Discussion:
The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-04-23 17:47:29 UTC
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in
Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:38:03 +0000

The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition

The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition

Now there is a gap in Old Math theory of algebra. They covered "inverse" concept by noting that subtraction was the reverse of addition and division was the reverse of multiplication. Their "inverse" is okay.

However, they fell on their swords, so to speak for they never had a concept of why subtraction was related to division and addition was related to multiplication. No concept at all. They only in passing mention that division and subtraction share some traits.

That relationship is Multiplication = Rapid Addition

Division = Rapid Subtraction

Old Math saw the relationship of Reverse and called it Inverse, which is alright.

But Old Math never saw the relationship of Rapid add or Rapid subtract. They never saw it for they never gave it a name. If they had known of it, they would have named that property.

The best name I give that concept is "Rapid". But it likely is connected to calculus where the rapid addition ends up being integral and rapid subtraction ends up being the derivative, for derivative in one context is the speed. So I could call it Division = speed subtraction. But in Calculus today, Old Math never recognized the dy+dx nor the dy-dx (dx-dy). They only recognized the dy/dx and dy*dx.

It is an important concept for it provides the link up of subtraction with division and permits the proof that Negative Numbers cannot exist. Since it is not allowed to divide by 0, then because, division is rapid subtraction. There must exist a barrier of 0 in subtraction. If you have division by 0 undefined, means that barrier is in subtraction and where that barrier surfaces in subtraction is to say-- you cannot subtract more than is available-- you cannot go beyond 0 and have negative numbers.

So, I have been looking for a concept of RAPID in Old Math. Sure, they had a concept of Reverse which they named "inverse". But I rather cotton on to reverse is better, but either will do. Unfortunately Old Math had no concept of "Rapid". Sure, Old Math knew of this relationship connection between multiplication and addition, and especially between subtract and divide, but Old Math never took time out to detail this relationship and give it a name.

I cotton on to "Rapid" is a excellent Algebra term. This is for my new book Teaching True Mathematics which is to come out shortly.

AP
Michael Moroney
2019-04-23 18:19:31 UTC
Subject: Re: Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer Polytechnic,Jeffrey Banks, Kristin
AP writes: stalking is criminal behavior, especially when it has gone on for
27 years by the above.
<snip rest of same spam, posted again and again and again...>

So why do you stalk RPI staff, Emerson staff and myself?

x-no-archive: yes
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-04-23 20:41:11 UTC
clowns of math Re: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition
Now there is a gap in Old Math theory of algebra. They covered "inverse" concept by noting that subtraction was the reverse of addition and division was the reverse of multiplication. Their "inverse" is okay.
However, they fell on their swords, so to speak for they never had a concept of why subtraction was related to division and addition was related to multiplication. No concept at all. They only in passing mention that division and subtraction share some traits.
That relationship is Multiplication = Rapid Addition
Division = Rapid Subtraction
Old Math saw the relationship of Reverse and called it Inverse, which is alright.
But Old Math never saw the relationship of Rapid add or Rapid subtract. They never saw it for they never gave it a name. If they had known of it, they would have named that property.
The best name I give that concept is "Rapid". But it likely is connected to calculus where the rapid addition ends up being integral and rapid subtraction ends up being the derivative, for derivative in one context is the speed. So I could call it Division = speed subtraction. But in Calculus today, Old Math never recognized the dy+dx nor the dy-dx (dx-dy). They only recognized the dy/dx and dy*dx.
It is an important concept for it provides the link up of subtraction with division and permits the proof that Negative Numbers cannot exist. Since it is not allowed to divide by 0, then because, division is rapid subtraction. There must exist a barrier of 0 in subtraction. If you have division by 0 undefined, means that barrier is in subtraction and where that barrier surfaces in subtraction is to say-- you cannot subtract more than is available-- you cannot go beyond 0 and have negative numbers.
So, I have been looking for a concept of RAPID in Old Math. Sure, they had a concept of Reverse which they named "inverse". But I rather cotton on to reverse is better, but either will do. Unfortunately Old Math had no concept of "Rapid". Sure, Old Math knew of this relationship connection between multiplication and addition, and especially between subtract and divide, but Old Math never took time out to detail this relationship and give it a name.
I cotton on to "Rapid" is a excellent Algebra term. This is for my new book Teaching True Mathematics which is to come out shortly.
So, in all of Old Math Algebra, in their fancy gibberish of Galois Algebra, of group, ring, field, not a concept of how Division is rapid subtraction, nor is there a concept to handle the fact that multiplication is rapid add.

Sure, sure, the fools and silly clowns of Old Math had a microgram brain to realize they needed the concept "inverse" but no brain to realize they needed a concept for the fact that

Division = Rapid Subtraction

Yet they spent almost 2 centuries on that Algebra nonsense.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-04-24 05:05:10 UTC
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:22:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Re: clowns of math Re: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition

Good point— repeat is better than rapid

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Relating algebra to logic Re: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of
the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication =
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:00:15 +0000

Relating algebra to logic Re: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition

So now we have these:

Division is reverse multiplication

Division is repeated subtraction

We need those 4 as axioms

Now let us bring in logic to compare

Subtract is OR with FTTF
Multiply is Equal combined with Not, TTTT
Divide is If->Then as TFUU with U as undefined.

So can we see whether
TTTF is a reverse of FTTF
TTTT is a reverse of TFUU
TTTT is a repeat of TTTF
TFUU is repeated FTTF

In a strange sense i can partially make out all four requests.

More tonight as i need to plant some trees.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms Re: The gap
in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 23:52:29 +0000

concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms Re: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition

Alright, now, this is a nice nice test of logic and math, exceedingly nice, nicer than nice. As the planting season is going great.

So what I need to show is that the true Logic truth tables yields the mathematical truth that subtraction is reverse addition and division is reverse multiplication, plus, multiplication is repeated addition while division is repeated subtraction. Now Boole and Jevons got the Logic truth tables all, all, all screwed up and backwards, a child could have done better. A English street urchin promoted to village idiot could have done better, but not the typical spamming stalkers of Usenet.

The math form is correct for those 4 axioms, and now we need to see if the Logic form of truth tables that I outlined below follows suit-- I mean-- delivers those 4 axioms.
Division is reverse multiplication
Division is repeated subtraction
We need those 4 as axioms
Now let us bring in logic to compare
Subtract is OR with FTTF
Multiply is Equal combined with Not, TTTT
Divide is If->Then as TFUU with U as undefined.
Now, if we take two terms at a time, so to see if add is reverse of subtract the last two terms are the same TF to TF, and the first two terms are reversed with TT to FT.  So there is a checkmark of concordance.

Now to multiply and divide. We have to put a waiver on the last two terms since we have TT and UU. Now we see if the first two terms are reversed and we have TT to TF and in concordance.
So can we see whether
TTTF is a reverse of FTTF
TTTT is a reverse of TFUU
TTTT is a repeat of TTTF
TFUU is repeated FTTF
Now we have to check the last two axioms for Repeat. Repeat, unlike Reverse, is the same thing. So is TTTT a repeat of TTTF. Here again two terms are taken and we have TT to TT, neglecting the last terms of TT to TF.

Now for division as repeated subtraction. We ignore the UU and have TF, and can we find a TF in OR ? Of course the last term is TF.
In a strange sense i can partially make out all four requests.
More tonight as i need to plant some trees.
Now the old failed logic of Boole would be AND as TFFF, OR as TTTF you cannot get a reversal or inverse.
The multiplication was totally absent in Boole for they had the idiocy of Equal as unary connector and Not as unary. Boole had no multiplication. As for division, Boole had If-- Then as TFTT. Interesting to see if Boole's failed logic could do a Division is repeated subtraction so we have TFTT with TTTF. And no, Boole's truth table is all wacko.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms Re: The gap
in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 04:14:14 +0000

concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms Re: The gap in Old Math Algebra theory of the property _rapid_ as in Division = rapid subtraction, Multiplication = rapid addition

Quoting a web site:

Let's reverse the process.  Start out with 20 sticks.
Make one group of four. In your mind, “move it away” from the picture. Form another group of four. Again, “move it away”, or subtract it from the picture.

Keep forming groups of four till you have none left.
How many groups did you make?  ______

| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |
20 − 4 − 4 − 4 − 4 − 4 = 0

This is repeated subtraction.  You subtract 4 repeatedly till you reach zero.
Each subtraction is a group of 4.

How many groups? _____  How many times did you subtract? _____
That is the answer to the division problem 20 ÷ 4.

AP writes: so this is already being taught in schools

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-04-24 05:55:37 UTC
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Old Math missed 4 axioms and one of them helps to prove No Negative
Numbers exist
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 05:44:26 +0000

Old Math missed 4 axioms and one of them helps to prove No Negative Numbers exist

Now in my soon to come out textbook volume 1 of Teaching True Mathematics, I do a proof that no Negative Numbers can exist.

And the proof utilizes these 4 axioms:

1) subtract is the reverse of add
2) division is the reverse of multiply
4) division is repeated subtract

Now the shame of Old Math Algebra of Galois Theory of Group and Ring an Field, is that they had axioms 1 and 2 but totally ignorant of axioms 3 and 4, although they knew 3 and 4 were around, but too dumb and lazy to place them as axioms in order to build a proper true algebra. The Algebra that Old Math built is a vehicle with square tires.

Because of axiom 4 we realize that subtraction is tied to division. In division we instantly come upon the question of division by 0 and it is forbidden for if you have 1/0 = k, then you have 1 = 0 x k and thus you have 1 = 0 which is a absurdity, so you cannot divide by 0 in all of mathematics. And since subtraction is tied to division-- here is the step everyone in Old Math missed. Since no division is allowed by 0 in math means that prohibition extends into subtraction. That means a barrier with 0 exists not just for division but inside of subtraction. What is that subtraction barrier?

Well it simply is the fact that you cannot subtract more than what is available-- which means No Negative Numbers can exist.

If you are Old Math foolish and believe Negative Numbers exist, then you are so foolish that you think division by 0 is fine.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-04-24 05:57:40 UTC
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Old Math missed 4 axioms and one of them helps to prove No Negative
Numbers exist
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 05:44:26 +0000

Old Math missed 4 axioms and one of them helps to prove No Negative Numbers exist

Now in my soon to come out textbook volume 1 of Teaching True Mathematics, I do a proof that no Negative Numbers can exist.

And the proof utilizes these 4 axioms:

1) subtract is the reverse of add
2) division is the reverse of multiply
4) division is repeated subtract

Now the shame of Old Math Algebra of Galois Theory of Group and Ring an Field, is that they had axioms 1 and 2 but totally ignorant of axioms 3 and 4, although they knew 3 and 4 were around, but too dumb and lazy to place them as axioms in order to build a proper true algebra. The Algebra that Old Math built is a vehicle with square tires.

Because of axiom 4 we realize that subtraction is tied to division. In division we instantly come upon the question of division by 0 and it is forbidden for if you have 1/0 = k, then you have 1 = 0 x k and thus you have 1 = 0 which is a absurdity, so you cannot divide by 0 in all of mathematics. And since subtraction is tied to division-- here is the step everyone in Old Math missed. Since no division is allowed by 0 in math means that prohibition extends into subtraction. That means a barrier with 0 exists not just for division but inside of subtraction. What is that subtraction barrier?

Well it simply is the fact that you cannot subtract more than what is available-- which means No Negative Numbers can exist.

If you are Old Math foolish and believe Negative Numbers exist, then you are so foolish that you think division by 0 is fine.

AP
Michael Moroney
2019-04-24 13:55:05 UTC
Now in my soon to come out textbook volume 1 of Teaching True Mathematics, =
I do a proof that no Negative Numbers can exist.
WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your
children! He teaches bizarre false physics, that there are no negative
numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many,
many other instances of bad math and physics.

He has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on Usenet.
Fortunately, this has failed so far, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet
is an old, dying medium few students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the risk to our students!

One of his dangerous tricks is to teach false Boolean logic such as
3 AND 2 = 5. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll
post a false statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that
it is false, but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false
statement such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer
scientists.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math and physics, just like he
is. Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. Maybe he is a
minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. But the point is, stay away, if he
offers to give or sell you his dangerous book. Especially now since they are