A universal Proof of One

[Epsilon=One]

A universal Proof of One (PoO)

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://i.g2d.us/godel_smile175.gif

This post is in memoriam: Kurt Gödel (www.CQthus.com/Godel) [1906-1978]

There is a Proof of One (PoO), which is a simple, universal constant that applies to all systems, including the propagation of Light and the emergence of mass; and, that is system dependent.

The Natural PoO is, ultimately, dependent upon the Elliptical Constant (www.101123.com/EC).

However, there is an elegant simple geometric construction that requires only Geometry 101.

This constant is derived from any two Natural integer (www.101123.com/NI) values of any system, and simple geometry.

(If no image appears below, "Click" your browser "Refresh" icon.)
http://i.g2d.us/PoP.gif

The Proof of One refutes Kurt Gödel (www.CQthus.com/Go)’s Incompleteness Theorem (www.CQthus.com/PT/GIT).

For more detail, see: The Brunardot Theorem . . . a Proof of One (www.CQthus.com/PoO).

©Copyright 2006-2008 by Brunardot. All rights reserved.
Terms: PhysicsMathForums.com, Brunardot, and Pulsoid Theory must be cited.
Sorry! This Thread has not been completed.
Please Bookmark and return to this site often.

If there is an immediate need for information,
please e-mail directly at the below "Click" link.

Please note that any private correspondence
may be edited and anonymously posted unless
requested otherwise.

Every effort will be made to expedite a reply
with the requested information.Please ask questions. :)With questions it’s possible to know if
comments are logical and convincing;
or whether clarification is required.

http://1.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://2.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://3.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://4.g2d.us/e.gifhttp://5.g2d.us/e.gif
http://6.g2d.us/e.gif
If images don’t display, "click" the Refresh Icon.

[ste]

GIT also established the concept that all mathematics was basically unprovable. Again to simplify: because all numbers are based on the value of "One" that cannot be established from within a given system. The value must be obtained from outside the system/set from which all the values of the set are determined.
I don't believe that Incompleteness Theorem describes a problem of value, but rather, rules (or more specifically, axioms). The premise, as I take it, is that a set of closed axioms can never suffice to explain something that is intrinsically open ended and infinite. Mathematics itself is an infinitely broad field, and can never fully be reconciled under one set of axioms, no matter which values you are using. In this regard, even if "One" is defined from within the system, the rules governing the multiples of your established number, making up your number system, cannot be reconciled with any given set of other rules.

Furthermore, no matter how "precise" your predictions are, and no matter what mathematical precepts you base them on, they are still just mathematical (geometric) constructions, and cannot be directly linked to Nature; they are just models. There is no such thing as an ideal (and certainly not euclidean) universe.

[ste]

Another problem with "One" as defined in this system is that it does not adequately provide a measure for angles; which, in degrees, are defined by ks/r, where k is a constant, s is the length of a circular arc, and r is the radius of a circle.

[Epsilon=One]

Another problem with "One" as defined in this system is that it does not adequately provide a measure for angles; which, in degrees, are defined by ks/r, where k is a constant, s is the length of a circular arc, and r is the radius of a circle.Degrees are anthopoidal contrivances. Angles are measured by ratios, which are defined by "One."

If it is mathematical, the Proof of One is essential.