Without a true foundation everything is fallible. In his later years, Einstein considered himself a failure to comprehend the total field. So, putting too much faith in a popular theory causes stagnation of the human spirit for further exploration of the unknown.Originally Posted by Bogie
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Bogie (07-30-2010), Vincent Wee-Foo (07-30-2010)
Not necessarily, in set theory all the members of a set that share the same properties and characters comprises a set, say, all women of nobility bloodline, since not all women are of noble blood, the set of all noble blood women is merely a proper subset of the set of all women. Then the set of all women is a proper subset of the set of all human beings.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Bogie (07-30-2010), labelwench (07-30-2010)
My use of the word 'all' was applied to the subset of 'roads'.
It was yourself that suggested there are infinitely many roads for us to choose from.
Therefore, in speaking to the subject at hand, that being 'all roads', we have each elected to use a quantifier applied to a subset.
For this subset, I would suggest they have similar meaning.
As my wording was open ended, you perhaps extrapolated it to mean all subsets, an examination of which would prove that with the restrictions of sufficient subsets, all could actually be refined to 'none'.
Will all Gods please step forward........
(I'm expecting that a significant number may volunteer.)
Thank you.
Now.......PROVE YOURSELF TO BE GOD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)
So many paths to the same destination,
would, but I could, experience them all...
Bogie (07-30-2010)
I understand that. You won't find very many more sincere people than me though I do like to jest. I usually try to make jests in a way that the person realizes it is jest, but I find that people on the Internet occasionally seem to be incapable of differentiating between jest and sincerity. Eye to eye works for me too.
Maybe so but I have a friend who believes that Einstein did understand the total field and was grossly misunderstood. My bet is that Einstein considered many alternatives and was probably on to it.
You are a pretty understanding person with a keen sense of justice and propriety. (My fortune cookie for the day)
labelwench (07-30-2010)
Thanks. At the turn of the 20th century, David Hilbert proposed 23 math problems to mathematicians. Many have been resolved. However, as I recall, the problem of finding the set of all sets is still an open problem. Hilbert tried to axiomatize math and he failed abjectively. One of these unsolved problems is the Riemann Hypothesis. If you solve it, you get a million dollar. I thought I have a different approach of describing all prime numbers by using a sieve of Diophantus but the American Mathematical Society rejected my paper. in the sieve, if we take out the whole number 1 then all the remaining prime and composite numbers can be arranged into an infinite order matrix such that all prime numbers are located only within two prime locations.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Bogie (07-30-2010)
Did they say why it was rejected? Can you describe why using the sieve of Diophantus would be meaningful? I'm interested in how you take the number 1 out, do you just eliminate it from the sequence of digits for all numbers? Like would 1213141 be considered to be 234? That changes the number fron odd to even. No even number can be a prime number except 2, I think.
If I have to choose between your friend's words or belief against Einstein's I choose Einstein since he made the statement himself and published it in a book six years before he die, he had all the time to recant what he said. To me, what he said is equivalent to the solution of unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity which amounted to a TOE. Unfortunately, he never like QM, he said God does not play dice. He was right and he was wrong. God only play dice with Himself and He always wins and only loses if He wanted to. In my second guess humble opinion, God does not take the universe as a game of chance since He uses a principle of directional invariance. I would relate this principle to the existence of 'free will' when combined with the reality of 'fate' and 'destiny' it appears as a theory of probability.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
AMS did not specify the reason for the rejection. i could have tried other publishers but got sidetracked by personal problems. Now, it's gathering dust and i seem to forget what was it all about. My mind is now playing tricks with two realities: the reality to survive and the reality to do the best I can. I sleep in order to live but not live to sleep all the time.
The pdf file of the sieve of Diophantus is somewhere in this forum. I can't seem to find the exact title and site.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Bogie (07-30-2010), labelwench (07-30-2010)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions 
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote