A better foundation of Mathematics is seen when we look at the truths that concept sharing allows. Since we must have concept sharing we need to look at the Mathematics that comes from this.

Then this can be a new basis of Mathematics

]]>An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of two shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:

Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.

The concept sharing of a number:

Numbers are exact concepts. In the above case, we can think of them as the number of overlapping shadows at the center. They have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two overlapping shadows there or three there, etc.

Then borrowing from the notion of overlapping shadows we should be able to hide numbers together and they would be “two hidden as one” as well. (concept sharing) if the mathematical objects represented by the numbers had the same boundaries, like the shadows at the center.

Other than the further darkness of the overlapping shadows, we cannot see or imagine that there are two separate shadows there. Similarly with two numbers hidden as one we can not see or imagine them together. Yet our logic tells us this can be so.

Then to this end let us create another number dimension, a dimension of number of numbers. Let the usual case be that the number of numbers is only 1. But now let us expand into the next dimension and allow the number of numbers to be 2.

So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 (since we have another underlying dimension, we can do this) and replace it with two new numbers 1(1) and1(2). These are together like the two shadows but do not form one number. The number then has a one-dimensionality to it as it is at least possible to separate it linearly.

Keep in mind that these numbers are different. They do not represent two obviously separate objects, but represent two mathematical objects hidden as one. Or you can think of the two number 1’s as fitting into each other.

Since numbers are exact we can consider the objects to be like points. Since something with no extent placed onto something with no extent would still have no extent but there could be two objects here. Also we could think of a combined single object of no extent( at the start) created form two other objects of no extent.

When we are numbering two mathematical objects which fit into each other, the objects are somehow different from each other and we give the two hidden objects two new numbers 1(1) and 1(2).

In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system. Then we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many concepts we wish to be present.

The twin prime conjecture:

There is a lower level of prime numbers using the concept sharing of a number. For examples: (1(1), (2(2), (3(3), (5(5),…I drop the (1), (2) notation for clarity and brevity.

Yet there is now a plane of numbers as shown below. With entries such as (3(5), (5(7), (5(11). These are partially shared prime numbers. We can make a square as shown, with a gap of two on all sides, centered at (4(4). This connects the prime shared numbers.

We might also make copies of these prime’s associated with this square. Yet there is a countable infinity of these possible.

The shared prime pairs can’t be anywhere else in the plane but on the midline. Since we need to recover the ordinary prime’s, there can only be one copy of these. The rest of the copies are moved into the infinity that is available.

Since I can make an indefinite amount of copies, the same gap must be possible infinitely as we go further up. Therefore the twin prime conjecture is seen. Also, we see how other gaps must be repeated too.

]]>I do so by placing the knot in placement space. The the locations are free to move in a space of locations of locations. We keep the locations connected in the knot as they were originally connected.

Specifically, they can move around in a loop along the path of the knot.

Once we decompose two crossings into a joining (alpha-beta’s), we can double up the knot diagram again. One diagram is still and the other I can move the locations around again along the path of the new knot diagram. Then I can decompose again, etc. This means I can move one alpha-beta past another.

I then decompose completely and look for another way to put the knot back together. This new diagram is obtainable from the original diagram by the usual Reidmeister moves.

]]>Overlapping shadows:

An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of two shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:

Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.

The concept sharing of a number:

Numbers are exact concepts. In the above case, we can think of them as the number of overlapping shadows at the center. They have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two overlapping shadows there or three there, etc.

Then borrowing from the notion of overlapping shadows we should be able to hide numbers together and they would be “two hidden as one” as well. (concept sharing) if the mathematical objects represented by the numbers had the same boundaries, like the shadows at the center.

Other than the further darkness of the overlapping shadows, we cannot see or imagine that there are two separate shadows there. Similarly with two numbers hidden as one we can not see or imagine them together. Yet our logic tells us this can be so.

Then to this end let us create another number dimension, a dimension of number of numbers. Let the usual case be that the number of numbers is only 1. But now let us expand into the next dimension and allow the number of numbers to be 2.

So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 (since we have another underlying dimension, we can do this) and replace it with two new numbers 1(1) and1(2). These are together like the two shadows but do not form one number. The number then has a one-dimensionality to it as it is at least possible to separate it linearly.

Keep in mind that these numbers are different. They do not represent two obviously separate objects, but represent two mathematical objects hidden as one. Or you can think of the two number 1’s as fitting into each other.

Since numbers are exact we can consider the objects to be like points. Since something with no extent placed onto something with no extent would still have no extent but there could be two objects here. Also we could think of a combined single object of no extent( at the start) created form two other objects of no extent.

When we are numbering two mathematical objects which fit into each other, the objects are somehow different from each other and we give the two hidden objects two new numbers 1(1) and 1(2).

In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system. Then we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many objects we wish to be there.

Goldbach’s conjecture:

We can think about new types of numbers (1(1)(1(2)), (2(1)(2(2)), (3(1)(3(2)),..These are higher numbers than the naturals, 2 being greater than 1. The notation is meant to show that the numbers are together in the number space, fitting into one another or hidden as one. I show a revelation of one number “peeking out” from concept sharing with another number. Shown more clearly here: (a(a). For clarity and brevity I drop the (1),(2) designation from now on.

There are other numbers such as (2(3), (3(4), (3(5),… We can think of this as partial sharing. For (2(3) think of three dots colored red. We can have two blue dots overlapping with two red dots forming two purple dots. I say that to give the idea, numbers are not colored dots. Numbers are the exact concept of amount or position only. So that (2(3) can be thought of as two sharing with three and (3(2) can be thought of as three sharing with two. In the first case 1 is left over and in the second case 1 is an extra number. These are the same concept though so (2(3)=(3(2).

Consider the even shared numbers (2(2), (4(4), (6(6),…

We can break them down into a sum of two prime shared pairs such as (2(2)=(1(1)+(1(1) and also (4(4)=(1(3)+(3(1) if we define the other types of shared numbers with dissimilar basic numbers to fill in the rest of the possibilities. They can form products too.

Some numbers have more than one decomposition. Such as (16(16)=(13(3)+(3(13) and (16(16)=(11(5)+(5(11).

Now think of the even shared numbers as being created from the primitives. I designate them (2(2), (4(4) … but these numbers are not created from the usual numbers on the number lines, as these are lower numbers, these higher numbers; (2(2), (4(4)…. must come from somewhere else. These even shared numbers must go on indefinitely, as to lead to the numbers 2,4,6,…at the lower level . Then the natural numbers are all at a lower level from these numbers.

For multiplication, in the usual number system we have prime numbers. We can look for the higher level of prime numbers. Suppose I build a higher level of primes from the usual prime numbers by concept sharing two prime numbers. For example (7(3)=(3(7).

But (10(10) = (7(3)+(3(7) =(2(2)(7(3). (7(3) can’t be equal to (7(1)(1(3) as I can change this to (7(1)(3(1)=(21(1). The other part, (3(7) can be changed to (1(21). I can add to obtain (10(10)=(22(22), a contradiction as 10 does not equal 22. This is outside the sharing domain. So (3(1) and (1(7) can’t be factors. So I can’t factorize (a,b) further where a and b are prime.

Then starting at (4(4), we can ask, how is (4(4) created? (4(4)=(2(2)(2(2). (4(4) is an even shared number so there is a division by (2(2) possible. This can be the definition of an even shared number. When I divide both sides by (2(2) I have a shared number on both sides, these are equal but not necessarily identical. For (4(4)=(3(1)+(1(3)=(3(1)+(3(1) =(2(2)(3(1) also. In this case we can think of the shared number (2(2) separating in the number space to form the number (3(1)=(1(3).

Then also (6(6)=(2(2)(3(3). Also (6(6) =(5(1)+(1(5) =(5(1)+(5(1) =(2(2)(5(1) also.

Also (8(8) is not equal to (2(2)(4(4) as (2(2)(4(4)=(2(2)(4(2)(1(2)=(2(2)(2(4)(1(2)=(4(16). This is outside what we could consider the sharing domain as 8+8=16 but 4+16=20. We find (8(8)=(5(3)+(3(5)=(2(2)*(3(5)=(2(2)*(5(3)=(10(6)

And so on. Each even shared number must be a multiple of (2(2) and another prime shared number. We consider 1 to be a prime number.

Imagine an extended number line. For example, since (5(5) can separate, lets look for a way (10(10) can be created. (10(10)=(a(b) +(b(a)=(2(2)(a(b). I am taking apart (5(5) so as to create (10(10). Two (5(5)’s are separated and then recombined. ex. (7(3)+(3(7). (10(10) can be created from (a(b) +(b(a) but this is also (a(b)+(a(b) =(2(2)(a(b) so this must work too. As shown in the case above with (8(8), a,b must both be prime. There must be one such factorization.

Every even shared number can be divided by (2(2). The other factor must be a prime shared number as we need this to work in the shared number system. For example (12(12)=(2(2)(6(6). (6(6) must separate into two prime numbers otherwise (12(12) can’t appear (we assumed it was there). It must exist since I need to have 12. I can now take (12(12) out and replace it by 12. So we must have a decomposition with (2(2)(a(b) with a, b both being ordinary prime numbers.

This demonstrates the equality of every primitive decomposition as well (which the lower level was hinting at) since for any even shared number there may be more than one decomposition. We go back to form (16(16) and then can separate once again to find another decomposition. Here we find two, (2(2)(13(3) and (2(2)(11(5)

Then if we look at one half of these binary decompositions, that is, for example, look at 16(16)=(13(3)+(3(13) and see 16 =13+3 we can see Goldbach’s conjecture is true. It was just a part of a deeper understanding of numbers.

]]>For Concept Sharing we needed to start with sharing numbers. The idea is to form sharing concepts. For this we need these new numbers, to be specific so that we can start with certain mathematical systems.

In mathematics, concepts are mental constructions. They are ideas like shadows with boundaries. They can be thought of like points. The foundation of mathematics is based on concepts. Here then we need to find a new, extended foundation.

We can concept share a point since two items of no extent will still have no extent, but there could be two items here.

So similarly numbers, as we have seen, points, sets, groups, ect. Can all concept share.

In order to do this we must remove the concept which is present initially and replace it with 2 or more sharing concepts. Since it is possible to share concepts there must exist a more underlying concept space.

The two sharing concepts must be different in some way which we can specify based on the nature of the concept itself.

Then an infinite level concept space can form as I can continue into the next level of the concept and so on. One may utilize as many levels as is necessary.

Additionally there can be a finite number, an infinite countable number of an infinite uncountable number of sharing concepts, as this is the understanding of numbers.

]]>Abstract: Here I introduce concept sharing. In uncovering extended space, I show a new way of understanding knots.

Overlapping Shadows:

An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:

Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.

The Concept Sharing of a Number:

Numbers are exact concepts. In the above case, we can think of them as the number of shadows at the center. They have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two there or three there, ect.

Then borrowing from the notion of overlapping shadows we should be able to hide numbers together and they would be “two hidden as one” as well. (concept sharing) if the mathematical objects represented by the numbers had the same boundaries, like the shadows at the center.

Other than the further darkness of the overlapping shadows, we cannot see or imagine that there are two separate shadows there. Two or more numbers can be hidden as one since natural numbers represent exact positions. Similarly with two numbers hidden as one we can not see or imagine them together. Yet our logic tells us this can be so.

Then to this end let us create another number dimension, a dimension of number of numbers. This must already exist since it should be possible to put two or more numbers together at a beginning. Let the usual case be that the number of numbers is only 1. But now let us expand into the next dimension and allow the number of numbers to be 2.

So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 (since we have another underlying dimension, we can do this) and replace it with two new numbers 1’(1) and1’(2). These are together like the two shadows but do not form one number.

The two numbers together can be notated ((1’(1)((1’(2)). 1’(1) is “peeking out” from behind 1’(2). Shown by the use of a half parentheses. Seen more clearly here: (a(a).

Keep in mind that these numbers are different. They do not represent two obviously separate objects, but represent two mathematical objects, also concept sharing, hidden as one.

The objects are concept sharing as well and are somehow different from each other. We give the two hidden objects two new numbers 1’(1) and 1’(2).

In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system. Then we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many objects we wish to be there.

A New Plane:

Points are also exact concepts. In the Euclidean plane they are places, with the notion of no extent, in the plane. We should be able to place two together using two new numbers 0’(1) and 0’(2) identifying that we have two points. (0 is indicating an origin)

An object of no extent created together with another object of no extent, would still have no extent- but there could be two objects here, under another mathematical system.

The two points 0’(1) and 0’(2) can be different by first uncovering a new place dimension, a place of places. This must already exist because there must be some way to have two points exist together and still be two points.

In a similar way as we uncovered the new number dimension (the number of numbers) we can uncover the new place dimension.

Take the original point out (we can do this since we have a new underlying dimension of place, a place of places) and replace it with the two new points. This can be done for the whole plane of points.

That is, there is nothing special about the origin, so each point of interest of the usual plane can be removed and we can replace it with a “sharing” of two points. So that we have a subset of sharing points co-existing with a plane of places of places.

One of the new points can be fixed, while the other one is capable of “shifting” away in this new dimension of place. In this way these two can be different. Then all of the sharings in the new plane can become new origins-one point being fixed while the other point is capable of shifting away.

]]>Concept Sharing and a new view of the Riemann hypothesis

Abstract: Here I introduce concept sharing. In uncovering extended space, I develop new ways of understanding the Riemann hypothesis.

Overlapping shadows:

An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:

Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.

The concept sharing of a number:

Numbers are exact concepts. In the above case, we can think of them as the number of shadows at the center. They have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two there or three there, ect.

Other than the further darkness of the overlapping shadows, we cannot see or imagine that there are two separate shadows there. Similarly with two numbers hidden as one we can not see or imagine them together. Yet our logic tells us this can be so.

Then to this end let us create another number dimension, a dimension of number of numbers. Let the usual case be that the number of numbers is only 1. But now let us expand into the next dimension and allow the number of numbers to be 2.

So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 (since we have another underlying dimension, we can do this) and replace it with two new numbers 1’(1) and1’(2). These are together like the two shadows but do not form one number.

Keep in mind that these numbers are different. They do not represent two obviously separate objects, but represent two mathematical objects hidden as one.

The objects are somehow different from each other. We give the two hidden objects two new numbers 1’(1) and 1’(2).

In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system. Then we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many objects we wish to be there

A new plane:

Points are also exact concepts. In the Euclidean plane they are places, with the notion of no extent, in the plane. We should be able to place two together using two new numbers 0’(1) and 0’(2) identifying that we have two points. (0 is indicating an origin)

An object of no extent placed together with another object of no extent, would still have no extent- but there could be two objects here, under another mathematical system.

The two points 0’(1) and 0’(2) can be different by first uncovering a new place dimension, a place of places. This must already exist because there must be some way to have two points exist together and still be two points.

In a similar way as we uncovered the new number dimension (the number of numbers) we can uncover the new place dimension.

Take the original point out (we can do this since we have a new underlying dimension of place, a place of places) and replace it with the two new points. This can be done for the whole plane of points.

That is, there is nothing special about the origin, so each point of the usual plane can be removed and we can replace it with a “sharing” of two points. So that we have a whole plane of doubled points co-existing with a plane of places of places.

One of the new points can be fixed, while the other one is capable of “shifting” away in this new dimension of place. The places of places line can be defined in a space of places of places of places. Then a place of place, with a place, can move in the upper half-plane. Make a small jump back to the places of places line. We can remove the places in this small gap then remove other places as motion continues as the line underneath is revealed.

Then some of the sharings in the new plane can become new origins-one point being fixed while the other point is capable of shifting away.

The Riemann Hypothesis:

One may imagine a type of gird with the first square being 1, the next being 1/2^2 the next being 1/3^2… if we use s=2 as an example. See pictures in the notes below. The higher numbers of s can be seen by increasing the dimension. Yet there is always a plane possible with any dimension equal to or higher than 2.

Since with concept sharing geometry there comes a place of places, in which places can vary, we may vary the distance as we choose to always make the zeta function defined. The zeta function can be continued into the extended geometry. Then there is no longer a need for analytic continuation. I can always make the grid into a 1 by 1.

So we can create a grid specific to the Zeta function defined in placement space.

Then we have that there are two types of number involved. A real part and an imaginary part.

I think this can be seen more primitively as a numbers which lead to a square with a positive area and numbers which lead to a square with negative area ie. the negative distance is -i. These can be sharing space.

We can concept share two different numbers in the following way: (-1(-1)*(-i(-i) where * is a concept sharing of a concept sharing= ((-1(-i))((-1(-i)). But -1 and -i have to be different. Let -i be the negative distance and -1 be the other, real distance. Then let this be how the square comes about. We have to expand the zero-dimensionality of the concept sharing. Let -i and -l be numbers at the next level of numbers. That is they are no longer point-like but line like. We can start with a point consisting of an infinite uncountable number of sharing parts and expand it outwards into a line.

The next to last image shows how there are trivial zeros at -2,-4,-6… and how the zeta function could equal -1/12 when s=-1. We are adding an infinite series to get a finite sum. This comes about as we have a addition of positive and negative area. This works for the plane as we can have i and i^2=-1.

If we look at the last image, there are three possible cases. One where s=2, one where s=1/2 and some where s=-2,-4,-6,…These all lead to a plane where we can also share with i, in the last two cases so that we might cause the series to converge.

]]>Abstract: Here I introduce concept sharing. In uncovering extended space, I show a demonstration of Wile’s Theorem.

Overlapping shadows:

An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:

Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.

The concept sharing of a number:

Numbers are exact concepts. In the above case, we can think of them as the number of shadows at the center. They have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two there or three there, etc.

They are ideas or concepts so that they are further like the shadows in that there is no real substance to them.

So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 (since we have another underlying dimension, we can do this) and replace it with two new numbers 1’(1) and1’(2). These are together like the two shadows but do not form one number.

Keep in mind that these numbers are different. They do not represent two obviously separate objects, but represent two mathematical objects hidden as one.

The objects are somehow different from each other. We give the two hidden objects two new numbers 1’(1) and 1’(2).

In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system. Then we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many objects we wish to be there.

A new plane:

Points are also exact concepts. In the Euclidean plane they are places, with the notion of no extent, in the plane. We should be able to place two together using two new numbers 0’(1) and 0’(2) identifying that we have two points. (0 is indicating an origin)

An object of no extent placed together with another object of no extent, would still have no extent- but there could be two objects here, under another mathematical system.

The two points 0’(1) and 0’(2) can be different by first uncovering a new place dimension, a place of places. This space can be thought of as akin to a jigsaw puzzle being taken apart over an underlying space.. This must already exist because there must be some way to have two points exist together and still be two points.

In a similar way as we uncovered the new number dimension (the number of numbers) we can uncover the new place dimension.

Take the original point out (we can do this since we have a new underlying dimension of place, a place of places) and replace it with the two new points. This can be done for the whole plane of points.

That is, there is nothing special about the origin, so each point of the usual plane can be removed and we can replace it with a “sharing” of two points. So that we have a whole plane of doubled points co-existing with a plane of places of places.

Wile’s Theorem:

Now the statement of Wile’s theorem is that the sum of two squares can equal a square, but the sum of two cubes or any higher power cannot equal a single cube, a fourth power or higher (more widely known as Fermat’s Last Theorem).

It seems then that it should be possible to demonstrate this with geometry. One of these new geometries mentioned above is a possible way of demonstrating this.

Let’s start by considering a line of places of places defined in a plane of places of places of places and a line segment which can consist of two or more superimposed lengths of places (two or more lengths).

At the start we can only have two types of points, fixed or mobile. Let the places of places be the fixed points, then since we can move off into two directions we must have 2 line segments with one 1 point each one line moving left and one line moving to the right. It can have two integer lengths (or multiple lengths), yet a single length of lengths which can vary. Since length is not the same in the new geometry.

It’s length of lengths might be one unit, but its lengths can be two, three or four units, for example. It’s lengths can only be multiples of the length of lengths and the length of lengths can vary.

Then let one line segment, consisting of two different sets of places and place of places be decomposed (simplified) in the space of places of places along the line of places of places. It has a length of length.

We can only move out in two directions along this line. It is seen that it is only possible to have two different places of places at the beginning. The places of places are mobile, and they can only move out left or right. So we double the mobile points and weight each one point, since I want to form the sum of two lines.

Suppose we map these two lengths of lengths co-linearly, inside the original by shrinking each line. Then this is the demonstration that a+b=c is at least possible for some cases of a, b and c. a, b and c being some lengths. Since the sum of two lengths of lengths is also a length of length as well.

Then this at least makes it possible that a+b could equal c. b may be too small or too big and not equal c, but there may be a case when a+b could equal c. Now the intention is to move up in dimension.

Now we can move to the next dimension by rotating the line of places of places out of the line and into a plane. When perpendicular we have a square, the side length of which is again two possible integers. Let there be a set of two squares making up the initial square, I can only have fixed or mobile points. Then since I can move off into four different compass directions n,e,s,w. This one mobile square must be made of two squares and must be rated at ½ points each.

Since I must move the copied squares out into an area of places of places it must be following the parallel lines which are places of places. I can move out four possible squares.

This indicates that I am moving the sum of two squares out to become four squares, which means the points of the squares are weighted ½ each. Then map these squares and move them all into the original square. See the diagrams below.

If we use the same pattern as in the case of one dimension this is the demonstration that a^2+b^2=c^2 is at least possible for some values of a, b and c , since the summed squares can add to a square in some cases. I can start with one square and add area around that square, which adds up to a square to try and form a final square.

In three dimensions and higher this is not possible to do. In three dimensions I create six cubes instead of the required eight. Each of the six cubes can be weighted ⅓ but we cannot form an added cube, since I need 8 cubes to do this. See the sketch below.

In a fourth dimension I would also not have the required number of hypercubes and so on. This shows a geometric proof of Wile’s theorem (Fermat’s conjecture).

]]>