Science > Physics > #521 why primeness remains with AP-adics but rational, irrational,transcendental break apart with hybrids
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a_plutonium" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2008 12:17:09 AM |
| Object: |
#521 why primeness remains with AP-adics but rational, irrational,transcendental break apart with hybrids |
David R Tribble wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
This number is an Infinite Integer and is prime ......
That should read .....13121110987654321
Are any of your infinite integers non-prime?
.....131211109876543210 is divisible by 2
The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic states that every integer
is the product of one or more primes.
I would be prepared for some Infinite Integers to have an infinity of
prime factors.
So start with a prime, p1. Now multiply it by another prime, p2.
The result is obviously a finite integer (p1 x p2), so keep going,
multiplying by more primes p3, p4, p5, etc.
Since each multiplication results in a finite integer, you can't ever
get to an infinite non-prime integer. So it seems that there are
no contructible infinite non-prime integers.
Well, here again you are mixing the invalid Peano theory concepts
with my system which is pristine and valid
Is that not the case?
Let this be the last post of this textbook until some future date in
which I do the 2nd
edition. Not because I am tired, since I seem to never tire of doing
science, but because
I have waited too long to do the textbook on Superconductivity. And
thanks to this math
book I am able to do a clear theory of Superconductivity for the
pseudosphere of this
book is going to the be main and major concept of superconductivity
and also all
chemistry bonding.
Let this be the last post but let me put a reminder of something that
I should devote
a full chapter to in the 2nd edition. The idea that Primeness remains
in the
AP-adics theory whereas the concept of Rational number and Irrational
number
and Transcendental number all are destroyed because hybrids of them
exist.
Example: the number 033333......33333333 It is not finite but the old
Peano math
would have to admit it is finite. Is it Rational or Irrational?
Remember that the old
math defined Rational as ending in block of zeroes leftward which it
does by only
a single "0". So it is neither rational or irrational.
And since the definition of both Real and AP-adics is All Possible
Digit Arrangements
and all of them are algebraic (just as the Hensel P-adics are all
algebraic), well
the concept of transcendental number is another fiction of figment of
an overzealous
mind.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: #521 why primeness remains with AP-adics but rational,irrational, transcendental break apart with hybrids |
09 Jan 2008 02:45:34 PM |
|
|
your only problem is that
you can't engage (at least, online) in a conversation;
our only problem is trying to help a megalomaniac --
perhaps, that's what you are.
your definitions, not to mention your math, are simply
to loose & ill-defined to grapple with, not to mention
ever-shifting & shuffling into new, ill-fitting metaphors. so,
your *publications* have only this tiny audience
of would-be help-meets or pedagogues, alas.
one of these days, we're going to quit the campaign,
AP for Prezident, Sort-of!
And since the definition of both Real and AP-adics is All Possible
Digit Arrangements
and all of them are algebraic (just as the Hensel P-adics are all
algebraic), well
the concept of transcendental number is another fiction of figment of
an overzealous
mind.
thus:
slightly ill-posed, because
Young's original experiment used two pinholes,
which gives a lovely moire' pattern.
why folks still believe in newtonian photons,
I don't know ... except because of Einsteinmania
(and herr doktor-professor Albert's Nobel. amuzingly,
I was arguing with an armchair physicist,
the other day, and I told him that
the photo-electric effect was *expelling* photons,
not absorbing them, like a photovoltaic array ...
still, not sure; the armchair is so comfortable,
with those various virtual positions .-)
I don't know if it was Young, who went
to the slits; it does linearize the phenomenon!
now, for the obvious question
about diffraction gratings, partially addressed,
belowsville?
adding three instead of two sine waves. For big n,
you will obtain the usual formula for grids,
i.e. sharper patterns.
thus:
what's the difference between paradoxy and
paradise?
thus:
nonsequiter summa ***** laude mea culpa quod erat
demonstrandum.
Likewise, G_e + G_m = static EM
--Open House, A Lightbulb Ctr.,
the official nonbunker of the ***** Cheeny Fanclub,
home of the 527cX datasink,
executive order awarehouse,
Principals Cmte pollinghouse check-offs/write-offs:
Fourth Wish, cancel the last three wishes -- please!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum" |
|
| Title: Re: #521 why primeness remains with AP-adics but rational,irrational, transcendental break apart with hybrids |
09 Jan 2008 02:52:28 PM |
|
|
in other words,
what you have done amounts to a muffled shout,
"the p-adics are utterly important for comprehending physics, but
AP-adics are utterly incomprehensible ... and
you can buy the book for nothing."
"hm; must have been his God-am tutor, Dood!"
say goodbye to him or her, for me ... or
for yourself, and have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
