One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is trueAs part of a complicatedtheory about a singularity, I wrote tentativelythe following :We apply set theory with urelements ZFU to physicalspace of elementary particles;we consider locations as urelements, elements of U,in number infinite. Ui is a subsetof U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinitecartesian product and a set of paths.
Let us consider the set of paths of all elementaryparticles-locations which number is n.If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m),countable choice for k elements sets k=2through m, the set of paths will be the void set.So, after an infinite time, physicalspace would become void, the universe wouldcollapse and a Big Crunch would happen.
The matter would have to go somewhere and indeedthe Big Bang happened. So, n is indeedgreater than m.
Let us notice that physical space is infinite.
It's rather complicated but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that the negation of the axiom of choice is true ?It is like the non-euclidian geometry whichis known in physics as true.
Regards,
Adib Ben Jebara.
if adib.jebara at topnet.tn does not work,please use ajebara2001 at yahoo.com
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
1 commentaire:
It would be helpful if you wrote comprehensibly. Even leaving spaces between words would help. It would be better to write in good French (since you give a Tunisian email address, I assume that you were at least partly educated in French) than in bad English. At least some people would understand you in that case. And what have you got against standard mathematical notation?
To the extent that I am able to reconstruct your argument, I do not see that it helps any. Are we meant to assume that time is discrete? It would seem to be a prerequisite for your argument to even get off the ground.
Enregistrer un commentaire