|
Archives September 2008
October 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
May 2009
August 2009
It just recently occurred to me that some things have not been given their due course of attention. The subject in question is a branch of mathematics that has been, if food is for thought, highly ignored and disregarded to the point that it only makes up a superficial part of our examinations.
The branch in question is none other than the sub-topic that is horrifyingly simplistic if a little effort is put into it - Set Theory. A simple yet elegant branch of mathematics, that can emulate theoretically every definition of mathematics as both a foundation and an advanced subject.
Learning Set Theory is like learning a new language (thus the 'subject name' being Set Language). The basics involve the use of glyphs that are remotely similar to the letter 'n' (∩), used to signify intersection, and 'u' (U), to signify union.
That being the basics, some of the most incredulously murderous questions can be formed by simply asking for a definition. Questions with answers and formulae like AUB and (CUB)'∩A are all on the easy side - it gets surprisingly difficult for us when the answers involve universal set integration and cross-axiom coordinate set definitions.
Just for your information, the last was complete bull~, but USI is still something to be afraid of when you don't even understand the basics of defining set portions.
In short, understanding set language is like understanding CODE3 - if you don't know how to look at it, you're screwed. Here is an example using CODE3:
(Port: Force) [m=2.5; a=2 {\met}] Q:{Find subt 'F' \\ numr .unit}
The above is the same as asking [Object 1 Name Here] has a mass of 2.5 N, and is travelling at with an acceleration of 2.0 m/s^2. [Additional redundant information here] How much force does [Object 1 Name Here] exhibit? (The answer is 5, by the way, in C3 terminology)
A much more confusing one can be:
(Port: Observer)[∞ space; particle bomb'; randomized movement - effect: rain \\isotropic][red region S away from Port - scatter \\reduce isotropic;random orientation]{Q: Port observes S by particle movement?}
That is: Observer O is located in an infinite space and is bombarded by particles (shown in blue) coming from infinity and moving along straight lines in random directions. This "rain" of particles is isotropic in its directions. At large distance from the observer there is a region of scatterers S shown in red. The region contains many scatterers of the blue particles. The scatterers are not isotropic. However, their orientation is random. Can the observer O detect the presence of the region S in the space by simply observing the distribution of particles arriving at O from different directions. (The answer is no.)
Now, you should understand that it is unbelievably hard to understand something when the basics are not well established.
The same thing happens with Set Theory. Although C3 is not exactly the kind of thing to use for defining the foundations of mathematics and, incidentally, the entire universe, Set Theory is. And our lack of knowledge on the language as well as our substandard ability to define specific set portions stems from the fact that the basics were not established well, at all.
This is just as well, because of all the examinations questions we encountered there was only one Set Theory question. But even that had more than one answer, and the examiners "initially marked everyone wrong until further discussion".
The fact that there had to be a discussion before our answers were accepted brings up the point that we have almost nothing on Set language and theory. You could say that this kind of math is to be more focused on in University or higher learning. If such was the case, why bring it up in lower education? And how can we even hope to cope with Set Theory in higher academia if our basics are so shaky and still being ignored?
Something like this should not be left to chance, especially when we are in a point of our lives where what we understand will matter the most.
Trust me, the ignorance doesn't stop there.
---
To Tom:
The coordinates don't match with the stationary axioms in the diagram. If particle t crosses paths with particle κ and fails to intercept it or affect it's course, it is likely the axiom to note is way off point or in another dimension isolated from κ. If not, the particles will collide and will form an entanglement before disintegrating into the sub-forms tκ.
And the cross magnitude is not 32.48751 - this is anti-material proportions we are talking about. It rebounds, so there is no net change in the diagonal vortex coefficient - the final magnitude integral is still 15.
[[ArsH]] at 8:42 PM
The branch in question is none other than the sub-topic that is horrifyingly simplistic if a little effort is put into it - Set Theory. A simple yet elegant branch of mathematics, that can emulate theoretically every definition of mathematics as both a foundation and an advanced subject.
Learning Set Theory is like learning a new language (thus the 'subject name' being Set Language). The basics involve the use of glyphs that are remotely similar to the letter 'n' (∩), used to signify intersection, and 'u' (U), to signify union.
That being the basics, some of the most incredulously murderous questions can be formed by simply asking for a definition. Questions with answers and formulae like AUB and (CUB)'∩A are all on the easy side - it gets surprisingly difficult for us when the answers involve universal set integration and cross-axiom coordinate set definitions.
Just for your information, the last was complete bull~, but USI is still something to be afraid of when you don't even understand the basics of defining set portions.
In short, understanding set language is like understanding CODE3 - if you don't know how to look at it, you're screwed. Here is an example using CODE3:
(Port: Force) [m=2.5; a=2 {\met}] Q:{Find subt 'F' \\ numr .unit}
The above is the same as asking [Object 1 Name Here] has a mass of 2.5 N, and is travelling at with an acceleration of 2.0 m/s^2. [Additional redundant information here] How much force does [Object 1 Name Here] exhibit? (The answer is 5, by the way, in C3 terminology)
A much more confusing one can be:
(Port: Observer)[∞ space; particle bomb'; randomized movement - effect: rain \\isotropic][red region S away from Port - scatter \\reduce isotropic;random orientation]{Q: Port observes S by particle movement?}
That is: Observer O is located in an infinite space and is bombarded by particles (shown in blue) coming from infinity and moving along straight lines in random directions. This "rain" of particles is isotropic in its directions. At large distance from the observer there is a region of scatterers S shown in red. The region contains many scatterers of the blue particles. The scatterers are not isotropic. However, their orientation is random. Can the observer O detect the presence of the region S in the space by simply observing the distribution of particles arriving at O from different directions. (The answer is no.)
Now, you should understand that it is unbelievably hard to understand something when the basics are not well established.
The same thing happens with Set Theory. Although C3 is not exactly the kind of thing to use for defining the foundations of mathematics and, incidentally, the entire universe, Set Theory is. And our lack of knowledge on the language as well as our substandard ability to define specific set portions stems from the fact that the basics were not established well, at all.
This is just as well, because of all the examinations questions we encountered there was only one Set Theory question. But even that had more than one answer, and the examiners "initially marked everyone wrong until further discussion".
The fact that there had to be a discussion before our answers were accepted brings up the point that we have almost nothing on Set language and theory. You could say that this kind of math is to be more focused on in University or higher learning. If such was the case, why bring it up in lower education? And how can we even hope to cope with Set Theory in higher academia if our basics are so shaky and still being ignored?
Something like this should not be left to chance, especially when we are in a point of our lives where what we understand will matter the most.
Trust me, the ignorance doesn't stop there.
---
To Tom:
The coordinates don't match with the stationary axioms in the diagram. If particle t crosses paths with particle κ and fails to intercept it or affect it's course, it is likely the axiom to note is way off point or in another dimension isolated from κ. If not, the particles will collide and will form an entanglement before disintegrating into the sub-forms tκ.
And the cross magnitude is not 32.48751 - this is anti-material proportions we are talking about. It rebounds, so there is no net change in the diagonal vortex coefficient - the final magnitude integral is still 15.
[[ArsH]] at 8:42 PM
Name: Mohamad Arshad (Robert Greyscale)
Age: 15 years old
Date of Birth: Yanuary20 1993
Horoscope Sign: Capricorn
Anti-Religist
Libertarian
schools
Woodlands Primary
(00 - 05)
Unity Secondary
(06 - 09)
Critical response quota achieved.
READ:LOGIC Bases
[1, 2, 5, 13, 18, R3, 27, 37]
established as of time 2116hrs (20.8.09)
Proceeding to magneuv incan tentedou...