# Mathematics - a new basis

See a picture that represents the relations of the two triangles
what is a “?
3?3=3
3?3=4
3?3=5
3?3=6
3?3=7
3?3=8
3?3=9
3?3=10
3?3=12

what is a "?"
What is a "?" or what are "?s" They can't be the same thing in all nine equations, right?

Yeah, I’m with George. If '?" is a variable, it varies from ‘-3+’ to ‘+6+’ so that:
3-3+3 = 3
3-2+3 = 4
3-1+3 = 5

3+6+3 = 12
The image with the triangles… hummmm… three sided black triangles converted to black and red triangles that change position to produce objects with more than three sides?
How is this a new basis for Mathematics?

Yeah, I'm with George. If '?" is a variable, it varies from '-3+' to '+6+' so that: 3-3+3 = 3 3-2+3 = 4 3-1+3 = 5 ... 3+6+3 = 12 The image with the triangles... hummmm... three sided black triangles converted to black and red triangles that change position to produce objects with more than three sides? How is this a new basis for Mathematics?
your form is a-d+b=c (a+d+b=c) ,I never said that there is a third number (d) and that there are two mathematical operations (addition and subtraction) there is no solution in the current mathematics : 1.3+[0]3=3 2.3+[1]3=4 3.3+[2]3=5 4. 3+[3]3=6 or 3+3=6 5.33Rd1(6)d2(7)+3=7 6.33Rd1(6)d2(8 )+3=8 7.33Rd1(6)d2(9)+3=9 8.33Rd1(6)d2(10)+3=10 9.33Rd1(6)d2(12)+3=12 (1,2,3,4) - there are several types of addition in the set N (5,6,7,8,9) - that there are dynamic numbers, where this can add

1 Mathematics Space
We’ll tell mathematical space with two initial geometric object that can not
prove.
1.Natural geometric object - natural along .
2.Real geometric objects - real alongs .
1.1 Natural along
In the picture there is a natural geometric object along (AB), it has a beginning (A)
and end (B) - this property natural long’ll call point.
W1.png
1.2 The basic rule
Two (more) natural longer are connected only with points.

Where’s the “new” come in ?

## Where’s the “new” come in ? to explain many things, so we’ll get to it

2 Natural Mathematics
2.1,along , one-way infinite along the (semi-line) “1”
“1”-from any previous evidence (axioms), a new proof
Theorem-Two (more) natural longer merge points in the direction of the first AB
longer natural.
EVIDENCE - Natural long (AB, BC) are connected - we get along AC.
Natural long (AB, BC, CD) are connected - we get along AD.
Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE) are connected - we get along AE.

Natural long (AB, BC, CD, DE, …) are connected - getting the sim-
measurement along the infinite.
www5.png

2.2 Numeral along, numeric point “2.1”
Theorem-character mark points on the one-way infinite
long (A, B, C, …), replace the labels {(0), (0.1), …, (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 ), …}
which are set circular and positionally.
Proof - is obtained by numerical along which the numerical point of {(0,00,000,
0000, …), (​​0,1,10,11,100,101, …), …, (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, …), …}.

2.3 Natural numbers “2.2”
Theorem - There is a relationship (length) between Point in numeric (0) and
all points along the numerical.
Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numerical point (0)
the number 0
Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (1) the number o1
Ratio (required) numeric point (0) and numeric item (2) is the number 2
Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (3) is the number 3
Ratio (length) numeric point (0) and the numerical point of (4) is the number 4
[size=150]…
Set - all the possibilities given theorem.
The set of natural numbers N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, …}.

Why are you presenting this here instead of at a mathematics conference?

Why are you presenting this here instead of at a mathematics conference?
trained mathematicians (act like priests, any other interpretation is heresy), I sent a lot of papers in mathematical journals (did not want to release), here's an example https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzkWG0xdRpPYVTZxVThoUkJlRWs/edit?usp=sharing Presenting his knowledge where I want ...
trained mathematicians (act like priests, any other interpretation is heresy)...
That's what I suspected. Your ideas can't pass peer review so you post them on Internet forums.

They can’t pass even the internet forums review. The question in his OP makes zero sense. And I am definitely not a trained mathematician, so if I say it I imagine it counts.

2.4 Mobile Number “2.2,2.3”
Theorem-Natural numbers can be specified and other numerical
point other than the point numeric 0th
Proof - Value (length) numeric point (0) and numeric point (2)
the number 2