RoboGuy, Practical problems include the Cubeless destruction of humanity, and the pernicious brainwashing of children. The current method works fine for 1-corner thought. But for Cubicism, it proves to be a mental hindrance that bans Academians from accepting the truth.

Now I am thinking rationally. That means I invoke rational rules like Occam's Razor. So when Academians apply arbitrary restrictions to their index laws in order to mask contradictions, they are violating Occam's Razor: consequently, violating rationality.

Conner McCloud, yes, the algebra may be part of this irrational Academian single-corner thought. So you are saying that the religion of algebra should be upheld and worshipped forever, or at least until all the algebra-users resort to cannibalism and self-extinguish?

Now if you read the article -1*-1=+1 is Stupid and Evil, you would have seen that a ± solution was proposed. So we have:

-4 * (-2 + 3)
-4 * -2 + -4 * 3
±8 ±12
{-20,-4,4,20}

-4 * (-2 + 3)
-4 * (±2 ±3)
-4 * {-5,-1,1,5}
{-20,-4,4,20}

We see that in both cases, Cubic maths gives the full, correct results set. Note that it gives the full Cubic 4 corners, instead of the limited, logically contradictory Academian 1-corner.

CloudNine, your second and third equations need to be altered to a ± outcome, to reflect that both negative and positive exist in the LHS of them.

Now I will address your "funny things".

x=1/0
1=0x

The multiplication doesn't work that way, and so given that the division is defined in terms of multiplication, the division doesn't work either. But now...

sqrt(-1)

That would be equal to ±1, under the true maths, the Cubic maths. The Academian maths is wrong on that one.

0.99999999.... = 1

Actually there is nothing truly infinite in the universe. See article The Rational Belief. At the lowest level, there is a fundamental quantisation, and there is no infinitely divisible continuum. So, there wouldn't actually exist anything like 0.99999 repeating forever: rather, there would only be the number 1, and other such numbers that do not entail infinity.

The first place I am told to start on the Time Cube theory is with the Principle of Opposites. The explanation of this principle begins:

Quote:"Why something rather than nothing?" This is a fundamental philosophical question.

It is indeed a philosophical question.

Quote:But when Gene Ray tackled it, he invoked the Principle of Opposites.

Whose principle is that?

Quote:Opposites are required for there to be "something".

Why is "something" in scare quotes? Why are opposites required for there to be "something"?

Quote:First, however, let's consider that other concept—the concept of "nothing". Let's think about a singularity.

What does the text mean by singularity? It is extremely unclear.

Quote:A singularity is nothing.

Is it?

Quote:It's zero.

Fascinating.

Quote:It's a single, solitary point.

Really? If only there was some sort of argument here, I might give a sh*t.

Quote:There's no existence outside of it—you can't go in or out.

Right. It isn't a door.

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
As for giving proof, axioms is not something that you prove.

Sometimes they are. The axiom of pairing is an axiom, and yet I can happily prove it from the axioms of power set and separation.

Quote:edit: btw, how's about solving this very simple game-related problem with your algebra: some object has been tossed into air. Ignoring air resistance, given velocity v, point p, and gravity g, find position and velocity after time t has passed. Or similarly, given position and velocity of such falling object, find what position it had time t ago.
With normal algebra, you just have single formula:
p'=p+v*t+g*t*t/2
v'=v+v*t
where results is consistent with real world where object doesn't magically appear flying along four trajectories, but is in one point.

*Sigh*. This is clearly a 1-corner problem. You need more corners!

Quote:Original post by Dmytry
If (in some axiomatic system) you can prove one axiom from other axioms (of this axiomatic system), this axiom is redundant and becomes a theorem (in this axiomatic system), no?

No. Every axiom is a theorem anyway, and redundancy is not prohibited, though can be avoided for the sake of economy. In ZF, there are axioms of pairing, comprehension, power set and separation. Comprehension can be deduced from separation alone, and pairing can be deduced from power set and separation, meaning there is redundancy. It is acceptable because separation is usually considered a significantly stronger axiom than pairing and comprehension.

Quote:Original post by CubicAwareness
RoboGuy, Practical problems include the Cubeless destruction of humanity, and the pernicious brainwashing of children. The current method works fine for 1-corner thought. But for Cubicism, it proves to be a mental hindrance that bans Academians from accepting the truth.

So, basically, this is a combination cult-conspiracy theory? I have not seen any concrete proof of these claims.

Quote:
Now I am thinking rationally. That means I invoke rational rules like Occam's Razor. So when Academians apply arbitrary restrictions to their index laws in order to mask contradictions, they are violating Occam's Razor: consequently, violating rationality.

Ironically, your method of math would make it more complicated, thus violating Occam's Razor. Also, Occam's Razor simply doesn't apply here. Complex things can exist, even if it would be possible for a simpler thing, which would be mutually exclusive of the complex thing. The very fact that we are here to discuss this is proof.

Quote:
Now if you read the article -1*-1=+1 is Stupid and Evil, you would have seen that a ± solution was proposed. So we have:

-4 * (-2 + 3)
-4 * -2 + -4 * 3
±8 ±12
{-20,-4,4,20}

-4 * (-2 + 3)
-4 * (±2 ±3)
-4 * {-5,-1,1,5}
{-20,-4,4,20}

We see that in both cases, Cubic maths gives the full, correct results set. Note that it gives the full Cubic 4 corners, instead of the limited, logically contradictory Academian 1-corner.

That paper misrepresents the currently accepted algebra. sqrt(-1)2 is not the same as sqrt(-1*-1). The rule is sqrt(a) * sqrt(b) == sqrt(a * b), where a and b are positive real numbers.

Quote:
0.99999999.... = 1

Actually there is nothing truly infinite in the universe. See article The Rational Belief. At the lowest level, there is a fundamental quantisation, and there is no infinitely divisible continuum. So, there wouldn't actually exist anything like 0.99999 repeating forever: rather, there would only be the number 1, and other such numbers that do not entail infinity.

0.9... is one. One exists, right? Therefore 0.9... exists.

Mathematics doesn't exist in the universe anyway (you can't feel, smell or touch a number) - it's a product of our minds - so there's every possiblity of infinity.