Prev: minimum height of a 0-1 simplex
Next: The discriminant of a family of polynomials
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 5 Mar 2010 14:55
This book started, of course with correcting Euclid's Infinitude of
Primes Proof. A correction
that the mathematics community has been blind in seeing ever since
Euclid penned
his proof some 2 thousand years ago. The error of not knowing the
difference between
direct and indirect proof. And it shows that too many people in
mathematics are woefully
lacking in logic. If I remember correctly, of about 40 surveyed
Infinitude of Primes Proof
given in textbooks, only 3 of them had no mistakes. And the majority
of offered proofs
made their error in not knowing that Euclid's number (multiply the lot
and add 1) was
necessarily prime in the indirect. And most in mathematics would not
understand it even
after reading this book.

Then this book progressed to the point where the central theme of the
book was to
Correct the definition of "finite-number". But in order to correct the
definition, the problem was
that in the entire history of mathematic, there was never offered a
precision definition of
finite-number and that every mathematician from Pythagoras to
Plutonium had assumed
a definition of "finite-number". Failing to do the first job required
of a mathematician-- make
a precision definition. The assumed definition for the most part of
math history is a definition
that is very cloudy and foggy and it goes like this: The number 94 is
finite becuase it
ends in a string of zeroes leftward such as .....0000094. That was the
surveyed consensus
I took of college math professors in the 1990s. That to them, finite-
number meant a
leftward string of repeating zeroes. Of course the concept of
FrontView with BackView
is new to mathematics, since I discovered it recently and this
FrontView would then
proceed to question numbers like 09999.....9994 as to whether that is
a finite number
or an infinite number since it obeys the assumed-definition of a
leftward string of 0s, only
one 0 in this case.

So there was a logjam of finding a precision definition of finite-
number. And the logjam
was broken when I realized that Geometry already had a precision
definition of finite-line
versus infinite-line and I could use that precise definition in
geometry to find a precision
definition of finite-number versus infinite-number. The result of
which was the Finite
Selection Theorem. And where I pulled in Physics, like never before in
mathematics,
to make that final selection as the largest number in physics of the
Planck Unit
10^500 as the Coulomb Interactions of element 109.

And this book and the other book of mine of AP-adics has several
proofs concerning
the issue of Finite versus Infinite.

Sample of some of the proofs given in this book and my AP-adics book:

(1) Finite-Selection Theorem
(2) Infinity means "negative numbers" written as infinity=negative-
numbers
(3) Endlessness, infinity, forever, nonstopping, are concepts that
are
fictional and impossible to exist, and written as infinity-
not=endless
(4) Cartesian Coordinate System needs revision where Euclidean is only
the 1st quadrant of all positives
(5) A line in Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometry are beaded lines to
accomodate
the positive and negative numbers
(6) The axiom of betweeness in math is contradictory and leads to a
larger
than 180 degree triangle in Euclidean geometry
(7) The Peano axioms for Natural Numbers need total revision so as to
correctly
distinguish between finite and infinite number
(8) Algebra is only good for about 10% of all the numbers that exist
since multiplication
is narrowed when 10^500 is the largest finite number.
(9) Physics is the dominant science and math is the servant subset of
Physics.

The above are just a broad sampling of the proofs found in this book
and the
AP-adics book. Proofs that I gave in various detail or lack of
details. Those proofs
that have a lack of detail, I was satisfied in my own mind that the
proof was
true and leave it to future generations to add details. The most
detailed proof of
mine is the correcting of Euclid's Infinitude of Primes Proof and
spent nearly the
entire book on those details. So that if I were to plunge into details
of every one
of my proofs, they would also be a full book in and of itself. I do
not know when
the next time I will return, if ever, to mathematics book revision for
I have a backlog of science books to write. I said most everything and
covered most everything on
mathematics that was bothering me in 1991. And I am extremely happy it
ended
with alot of new discoveries, a furtherance of Eucl geom = Elliptic
unioned Hyperbolic
geometries, and a first time ever in math, a precision definition of
Finite-Number
as the largest Planck Unit number coupled with infinity=negative-
numbers.

In these last pages I am going to include odds and ends to help me
remember
if and when I return to these two books.


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: minimum height of a 0-1 simplex
Next: The discriminant of a family of polynomials