



Dear mathematicians:
Some of the mathematicians that have wished out of my list have expressed that they do not want to belong to my list, since they did not give me permission to write them. I have removed their names from my list. For other mathematicians that feel the same way, my respose to you is: I took the risk to include you in a list that happens to be a group that forms a mathematics community. I thought that a discovery about what numbers really were was of the general interest for a mathematician since numbers is the most important tool in mathematics (not formulas, they are good for nothing if you do not apply them with numbers). The truth will prevail; so if you feel you are wasting your time reading or even thinking about such an important thing as numbers, let me know. I will take you out of my list IMMEDIATELY; I do not think you deserve to have such knowledge in your hands. You are too proud to even ask why I have such conclusions about numbers and you think that only a mathematician properly trained in a university could have the intelligence enough to realize such an astonishing discovery. I mean these words ONLY to these mathematicians. Some of you are being too nasty to me. I do not feel offended because I can understand the natural fear humans have confronted by something that goes contrary to our own believes. Attached is a page explaining why transcendental numbers have a decimal expansion so large according to me. This is meant ONLY for the intelligent, openminded mathematicians that know that science means, "creating knowledge" as my friend Andreas reminded me of the translation to the word science. Regards, (signed) 




ABOUT TRANSCENDENTAL NUMBERS
My interpretation about numbers: First, there are only ten numbers that were measured in a wheel (the rest are additions of themselves). They created a field of their own when mathematical formulas were made during the process of observation by means of counting. Every time you make formulas for a measurement a field is created for those measurements only. This is what happens to transcendental numbers, they create a field independent from the number’s field. They cannot be solved with the algebraic formulas that were created with the measurements made with the numbers we know as the only numbers. Numbers are physical lengths that create their own scale (have their own unit length) transcendental numbers (witch were measured or formulated somewhere else) cannot be compared with the scale that belongs to the numbers and have a short decimal expansion in the answer. During division, we are comparing two lengths (numerator and denominator). When the unit length of both integers is equal, they will always meet (a mark they both reach at the same time when they are added) and the answer is always exact. When you compare two integers (numerator and denominator), with unit lengths unequal (they only reach the end at astronomical small unit lengths), the answer is what is called an infinite number. An infinite number is just a regular division accompanied by a part of the small part that is left from the division in truncated form because the formula that was created for the numbers yields a small precision. The repeated part of a rational number repeats because it cannot be divided any more. The repetition goes forever because the formula that was created used a wheel that can count forever because the numbers return to their starting points repeatedly when counting (turning). I figured out that if numbers greater than 10, are just additions of themselves, and I know that physical lengths have a physical limit of measurement (an atom for instance). That division p/q is a natural division plus the truncated part (according to me), I concluded: Irrational numbers have to be rational numbers with longer cycles of repeated truncated parts we cannot see with a division that shows up to 32 digits in our calculators. While working on several conclusions I have made that confirm my thinking, I discovered several patrons. I used the one patron I sent before (IRRATIONAL NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST file) to confirm the longer cycle irrational numbers have. Last thing about transcendental numbers (non integers): they usually have been measured very precise, witch means their scale of precision (unit length) compared to the number’s is too great. The conclusion is that their cycle of the truncated part is extremely long but finite. How finite? Very large to the point it can easily reach the atom size. We still do not know how small a physical particle can reach. Another conclusion I have that is in the field of physics is that energy being a transformation of matter is in reality another form of matter and therefore physical too. Check, the numbers and the cycle of the considered irrational number I used in the file IRRATIONAL NUMBERS DO NOT EXIST. Its cycle repeats after 96 decimal places, for only an integer of only two digits (no decimal part). You can imagine the division for π, and several of its digits. It is simply too big even to see it with supercomputers. One way to see π, would be to measure it again, create a formula that yields a small precision (one to three digits) and believe me, you would see its cycle. 
חזרה לעמוד הראשי  המאמר המלא 
מערכת האייל הקורא אינה אחראית לתוכן תגובות שנכתבו בידי קוראים  
RSS מאמרים  כתבו למערכת  אודות האתר  טרם התעדכנת  ארכיון  חיפוש  עזרה  תנאי שימוש  © כל הזכויות שמורות 