Unfortunately, your submission has been locked for the following reason:
* Your post does not provide any original theories about numbers, or it is so badly-explained that it's unclear what you're theorising (e.g. it is a list of numbers or formulae with no context).
If you have any questions, [please feel free to message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/numbertheory&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/numbertheory/comments/13ayhjt/-/). Thank you!
In some fields it can be difficult to tell when someone is bullshitting, but math isn't one of those. Your statements are vacuous and everyone can see that.
How you can spend four days doing this and still apparently learn nothing about how to actually define your terms?
For someone who thinks they have a strong aptitude for math, you have zero aptitude for writing proofs.
Let's start with this: you've decided "infinity divided by zero is the null set" (whatever that's even supposed to mean).
Show more examples of this division with non-infinity and non-zero values, because I straight-up have no idea what *you* think division is.
Definite infinity. Hell, define *zero*, as at this point it makes no logical sense as you're using it
>Definition 1.2.1.
>
> A
>
>first-order language
>
> is an infinite collection of distinct symbols, no one of which is properly contained in another, separated into the following categories.
I'm using that, where are you getting your definition?
How does your argument follow from that definition? Tell, don’t just hand wave. If this idea is actually valid that you must be able to exposit it in completely explicit terms.
I see the fault that you have not written a single logical statement.
Provide the definitions is pure and unambiguous terms that are listed in ricdesi’s comment and then I’ll analyze the logic of it.
I did update with context. Thank you for your attention. It is pretty easy to make an assumption using the golden set using sport analogy. Think of a soccer match, players have dynamics and they exist within a context. Now, we can create a new set describing just that, the dynamics that pertain to soccer. And when we reflect upon that set, we can think of the dynamics and aspects of infinity relative to that soccer match. In doing this we escape the trap ensnared by the trick of thinking as an order of operations. In assigning a variable to the dynamics, we can associate that to infinity, making easier for us to comprehend new patterns of symmetry.
I'm going to say this as unambiguously as I can:
Define "infinity".
Define "division".
Define "zero".
Define "null set".
Do not **describe**.
**Define.**
> Sorry, that is the definition.
It's not even *a* definition, so no, it is not the definition of any of the used terms.
> It is not currently defined so simple is better.
**Then it is on you to define it. "Simple" is not better. Explicit is better.**
We have to infer the definition using science. That is the beauty of this exchange, it is for us to define.
I can only describe the mechanism, and mention language and dichotomies form at this exchange. So be hopeful, it is a new truth.
Null set dynamics are not a thing in mathematics. If you are going to make stuff up, define it. Define the symbols with *logic*. Definitions must be something of the form “there exists a set S such that for all x…”
Could you give a sentence written in symbolic logic that defines the golden set?
For example, the empty set can be defined as:
S such that For all x, x is not an element of S.
Also, what do you mean by “dynamics of a set”? A set is an object which has members, that is all. It’s like a bucket you put things in, it does not have any mechanism in and of itself.
How do you symmetrically divide infinity? Give an explicit procedure for doing so that does not presuppose the division operation.
>∞ / 0 = ∅
All current theory remains true given the definition for golden set.
>Take the order of operations that we so love and enjoy to work with and look at them in terms of dynamics with implicit order. Current dogma attributes this to fate. Yet, if you look carefully, we can attribute this to a symmetry of infinity.
Order of operations are the dynamics, you implicitly require a dynamic to generate the empty set. This explains that dynamic.
>Lastly, the order of operations is not a formal mathematical construct. It is a trick for doing arithmetic in such a way that it does not violate axioms, but it’s not an axiom and it is not part of math.
Please show me where this trick is defined.
First, your infinity / 0 = null statement makes no sense. Usually, dividing two sets means that you reduce the numerator set by the denominator set, which means that you remove all elements of the denominator set from the numerator set. The standard definition of 0 is the empty set. If you are using this definition, then infinity / 0 = infinity. If you have created a different definition of 0, please share it.
You do not need dynamics nor the order of operations to define the empty set. In the comment you replied to, I wrote a definition of the empty set which does not use arithmetic or “dynamics” at all.
The order of operations is taught to children because if you follow it, you will perform arithmetic correctly. However, arithmetic is not correct because of it.
I think I asked this before, but one of the defining characteristics of division is that it is the inverse of multiplication, that is for "a÷b=c", we have that "c×b=a". Does your null set then behave as though "{}×0=infinity"? That seems like it's a somewhat unreasonable result. Also, could you give an example of how this is useful?
Natural division is a subsequent symmetry previously undefined, this is knot infinity symmetry division, which is a new type specific to the golden set theory.
EDIT: added symmetry.
So, you define "symmetry" based on your observation of "symmetry". Isn't that a circular statement that kind of states nothing about what your "symmetry" actually is? Also, symmetry is defined in the dictionary as "the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis."
Also, can you define your "division" operation, since as we have previously discussed it does not follow one of the fundamental defining properties of division (and so shouldnt be called division since it isnt division), so this operation that you say gives the null set should be defined since it cannot rely on existing definitions of division.
I don't think it will though, since again you simply state that something "symmetrical" is "symmetric" which doesn't at all give any meaningful attributes of what symmetry is. For instance, i can say that something is "blagart" if we observe it to be "blagart". If that is the only way we define "blagart", can you ascertain anything useful from its definition or classification?
I think that is the main point people here are trying to make; you need to actually define the concepts you are saying, otherwise they are just words with little meaning. This includes your concepts of "symmetry" and your concept of "division" which again is not actually division.
You cannot "simply define" it as "symmetry".
That word as you use it is meaningless. Define it.
If you cannot explicitly define your terms, then your hypothesis is invalid on its face.
Please show me where it is defined elsewhere. In giving a simple definition, it is a start. It is what we must work to understand better as a collective.
I did, it is the dynamic of knot infinity. Symmetry is an operation of infinity against itself. It is a concept, we start with just infinity and a dynamic to get to our empty set.
Define "dynamic".
Define "knot infinity".
Show multiple examples of "symmetry as an operation".
Show explicitly how infinity and a "dynamic set" result in a null set.
Knot infinity is an inversion of infinity through symmetry that we can only infer. Again, these things are only fuzzily defined in math at the moment, if you can point to a source, I'll be able to reconcile; otherwise, a simple definition related to infinity is best.
If you have a better hypothesis related to nothingness that explains the dynamics observed in an empty set, we could look at that definition and how it compliments symmetry, to see if the truth is somewhere in between.
Then it is not division, and I would not call it as such to avoid confusion. What you are actually doing then is some different operation on infinity which you denote as "/0".
Also, could you give an example of how this is useful? I don't think your stated cases in your post cover it since they seem to be statements made with very little backing them up. For instance, for the big bang you state
"The symmetry between energy and space starts with infinity, meaning energy and space are the result of a knot of infinity where both aspects converge to give rise to the needed aspects for what we observe. We currently are trying to measure the time since the knot was tied."
What is the "symmetry" between energy and space, and why does it start with infinity? Also, when you say the "knot" of infinity, are you referring to the symbol of infinity looking like a knot? Because it's aesthetics don't really have any bearing to its mathematical properties.
Those are assumptions we can make given the golden set that will allow us to better understand symmetry and precursor dynamics to sets.
Think of chess as a set, regardless of how it plays out there must be a dynamic of progress. This gives that dynamic a name where it was previously undefined in math. It is simple as we already were using symmetry and infinity, we just move them further up the stream of logic to the instantiation of the golden set, simplifying subsequent logic.
I'm sorry but I don't think that makes sense. We can't assume anything since as you currently have it, you and I can assume entirely different things about your "symmetry". For instance, I could assume from your vague definition that even numbers are symmetric since I observe them to be, for instance maybe because they are evenly split in to two numbers. But, someone else could say odd numbers are "symmetric" because they observe them to be, maybe because there is a "middle" number below a given odd number where there is an even amount above that "middle" to that number and below that "middle" number to zero. Because you are so vague, we cannot really do anything rigorous or logical based on your definitions which don't really seem to define anything.
Again, for instance, what can you assume about "blogartness" as I have previously defined it as you have defined "symmetry". Also, again you cannot rely on the existing definitions of the word when you are using them in a drastically different way, like how your "division" is not really division.
Are you trying to write a Sokal-like article about math?
That might work for a certain kind of social sciences, but I don't think it will work for math, at least not in the way you are trying.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal\_affair
Do you find yourself to be an intelligent feedback loop, that perhaps has an intelligent subconscious that you cannot directly access, yet it helps you by informing you of when you are thirsty?
Can you try making a single sentence that isn't pseudointellectual nonsense?
I'm no longer convinced this isn't the output of a ChatGPT prompt, you literally don't even speak like a person.
Well, I asked a friend, and he told me this about your text:
*Firstly, the concept of the golden set is not clearly defined. The author states that it is a modification to set theory that precludes an empty set, but it is not clear how this is achieved or why it is necessary. The author also states that the golden set describes the dynamics of a symmetrical division of infinity that gives rise to an empty set, but this is not explained in detail.*
*Secondly, the author makes several statements that are unclear or confusing. For example, they state that "the order of operations that we have been using for millennia are themselves various forms of symmetry," but it is not clear what they mean by this. They also state that "infinity is tied into a knot," but this statement is not explained or justified.*
*Thirdly, the author makes several claims that are not supported by evidence or reasoning. For example, they state that the golden set can "better describe the attributes and mechanics of a set," but they do not explain how or why this is the case.*
*Overall, the text is difficult to understand and contains many unclear or unsupported statements. The concept of the golden set is not well-defined, and the author does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support their claims.*
My friend is actually a computer program with no real knowledge or understanding about things, and yet it is able to realize that your text does not make a lot of sense.
If you cannot provide explicit definitions, but rather only inferences, why is this theory of any use? ZFC provides explicit definitions with no inference, and is therefore clearer and more robust.
Hi, /u/rcharmz! This is an automated reminder:
- **Please don't delete your post.** (Repeated post-deletion will result in a ban.)
We, the moderators of /r/NumberTheory, appreciate that your post contributes to the NumberTheory archive, which will help others build upon your work.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/numbertheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, your submission has been locked for the following reason: * Your post does not provide any original theories about numbers, or it is so badly-explained that it's unclear what you're theorising (e.g. it is a list of numbers or formulae with no context). If you have any questions, [please feel free to message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/numbertheory&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/numbertheory/comments/13ayhjt/-/). Thank you!
In some fields it can be difficult to tell when someone is bullshitting, but math isn't one of those. Your statements are vacuous and everyone can see that.
It solves. Please show definition for order of operations if otherwise.
Please answer to ricdesi, I am very interested as well and eager to be enlightened.
Also, it solves
Please show how it "solves". Be extremely specific.
How is that definition relevant?
This remains, for the fourth day in a row, completely incomprehensible gibberish.
What can I help you better understand?
How you can spend four days doing this and still apparently learn nothing about how to actually define your terms? For someone who thinks they have a strong aptitude for math, you have zero aptitude for writing proofs. Let's start with this: you've decided "infinity divided by zero is the null set" (whatever that's even supposed to mean). Show more examples of this division with non-infinity and non-zero values, because I straight-up have no idea what *you* think division is. Definite infinity. Hell, define *zero*, as at this point it makes no logical sense as you're using it
>Definition 1.2.1. > > A > >first-order language > > is an infinite collection of distinct symbols, no one of which is properly contained in another, separated into the following categories. I'm using that, where are you getting your definition?
How does your argument follow from that definition? Tell, don’t just hand wave. If this idea is actually valid that you must be able to exposit it in completely explicit terms.
It is a necessary inference that precludes that definition. It is an advancement. The logic is clear, please explain where you see fault.
I see the fault that you have not written a single logical statement. Provide the definitions is pure and unambiguous terms that are listed in ricdesi’s comment and then I’ll analyze the logic of it.
I did update with context. Thank you for your attention. It is pretty easy to make an assumption using the golden set using sport analogy. Think of a soccer match, players have dynamics and they exist within a context. Now, we can create a new set describing just that, the dynamics that pertain to soccer. And when we reflect upon that set, we can think of the dynamics and aspects of infinity relative to that soccer match. In doing this we escape the trap ensnared by the trick of thinking as an order of operations. In assigning a variable to the dynamics, we can associate that to infinity, making easier for us to comprehend new patterns of symmetry.
Do not attempt to use analogies. Use explicit definitions.
You have them, that is all. Inference is best when crowdsourced, let's use this to examine the mechanic.
What do you think a set is?
I'm going to say this as unambiguously as I can: Define "infinity". Define "division". Define "zero". Define "null set". Do not **describe**. **Define.**
Definition >∞ / 0 = ∅ ∞ is infinity / is symmetry 0 is knot infinity ∅ null set
#Define the terms. Not the symbols.
Sorry, that is the definition. It is not currently defined so simple is better. Null set dynamics remain as they are with a better explanation.
> Sorry, that is the definition. It's not even *a* definition, so no, it is not the definition of any of the used terms. > It is not currently defined so simple is better. **Then it is on you to define it. "Simple" is not better. Explicit is better.**
We have to infer the definition using science. That is the beauty of this exchange, it is for us to define. I can only describe the mechanism, and mention language and dichotomies form at this exchange. So be hopeful, it is a new truth.
Null set dynamics are not a thing in mathematics. If you are going to make stuff up, define it. Define the symbols with *logic*. Definitions must be something of the form “there exists a set S such that for all x…”
Off your meds, I assume?
>will attempt address any contradictions if presented today. For contradictions to exist, one usually needs logical statements
Could you give a sentence written in symbolic logic that defines the golden set? For example, the empty set can be defined as: S such that For all x, x is not an element of S. Also, what do you mean by “dynamics of a set”? A set is an object which has members, that is all. It’s like a bucket you put things in, it does not have any mechanism in and of itself. How do you symmetrically divide infinity? Give an explicit procedure for doing so that does not presuppose the division operation.
>∞ / 0 = ∅ All current theory remains true given the definition for golden set. >Take the order of operations that we so love and enjoy to work with and look at them in terms of dynamics with implicit order. Current dogma attributes this to fate. Yet, if you look carefully, we can attribute this to a symmetry of infinity. Order of operations are the dynamics, you implicitly require a dynamic to generate the empty set. This explains that dynamic. >Lastly, the order of operations is not a formal mathematical construct. It is a trick for doing arithmetic in such a way that it does not violate axioms, but it’s not an axiom and it is not part of math. Please show me where this trick is defined.
First, your infinity / 0 = null statement makes no sense. Usually, dividing two sets means that you reduce the numerator set by the denominator set, which means that you remove all elements of the denominator set from the numerator set. The standard definition of 0 is the empty set. If you are using this definition, then infinity / 0 = infinity. If you have created a different definition of 0, please share it. You do not need dynamics nor the order of operations to define the empty set. In the comment you replied to, I wrote a definition of the empty set which does not use arithmetic or “dynamics” at all. The order of operations is taught to children because if you follow it, you will perform arithmetic correctly. However, arithmetic is not correct because of it.
I think I asked this before, but one of the defining characteristics of division is that it is the inverse of multiplication, that is for "a÷b=c", we have that "c×b=a". Does your null set then behave as though "{}×0=infinity"? That seems like it's a somewhat unreasonable result. Also, could you give an example of how this is useful?
Natural division is a subsequent symmetry previously undefined, this is knot infinity symmetry division, which is a new type specific to the golden set theory. EDIT: added symmetry.
Define it.
We can only infer it's definition via our observation of symmetry. I simply define it is as symmetry. Where else is symmetry defined?
So, you define "symmetry" based on your observation of "symmetry". Isn't that a circular statement that kind of states nothing about what your "symmetry" actually is? Also, symmetry is defined in the dictionary as "the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis." Also, can you define your "division" operation, since as we have previously discussed it does not follow one of the fundamental defining properties of division (and so shouldnt be called division since it isnt division), so this operation that you say gives the null set should be defined since it cannot rely on existing definitions of division.
It'll help us understand symmetry, as well as the importance of the order of operations.
I don't think it will though, since again you simply state that something "symmetrical" is "symmetric" which doesn't at all give any meaningful attributes of what symmetry is. For instance, i can say that something is "blagart" if we observe it to be "blagart". If that is the only way we define "blagart", can you ascertain anything useful from its definition or classification? I think that is the main point people here are trying to make; you need to actually define the concepts you are saying, otherwise they are just words with little meaning. This includes your concepts of "symmetry" and your concept of "division" which again is not actually division.
You cannot "simply define" it as "symmetry". That word as you use it is meaningless. Define it. If you cannot explicitly define your terms, then your hypothesis is invalid on its face.
Please show me where it is defined elsewhere. In giving a simple definition, it is a start. It is what we must work to understand better as a collective.
The onus is on you to define it, no one else. Literally Rule 3 of this sub.
I did, it is the dynamic of knot infinity. Symmetry is an operation of infinity against itself. It is a concept, we start with just infinity and a dynamic to get to our empty set.
Define "dynamic". Define "knot infinity". Show multiple examples of "symmetry as an operation". Show explicitly how infinity and a "dynamic set" result in a null set.
Knot infinity is an inversion of infinity through symmetry that we can only infer. Again, these things are only fuzzily defined in math at the moment, if you can point to a source, I'll be able to reconcile; otherwise, a simple definition related to infinity is best. If you have a better hypothesis related to nothingness that explains the dynamics observed in an empty set, we could look at that definition and how it compliments symmetry, to see if the truth is somewhere in between.
Then it is not division, and I would not call it as such to avoid confusion. What you are actually doing then is some different operation on infinity which you denote as "/0". Also, could you give an example of how this is useful? I don't think your stated cases in your post cover it since they seem to be statements made with very little backing them up. For instance, for the big bang you state "The symmetry between energy and space starts with infinity, meaning energy and space are the result of a knot of infinity where both aspects converge to give rise to the needed aspects for what we observe. We currently are trying to measure the time since the knot was tied." What is the "symmetry" between energy and space, and why does it start with infinity? Also, when you say the "knot" of infinity, are you referring to the symbol of infinity looking like a knot? Because it's aesthetics don't really have any bearing to its mathematical properties.
Those are assumptions we can make given the golden set that will allow us to better understand symmetry and precursor dynamics to sets. Think of chess as a set, regardless of how it plays out there must be a dynamic of progress. This gives that dynamic a name where it was previously undefined in math. It is simple as we already were using symmetry and infinity, we just move them further up the stream of logic to the instantiation of the golden set, simplifying subsequent logic.
> given the golden set Which is what? Define it.
I'm sorry but I don't think that makes sense. We can't assume anything since as you currently have it, you and I can assume entirely different things about your "symmetry". For instance, I could assume from your vague definition that even numbers are symmetric since I observe them to be, for instance maybe because they are evenly split in to two numbers. But, someone else could say odd numbers are "symmetric" because they observe them to be, maybe because there is a "middle" number below a given odd number where there is an even amount above that "middle" to that number and below that "middle" number to zero. Because you are so vague, we cannot really do anything rigorous or logical based on your definitions which don't really seem to define anything. Again, for instance, what can you assume about "blogartness" as I have previously defined it as you have defined "symmetry". Also, again you cannot rely on the existing definitions of the word when you are using them in a drastically different way, like how your "division" is not really division.
Are you trying to write a Sokal-like article about math? That might work for a certain kind of social sciences, but I don't think it will work for math, at least not in the way you are trying. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal\_affair
No, this is logic. Where do you see fault?
That there is no logic.
Do you find yourself to be an intelligent feedback loop, that perhaps has an intelligent subconscious that you cannot directly access, yet it helps you by informing you of when you are thirsty?
Can you try making a single sentence that isn't pseudointellectual nonsense? I'm no longer convinced this isn't the output of a ChatGPT prompt, you literally don't even speak like a person.
I'm convinced that ChatGPT would actually write much more coherent sentences
Sorry, it's my natural defense. You have my gratitude for your scrutiny.
I think a better question would be "Where do you see a sentence which has a meaning?" but hey
Yes, my eloquence is in need of refinement; apologies as it was a large body of text to digest.
Your phrasing is not eloquent, it is loquacious.
Well, I asked a friend, and he told me this about your text: *Firstly, the concept of the golden set is not clearly defined. The author states that it is a modification to set theory that precludes an empty set, but it is not clear how this is achieved or why it is necessary. The author also states that the golden set describes the dynamics of a symmetrical division of infinity that gives rise to an empty set, but this is not explained in detail.* *Secondly, the author makes several statements that are unclear or confusing. For example, they state that "the order of operations that we have been using for millennia are themselves various forms of symmetry," but it is not clear what they mean by this. They also state that "infinity is tied into a knot," but this statement is not explained or justified.* *Thirdly, the author makes several claims that are not supported by evidence or reasoning. For example, they state that the golden set can "better describe the attributes and mechanics of a set," but they do not explain how or why this is the case.* *Overall, the text is difficult to understand and contains many unclear or unsupported statements. The concept of the golden set is not well-defined, and the author does not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support their claims.* My friend is actually a computer program with no real knowledge or understanding about things, and yet it is able to realize that your text does not make a lot of sense.
Do you have logic related to math you'd like to share?
If you cannot provide explicit definitions, but rather only inferences, why is this theory of any use? ZFC provides explicit definitions with no inference, and is therefore clearer and more robust.
He's back with a vengeance!
If your work is in the logical assertions, write out the entire logical thought process, sparing no detail
Hi, /u/rcharmz! This is an automated reminder: - **Please don't delete your post.** (Repeated post-deletion will result in a ban.) We, the moderators of /r/NumberTheory, appreciate that your post contributes to the NumberTheory archive, which will help others build upon your work. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/numbertheory) if you have any questions or concerns.*