planck Units of 10^500 and say that since there is no more
physics to be measured or experimented above 10^500
then there is no more mathematics and considering that math is a
subset of physics.

That means that the Reals beyond 10^500 no longer have a reliable
operations of add, subtract, multiply and
divide. That Algebra can only be reliable with finite-
numbers.

It was a simple mistake in the history of mathematics
to overlook a precision definition of Finite-number.

When we write the Peano Natural Numbers as:
{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . .}

It is easy to overlook the idea that an endless adding of 1 delivers
infinite-integers such as 5555....55555
or 8888....77777. It is easy to overlook that because
we never need to work with those numbers.

But the Peano axiom of Successor makes the Peano
Natural Numbers, not that set listed but rather this set:

{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . . 9999....998, 9999....999}

It is easy and was easy to overlook that math never
gave a precision definition of finite-number, because to
noone in the history of math could say that a large
number is the end of Finiteness and is the beginning
of infinity, because not until after 1990 did anyone
ever realize that Physics is above math and that Physics corrects and
guides mathematics.

The reason that math had a pile-up of unsolved problems going back to
Ancient Greece with its
perfect numbers conjectures is because math
never straightened out its understanding of finite-number. And the
reason we have a huge pile of
unsolved number theory problems all goes back to
a assumed understanding of "finite-number" when
instead we needed a precision understanding.

Only could finite-number be precisely defined once
it is understood that Physics is in charge of mathematics, and since
there is no meaningful physics
beyond the Planck Units and since Physics has a
Quantum logic that is dualistic, means that math
operators such as multiply and add no longer make any
sense in the infinite regions of mathematics.

What is the infinite-number multiplication of
9999....99999 x 8888....8888?

Or is the infinite-integer of 9999....9997 a prime
or composite?

You see, when math precisely defines finite-number
it then precisely defines infinite-number. And then
we see that Algebra gives out or is exhausted soon after it exceeds
the finite realm.

And that is why there never was nor ever will be a
proof of Goldbach, Riemann, Fermat's Last, Perfect
Numbers Conjectures.

When math has only well defined and precise definitions, then math
will not have a pile buildup
of unsolved problems.

So it is easy to conduct a survey on every person
in mathematics as to what they define finite-number.
Everyone in math that has accepted the Real Numbers
or the Hensel p-adics has accepted a definition of
finite-number as a string either leftwards in the case of
Reals or rightwards in the case of p-adics as that in which the string
repeats endlessly in zeroes.

The Real Number 18.3333.... is a finite-number because the "18" is ....
00018.

And it could only have been in this century 1990-2010 when someone
would take notice that mathematics is all gummed up in lack of precise
definition of finite. Only in this century where Quantum Mechanics is
so
advanced that someone could say-- Physics is master
and math is subservient. Where physics points out why
pi and e have the value they have, since in an Atom
Totality subshells divided by shells pinpoints why "pi
and e" cannot be 3 and 2 but rather closer to 22/7 and
19/7.

Mathematics for the most part has been just idealistic
philosophy for the 19th and 20th century with infinity
run amok. And noone stopping or bothering to say "
hey, why all this frenetic concern over infinity when
noone bothered to precisely define finite?"


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: sci.math-survey and math textbook survey of defining "finite number" #308; Correcting Math
Next: Survey of Math Professors defining "finite number" #305; CorrectingMath