By far the very best instalment in this series. The pace feels smoother and more engaging. Cheers on that! I have a small suggestion which might not click into your standard formulation for inductive proofs, but here it goes: when you state Motivation 2, it strikes me as more cohesive to call it something like "Emergent Motivation 1" or something like that, in order to reflect the fact that the original Motivation 1 (now called simply Motivation) has led to some conclusions, and those conclusions in turn have led to a new Motivation, which is the heart and soul of inductive reasoning. By calling it Motivation 2, it might sound like they're independent and sort of on the same level and without necessarily being connected, as one would do with deductive reasoning (Proposition 1, Theorem 1, Theorem 2...). It's a fleeting thought, but I'd like to know what you think about it, whether it convinces you or not!
I’m glad you’re having this discussion as I’ve always felt that Zero does not exist, but is a point of reference and that that intern has created a complete twist in mathematics of infinity which does not exist either
I’m going to proceed through all the math which is required to re-induce modern physics. Grade school math, high school math, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, abstract function spaces, tensors, prolly a few more broad topics.
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
By far the very best instalment in this series. The pace feels smoother and more engaging. Cheers on that!
I have a small suggestion which might not click into your standard formulation for inductive proofs, but here it goes: when you state Motivation 2, it strikes me as more cohesive to call it something like "Emergent Motivation 1" or something like that, in order to reflect the fact that the original Motivation 1 (now called simply Motivation) has led to some conclusions, and those conclusions in turn have led to a new Motivation, which is the heart and soul of inductive reasoning. By calling it Motivation 2, it might sound like they're independent and sort of on the same level and without necessarily being connected, as one would do with deductive reasoning (Proposition 1, Theorem 1, Theorem 2...). It's a fleeting thought, but I'd like to know what you think about it, whether it convinces you or not!
I’m glad you’re having this discussion as I’ve always felt that Zero does not exist, but is a point of reference and that that intern has created a complete twist in mathematics of infinity which does not exist either
I don't think infinity is a valid concept, unlike zero, which is valid.
Zero is a valid concept because, as I’ve just demonstrated, there is truly a such thing as having none of something (in a sense.)
What range of topics are you going to cover in Mathematics ?
I’m going to proceed through all the math which is required to re-induce modern physics. Grade school math, high school math, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, abstract function spaces, tensors, prolly a few more broad topics.