Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-19 06:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Newsgroups: sci.mathRaw Message
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 22:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: we ignore A/0, why not ignore all negative numbers Re: may have found
how to get rid of negative numbers
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:23:11 +0000
we ignore A/0, why not ignore all negative numbers Re: may have found how to get rid of negative numbers
- show quoted text -
Yes, excellent point from a idealist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.
So what Chris is stumbling over and stumbling upon is his bad case of being brainwashed early in life and now fully accepts the brainwash, and wants to pass that brainwash off on others.
Do we really think a bank account is negative dollars?
Like the mother animal some billion years ago finding here young ones gone, missing, is using subtraction. But she is not saying there exists negative young.
So what do we call a missing bank amount? We call it not -$1,112. but rather call it deficit of $1,112.
Now it is easier to write the negative sign "-" than to write deficit, and so we do that convenience ploy. But we should never mistake negative signs as being something "genuine real".
We have let and allowed mathematicians to become philosophers foisting their stupid idealisms upon us and at the threat of failing us, if we dare tell them they are stupid in mathematics.
They were not stupid with A/0 where A is any Real number, positive Real number, and they realized it was undefined. But mathematicians were too stupid to confine negative numbers as also-- undefined.
Now, if you throw out negative numbers. Well then, you have no problems with sqrt-1. Because you never work with negative numbers-- you dispose of them as soon as they arise, just like you dispose of A/0.
So, now, since imaginary numbers can never arise, because you dispose of them. Why in the world have mathematicians spent over 5 centuries worried about a algebra that has solutions? Why were they worried that x^2 = -1 should have a solution? Why not just dispose of all equations like that, as saying, nonsense?
Well, we may say that those 5 centuries were wasted centuries, because mathematicians were too naive to ever look at the big picture-- if division has rooms of "thou shalt not touch" and subtraction is related to division, then subtraction has numbers to ignore as much as we ignore A/0.
The only place in science and wisdom that the negative numbers need be used, is in just a few select spots of science-- physics where you want a negative charge versus a positive charge, other than that, negative numbers are a utter waste of time.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 22:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: we ignore A/0, why not ignore all negative numbers Re: may have
found how to get rid of negative numbers
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 05:58:58 +0000
Re: we ignore A/0, why not ignore all negative numbers Re: may have found how to get rid of negative numbers
Yes now, i believe this is a beautiful solution for negative numbers.
Rule of Negatives: whenever the final answer of a equation is a negative number it is undefined. Only positive number solutions exist.
Tell that to the bank.Rule of Negatives: whenever the final answer of a equation is a negative number it is undefined. Only positive number solutions exist.
Is there negative money? Is there a negative gold coin. Is there a negative paper note to pay for -$1,112.
So what Chris is stumbling over and stumbling upon is his bad case of being brainwashed early in life and now fully accepts the brainwash, and wants to pass that brainwash off on others.
Do we really think a bank account is negative dollars?
What if there had been just one single mathematician in the past 500 years with his/her eyes on the big picture.
How much different would the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, have been if we had a big picture guy in math.
Like the mother animal some billion years ago finding here young ones gone, missing, is using subtraction. But she is not saying there exists negative young.
So what do we call a missing bank amount? We call it not -$1,112. but rather call it deficit of $1,112.
Now it is easier to write the negative sign "-" than to write deficit, and so we do that convenience ploy. But we should never mistake negative signs as being something "genuine real".
We have let and allowed mathematicians to become philosophers foisting their stupid idealisms upon us and at the threat of failing us, if we dare tell them they are stupid in mathematics.
So if we had a big picture guy in the past 500 years in Algebra, would have said this-- we cannot use A/0 and call it undefined, that is the internal mechanics of mathematics. And, since division is intricately related to subtraction, means we have wholescale ignoring to do of negative numbers.So what do we call a missing bank amount? We call it not -$1,112. but rather call it deficit of $1,112.
Now it is easier to write the negative sign "-" than to write deficit, and so we do that convenience ploy. But we should never mistake negative signs as being something "genuine real".
We have let and allowed mathematicians to become philosophers foisting their stupid idealisms upon us and at the threat of failing us, if we dare tell them they are stupid in mathematics.
That is the Logic behind this. For A/0 is undefined and subtraction is related to division, hence vast amount of negatives are undefined.
And since we cannot be picky choosy on what negatives are undefined, we cannot see a individual negative, means we ignore all negatives. Until, or unless they are a use-- such as physics negative charge, but otherwise-- totally ignore them.
They were not stupid with A/0 where A is any Real number, positive Real number, and they realized it was undefined. But mathematicians were too stupid to confine negative numbers as also-- undefined.
Now, if you throw out negative numbers. Well then, you have no problems with sqrt-1. Because you never work with negative numbers-- you dispose of them as soon as they arise, just like you dispose of A/0.
So, now, since imaginary numbers can never arise, because you dispose of them. Why in the world have mathematicians spent over 5 centuries worried about a algebra that has solutions? Why were they worried that x^2 = -1 should have a solution? Why not just dispose of all equations like that, as saying, nonsense?
So, what would have the history of math been like if no-one bothered with FTA, herds of naive people quibbling over how many solutions for exponent 3?Now, if you throw out negative numbers. Well then, you have no problems with sqrt-1. Because you never work with negative numbers-- you dispose of them as soon as they arise, just like you dispose of A/0.
So, now, since imaginary numbers can never arise, because you dispose of them. Why in the world have mathematicians spent over 5 centuries worried about a algebra that has solutions? Why were they worried that x^2 = -1 should have a solution? Why not just dispose of all equations like that, as saying, nonsense?
What would a FTA look like where we obey the rule-- all negatives are undefined and are irrationals and infinites, just occupying Space, but useless to math.
What would a FTA look like under those circumstances?
I have a guess of what a pure true FTA would look like.
Well, we may say that those 5 centuries were wasted centuries, because mathematicians were too naive to ever look at the big picture-- if division has rooms of "thou shalt not touch" and subtraction is related to division, then subtraction has numbers to ignore as much as we ignore A/0.
The only place in science and wisdom that the negative numbers need be used, is in just a few select spots of science-- physics where you want a negative charge versus a positive charge, other than that, negative numbers are a utter waste of time.
I believe the pure and true FTA, where A/0 is undefined and no negative numbers arise, and if they do, they and the entire equation is undefined. So an equation like Y = -x is undefined or x^2 = -1 is undefined. We are never nervous when -5/0 or -1/0 arise for we say, undefined and ignore. But why be crazy when x^2 = -1 arises, and be naive and silly as to think i and -i are solutions.The only place in science and wisdom that the negative numbers need be used, is in just a few select spots of science-- physics where you want a negative charge versus a positive charge, other than that, negative numbers are a utter waste of time.
So, this big picture guy would throw out the equation altogether.
And would ask, of only Positive Valued Equations or Polynomials, what is the pattern of solutions to those?
In Polynomials, only positive valued equations exist, and does that mean for each exponent of a positive valued polynomial have exactly N-1 solutions? Where N is exponent? Or, have just one and only one solution?
So, the real true blue question of Polynomial theory, was, you have a equation with a positive value solution. How many solutions per exponent?
AP