On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 7:35:02 PM UTC+2, bassam karzeddin wrote:
> A very important notice to every talented person either armature or academic professional not to place your best finding in such moderated sites, since soon or later if it has any value would be certainly suppressed and eventually would be stolen by those many big cats of those majorities of inflectional and moderators academic professional mathematicians and alike (who are also and mostly, book authors, secretive researchers and writers anonymously on Wikipedia)
>
> This global worming about the wide plagiarism among the academics is fatally spreading since there isn't basically any minimum ethic, honesty, nobility associated with the vast majorities of them in our today's word
>
> So, I thought of republishing those many important topics here since they can't appear or dare to debate about anything serious here except when hiding under many fake characters to spoils the new issues about their false mathematics
>
> that they tried by all means to hide them from the public attention of mid-school students with no visible reason and any true evidence
>
> Here is an example that both sites were concerned and involved about the fact of the alleged real number zero
>
> Any numerical statement that includes zero and the negatives sign can be too simply rewritten in its original natural form without zero and negatives in three seconds
> Example: $(7 - 3 - 4 = 0)$, was stolen from its original natural form like this $(3 + 4 = 7)$, (***FINISHED***)
> And you can too simply adopt this natural 10-base number system without zero meaningless number but with its symbol only, that means $(0 = 10)$ in magnitude with reduction and more wonderful properties than ever
> Links:
>
> 1. Bassam Karzeddin's answer to Isn't there a problem basically with zero or the problems are basically with those many like ( (https://www.quora.com/Isnt-there-a-problem-basically-with-zero-or-the-problems-are-basically-with-those-many-like-frac-0-0-0-0-0-0-n-frac-n-0-n-0-1-n-0-0-0-0-etc/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1)$" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.quora.com/Isnt-there-a-problem-basically-with-zero-or-the-problems-are-basically-with-those-many-like-frac-0-0-0-0-0-0-n-frac-n-0-n-0-1-n-0-0-0-0-etc/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1)$\frac{0}{0}, 0^0, 0!, 0*n, \frac{n}{0}, n^0, 1^n, (0 + 0), (0 - 0) ...)$, etc? (https://www.quora.com/Isnt-there-a-problem-basically-with-zero-or-the-problems-are-basically-with-those-many-like-frac-0-0-0-0-0-0-n-frac-n-0-n-0-1-n-0-0-0-0-etc/answer/Bassam-Karzeddin-1)
> The whole problem with zero is the following
>
> 1.
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is the division by zero
> 2.
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with zero to the power zero
> 3.
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with factorial of zero
> 4.
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with the division of zero by zero
>
> 5.
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with one divided by zero
> 6.
>
> The problem isn’t at all with zero but the problem is with those three meaningless empty zero like digits (…)(…) added after any number ….
> 7.
> …..
> 8.
> …..
> ……………………………….
>
> Enough myth magic please, It is the time to know its absolute fact, and stop for a while to understand that zero isn’t any true number nor any number to keep blundering about aimlessly and hopelessly for sure
>
> But zero was a primitive human mind invention like a number, despite all those many old stories that describe it as the most important and wonderful discovery and greatest human knowledge ever made by human mind beings history,
>
> Since real numbers are already being (as perpetual mathematical existing objects) to be truly discovered and never to be invented or defined or created such that you get always stacked when subjecting them to valid mathematical operations where sometimes you think they pass and other times drastically fail
> See also the analogy with already exposed silliest fiction of infinity with zero no numbers
>
> Denote infinity by double o so infinity = oo,
> And recall back the operation rules with infinity and make a comparison with zero
> 1) (oo + oo = oo), and (0 + 0 = 0)
> 2) (n*(oo) = oo), and (n*0 = 0)
> 3) (oo^n = oo), and (0^n = 0)
> 4) ((oo)*(oo) = oo), and (0*0 = 0)
> …………………
> ………………….You can add alike ……
> But with infinity case, we admit that infinity is no number, whereas in the whereas we deny it and claim that is a number, just because the common human mind illusion that we think it is here before our eyes between positive and negative numbers, whereas the negative numbers were considered as real numbers only because we created zero, otherwise, an object of a location as a size less point on the real number line can go right or left from that chosen location but in positive senses (actually normal sense) in a both directions, same like up and down on the chosen artificial location (XYZ - coordination’s) and things would run and be still sensible and normal without all those negatives signs
>
> with their invented intrinsic complexities
>
> And if one is truly worried about some mathematical expressions like saying randomly ( 10 – 7 – 3 = 0), I can tell him to rewrite in its original natural shape like this (3 + 7 = 10), similarly for any case, where nothing is lost by losing zero and the negatives (together)
> Truly and mathematically speaking mathematics would not lose anything by losing zero,
>
> The same like the case when one day suddenly we added infinity (and most probably because of zero) then we could easily go well without it and without losing anything meaningful
>
> And you might be afraid how our number systems would work anymore without zero?
> I would like to say don’t worry at all since it would work even better and faster and it might reveal more about the hidden patterns of number properties without zero’s
>
> The old primitive Roman number system shouldn’t be at all be considered as a reasonable excuse to add zero to our number systems because we can so easily make many number systems very efficient and without zero
>
> Isn’t it truly so strange that our 10-base number system (naturally originated from our hand's fingers) that consists of 10 digits where 9 fingers are given one-digit each but abnormally one finger is given two digits as (10)? Wonders!
> I know that people are generally in love with the symbol zero, so we shall keep its symbol notation as it is but to be as a number 10, in 10-base number system where then no empty locations for any natural number or decimal number are missed
>
> Then let me denote the last finger by (0) to equal to (10), such that all hand finger is denoted with only one digit, and all numbers wood run as normal as it should be (in the 10-base number system polynomial),
> So, from (1 to 9), our numbers would be the same, and any number without (0) digits symbol would be the same as we knew it before in our old 10-base number system
>
> (20) would become (10), and (90) would become (80), (100) would become (90), and (1000) would become (990), so whenever you see zero in our number system, then keep it but decrees the digit to its left by one
>
> Example 1): Convert this number (23061) to your new number system
> Solution: (22061), how easy the trick, but why?
>
> The hint is that whenever zero digits appear in the old number system then right the same number but by decreasing the digit to its left by one
> Whereas numbers without zero would be equivalent in both number systems
> For example, in our current number system, this number (4758123698) would be the same representations in the new zero less number system, since we make (0 = 10) as a single digit
>
> Our original number is (1 + 6*10 + 0*100 + 3*1000 + 2*10000 = 23061), but in new number system it is like this
> (1 + 6*10 + 10*100 + 2*1000 + 2*10000 = 23061 (in old number system) = (22061) (in new number system)
>
> Example 2): Convert (1001) to a new number system
> Solution: (901), think about it
> Now, we see nothing is lost except expressing old extinct numbers like this (0.999…)
>
> Where this rational decimal would be represented like this with illustrations
> 1 = .90 = .990 = .9990 = …. = .999… (n)…9990, where this is valid for any natural number (n) and (n + 1), hence valid for any natural number
> But since there is always the last digit of (0) which means 10, then our number (n) can’t tend to infinity in any case, and not because there is truly no infinity to go to but because the rational decimal field is also endless and the same when converting or approximating the real existing constructible numbers to endless decimal rational, that would never replace them exactly as long as it is endless representations
> This, of course, must be considered as an added elementary proof number (11) for the no number with endless digits ever exists like our famous no one (0.999…)
>
> However, l did publicly publish earlier a zero less binary number system with (1, 2) digits, which was as effective as ours but usually with lesser digit
>
> 1. New numeration system, mapping to binary numeration system
>
> (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3477718/new-numeration-system-mapping-to-binary-numeration-system/3485430#3485430)
>
> It is worth to mention that the above link doesn’t show anything visible anymore for my provided lonely answer that was reworded a bounty of 200, to a question with 9 upvotes just because of later the moderator couldn’t tolerate it and has downvoted it that took back the bounty I previously got and kept it in hidden mode and so unusually even from my own profile where yesterday I made a complaint question about such incomprehensible behaviors of moderators
>
> generally on SE, where that was so different case from all other cases where they have hidden so many issues and topics of mine that are true as new mere discoveries by an amateur since it is in contradictions with their common traditional beliefs about many elementary issues in the foundation of mathematics, where they (many SE-Mathematical sections) have never given any valid or convincing reason for their deletion of most of my many contents topics
> But let me rewrite my hidden answer here again since they aren’t at all the only place for public publications that can stand still before any official traditional publications
>
> *****The deleted answer with a bounty reward of 200 on SE************
>
> New zero less binary number system with $(0, 1)$ digits for non-zero rational numbers with its endless field
>
> The Idea I think is quite simple, where we shall keep the same well-known computer binary number system with its $(0, 1)$ digits, but we shall consider as this is the simple *idea* is:
>
> Making $(0 = 2)$ in magnitude, such that an existing non-zero rational number can be exactly described and regardless of its size
>
> So, we can compare the outlook from (10-base, current binary, new binary) number systems in triples as where each number must be unique representation in all number systems as the following:
>
> ${(1, 1, 1), (2, 10, 0), (3, 11, 11), (4, 100, 10), (5, 101, 01), (6, 110, 00), (7, 111, 111), (8, 1000, 110), …}$[/math]
>
> Now, we can try some larger numbers like the following:
> ${(31, 100000, 11111, 11111), (73, 1001001, 110101), (145, 10010001, 1101101), …}$[/math]
>
> Also, I didn’t face a problem with rational numbers or those decimal numbers that can be exactly expressed in the decimal binary new number system
>
> But I truly discovered this interesting observation which is you can express a full integer to a decimal binary number like this without losing anything mysterious as the following:
> $[math](1 = .0 = .10 = .110 = .1110 = … = .111…(n)…1110 = 1)$ Where, $(.111…(n)…1110)$[/math]
>
> means repeating the one digit after a decimal notation for a known and well defined natural number $n$ where this is also valid for $(n + 1)$ number, hence by simple induction method valid for any integer $n$ no matter however large it is or tending to infinity since basically the term “Tends to” doesn’t mean exactly “equal to” beside the fact that we would be always nearer to one than infinity when our natural number is increasing indefinitely adding to that we have always the last digit as $(0 = 2)$ in magnitude as we set from the beginning for this new number system to work efficiently and exactly as well
> But, sadly speaking, the only loss in this magazine is the number zero itself with its empty magnitude, but not losing its symbol $(0)$ that we all usually use and adore as one of the most important knowledge discovered by the human beings, since its symbol is truly great that we mustn’t lose in any case for sure
>
> But someone asked me then how can we do express non-zero integer equations like this $(n – n = ?)$,
>
> or deal with numerical expressions like this
> $(14 – 23 + 9 = 0)$
>
> So, I told him simply, do write your first expression in its original natural form like this $(n = n)$, and see wither this integer equation of any meaningful or completely meaningless, so,
>
> Why do you want to rewrite it in a more meaningless form then? Wonders!
> Since, truly, there isn’t anything truly to keep pondering about anymore for sure
>
> And same like for your second puzzle when you do rewrite your same numerical expression in its true original natural form like this:
> $(14 + 9 = 23)$,
>
> where this is applicable to any numerical expression you might imagine, where here we avoided zero and the negatives together without any loss at all to the core meaning of an equation, and certainly computers with their modest AI nowadays can simply and immediately get it faster than us and deal with it as it is indeed
>
> But the only one disadvantage for this new binary system with $(0, 1)$ same digits is losing the magnitude of zero and never the symbol, which is mathematically and truly speaking isn’t any meaningful loss for mathematics but grater win for sure
>
> My Regards
> Copyright©, 2019
> Bassam Karzeddin
> *********My above answer was submitted on Dec. 23, 2019**************
>
> Regards
> Copyright ©, 2019
> Bassam Karzeddin
How did they dare to do it?
BKK