You are on page 1of 5

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260186033

Is a new arithmetic growing?


CONFERENCE PAPER JANUARY 2007

READS

11

2 AUTHORS:
Ral M. Falcn

Juan Nez Valds

Universidad de Sevilla

Universidad de Sevilla

101 PUBLICATIONS 112 CITATIONS

142 PUBLICATIONS 247 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,


letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Ral M. Falcn


Retrieved on: 01 January 2016

Is a new arithmetic growing?


and J. NU
NEZ

R. M. FALCON
Department of Geometry and Topology.
Faculty of Mathematics. University of Seville.
Aptdo 1160. 41080-Seville (Spain).
rafalgan@us.es jnvaldes@us.es

Abstract
It is not exaggerated to say that all of the people, children included, know the
important role played by the elements 0 and 1 in Mathematics. One of the main
reasons for these elements to be fundamental is their roles of uniqueness within
any mathematical structure. However, the main goal of this paper is to show
that these roles last fact could be discussed by redefining the usual mathematical
laws, quite more in agreement with some aspects of the reality.

Introduction
Since our more youthful years, we have been aware of the existence of unit elements. In the
first place, we are been taught to count one-to-one: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... Secondly, we are told that
these elements, named numbers are related between themselves by different laws. So, we
learn to add, firstly from one to one: 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 1 = 3, ... Teachers tell us that the
symbol + represents the addition and that such a law has an unit element: the zero (0),
which means that: a + 0 = 0 + a = a, whichever the number a is.
Later, we are taught to multiply and, in a similar way as before, we are told that the
symbol represents the multiplication or product and that the unit element of this law is
1, that is: a 1 = 1 a = a, and we are also taught that + and are related between
themselves by the distributive property.
These two unit elements and such a property allow to form in our mind the idea of
a mathematical structure. At the same time, we easily understand that several types of
numbers have to be consecutively appearing: Z-numbers, which get round the problem of
computing the opposite of a N-number; Q-numbers, which do the same with respect to the
inverse of a Z-number; later R and C, and so on, in the way that each type of them extends
the previous one. All these sets have something in common: elements 0 and 1 are the unit
elements in all of them, with respect to the two laws previously indicated.
Here, we do not pretend to discuss the importance of such unit elements, that is to say,
we do not try to put in doubt the transcendence or their uniqueness, but, why have these
1

International Conference on Dynamical systems ICDS 2007, 42-46

elements to be precisely the 0 and the 1 and not others different? For example, why not
5
5
5
consider 6
, instead of 1 ? or why not to define: a 6
= 6
a = a? Note that
7
7
7
5
could be in fact any real number, although we have chosen it to do more amazing this
6 7
subject.

Do others possibilities exist?

It is reasonable to think that 0 and 1 are the unit elements for different reasons: by agreement,
5
by notation or, even, by logic (please, if 6
is even an irrational number!). However, a most
7
serious response would be to say that, in any case, the laws + and should be redefined to
accept other units. Well, let us redefine them. How long the equality 2 2 = 4? is going
to be imposed to us? Naturally, someone told us that 2 2 = 1 (mod 3), but this response
would not satisfy to us either. In fact, we do not want to reduce our sets of numbers. Why
do we have to restrict the imagination of our students by obliging them to accept the unique
possibility 2 2 = 4? Can it be thought that in our world this is truly so? Note that, if we
think in Mathematics as a tool to understand the Universe, some theories, like Relativity,
for instance, have already become phased out.
Indeed, it is sufficiently proved that (R3 , +, )
Universe. In fact, what we call unit:

1 0
I3 = 0 1
0 0

is not a real model for understanding the

0
0
1

is not such an unit in the physical consideration of Universe.


To get a better understanding of these subjects, let us say that Mathematics generally
used in quantitative sciences of the 20-th century were based on ordinary fields with characteristic zero, a trivial (left, right) unit I = +1 and on an ordinary associative product between
generic quantities a, b of a given set, such as matrices, vector fields, etc. Such a Mathematics is known to be linear, local differential (beginning from its topology), and Hamiltonian,
thus solely representing a finite number of isolated point-particles with action-at-a-distance
forces derivable from a potential. Such a Mathematics was proved to provide an exact and
invariant representation of planetary and atomic systems as well as, more generally, of all
the so-called exterior dynamical systems in which all constituents can be well approximated
as being point-like.
By contrast, the great majority of systems in the physical reality are nonlinear, nonlocal
(of integral and other type) and not completely representable with a Hamiltonian in the
coordinates of the experimenter. This is the case for all systems historically called interior
dynamical systems, such as the structure of: planets, strongly interacting particles (such
as protons and neutrons), nuclei, molecules, stars, and other systems. The latter systems
cannot be consistently reduced to a finite number of isolated point-particles. Therefore, the
mathematics so effective for exterior systems is only approximate at best for interior systems.
2

For these reasons, even with no necessity of referring to hole black dynamic or to EinsteinPodolski-Rosens paradox, it is necessary to keep in mind that the unit has not got the
exclusive character from which it is always presupposed, but it depends on several external
factors, like coordinates, speed, aceleration, temperature, density, ...
That is, the unit matrix above indicated is not constant, but we have to consider it
variable: I3 = I3 (x, x,
x, t, m, ...). The question is how can we vary a mathemathical unit,
which, by agreement, is unique. A possible response to this question appeared in 1980, when
a group of theoretical physicists began to construct a new mathematical foundation, which is,
at present, known as Isomathematics [4]. This new theory, which consists on a generalization
of the current mathematics, begins with a step by step construction of new mathematical
structures (named isostructures) verifying the same axioms and properties as usual ones,
although the dependence of external factors for the unit elements (named isounits) is now
allowed. Such a construction makes possible that these new mathematics put all together the
usual ones, since they admit, as a particular case, that the unit elements remain invariable,
as it actually happens.
Then, as a part of this new construction, which is not curiously the biggest possible, since
the named genomathematics and hypermathematics are being also dealt), we will show next
the construction in a schematic way of the isonumbers, which will allow us to answer the
question above formulated. To distinguish between isonumber and conventional number, the
first ones will be written by using bold characters.
Let us fixe, for instance, the field of the real numbers R and let us suppose that we wish
to construct the set of isonumbers associated with R, which have an arbitrary real number
b and it is defined: R
b = {b
I as isounit. This new set will be denoted by R
a = a I : a R}.
b Apart from that, it will be necessary
Then, it is immediate to note that b
1 = 1 I = I R.
b bb = (a b) I,
to redefine the usual product, which can be made in the following way: b
a
b is now named isoproduct.
where

Obviously, all these changes must be accompanied by the use of new laws [1]. However,
5
it is sufficient for our aim to realize that the answer to the question: can I = 6
be the
7
unit element of the real numbers with respect to the product? is affirmative. In any case,
note that the choice of such an element I is merely anecdotal, since, as we have previously
mentioned, any real number could have been chosen as unit. Particularly, under such a
choice, the following computations are obtained:
b
2=2

= (2 1)

bb
=b
2
1.

b
3=3

= (3 1)

bb
=b
3
1.

b
6=6

5
7

= (2 3)

bb
=b
2
3.

In this way, a new mathematical structure has been reached. It is formed by the same
set of elements as the initial one, which constitutes a difference with the case of Z3 . Many
other examples can be shown. If we think in an equality already considered in this paper,
3

bb
. Moreover, it is
2 2 = 4, we would have now, under the new conditions, that b
2
2 = 310
7
bb
not difficult to prove that b
2
2 = 1 when I = 1 is the isounit, without working in Z3 .
4

Final conclusions

We would like to conclude the paper by commenting that the changes previously described,
which can seem very simple and non transcendent, have involved, among many other subjects, the appearance of a new cleaning energy, named hadronic energy, a possible generalization of Einsteins Relativity Theory, the prediction of the existence of the antimatter
and, as a consequence, of the antigravity, the modification of the Einstein-Podolski-Rosens
Theory and the generation of new codification theories, due to the use of prime numbers.
For a more complete information about all of the subjects here comented the reader can
consult both the text and the references of [3, 5], for instance.
Nowadays, mathematicians and physicist throughout the world are trying to endow this
new theory with a right mathematical foundation which makes it serious and consistent. It
requires a first step by step construction of each usual mathematical structures (see [2], for
instance). The main driving of this project is R.M. Santilli, at present President of the I. B.
R. in Florida.
So, according with the previous exposition, it is not hazardous to affirm that we are
dived in the beginnings of a new arithmetic which could supply non imaginable facts in a
non distant future. We think that this impression should be transmitted to young students
to extend their minds and to allow them to elaborate their own conjectures about this new
situation.

References
[1] R. M. Falcon and J. N
un
ez, La isoteora de Santilli. International Academic Press,
America-Europe-Asia, ISBN 1-57485-055-5 (2001).
[2] R. M. Falcon and J. N
un
ez, Isorings and related isostructures, Bollettino dell Unione
Matematica Italiana 8-B (2005), 437 - 452.
[3] C.X. Jiang, Foundations of Santillis Isonumber Theory With Applications to New Crytograms, Fermats Theorem and Goldbachs Conjecture. International Academic Press,
AmericaEurope-Asia, ISBN 1-58485-056-3 (2002).
[4] R. M. Santilli, On a posible Lieadmisible covering of the Galilei Relativity in Newtonian
Mechanics for nonconservative and Galilei noninvariant systems, Hadronic Journal 1
(1978), 223 - 423.
[5] R. M. Santilli, Isominkowskian geometry for the gravitational treatment of matter and
its isodual for antimatter, Intern. J. Modern Phys. D:17 (1998), 351 - 407.
4