Страница 5 из 28
There will also be touched upon a theme, which because of its seeming extreme difficulty, was as if ones did not notice and evade it. This theme about the special significance of arithmetic for the formation an abstract thinking, which obviously is of exceptional importance not only from the point of view of studying in the field of education, but also for understanding the essence of such a notion as mind. Having no such understanding, science as well as the story with imaginary numbers, is doomed to many failures. In particular, all attempts to create "artificial intelligence" of non-biological type will be in vain since it is impossible in principle! It will be shown in this book how Gottfried Leibnitz’s truly ingenious conjecture, that thinking is an unconscious process of calculations, turned out to be true although only somewhat, because the mind ca
Of course, in its present state it would be simply unthinkable, but taking into account what is stated in this book, such an imitation will become inevitable and a certain standard will be created, by which all sciences without exception will be built. It is not difficult to guess that the first point of this standard will be the definition the essence of given specific science. And of course, everyone will immediately think that it’s very easily to find an answer to such a question at least by looking in some reference books or encyclopedias.
Aha, if it were so! Not to mention that the answers to this simple question for some reason turn out to be different (?), and to understand at least something from all them is hardly possible. Then it turns out that scientists specializing in some sciences simply do not know what they are doing? No, of course. They also like their predecessors use terminology, the meaning of which for some reason no one bothered to define and as a result of such a game without rules, sooner or later ghosts arise, which create the illusion of fantastic progress.
Well, and what about the sample for imitation? Considering the fact that in this book there is not even one, but whole two definitions of the essence the notion of a number, it is possible on this basis to formulate a brief definition the essence of arithmetic, say so: arithmetic is the science about the origin of numbers and methods of computations. Then from understanding the essence of numbers, one can construct their axiomatics and basic properties, which in turn will lead to BTA and other theorems arising from the needs for computations. In a similar way you can build also other knowledge begi
Now for example, we need to use arithmetic as a sample for imitation in order to build, say, physics. To do this, we take as one of the basic definitions to this science as follows: Physics is the science about the essence, properties and interaction of material objects. Hmm … It seems here we stumbled upon an insurmountable wall because the definition the notion of matter does not exist. Philosophers spent a huge lot of paper, but all this without some use. However, as popular wisdom says, there is nothing to blame on others if they themselves have curved mugs. Physicists themselves can solve this problem without any special difficulties because no one else will do it for them.
They simply accept as an axiom that all consisting from matter has such properties as mass and energy and so simple the whole problem will be solved. Well, and what about the definition the essence of these properties themselves? But this is still Sir Isaac Newton has very well worked and even used the style of presentation along with approaches from Euclid himself! And now, standing on their shoulders, it’s not at all difficult for us to reveal the essence of these notions especially after physicists have the problem with the units of measurement solved. Indeed, in arithmetic it is only implied that all calculations must be carried out in the appropriate units of measurement while in other sciences these units must always be concrete.
For example, in informatics Bit is used as the unit of measure, but here scientists also screwed up. Since the times of Claude Sha
A term "technological breakthrough" is from the field of economics, but this science is only a ghost if only because it uses as units of measurement only meaningless titles. Economic crises in contrast to the devastating storms, hurricanes and tornadoes, have no natural origin since they are the consequences of people activity who do not understand what they are doing and therefore are not able to prevent them. This book will offer a way to solve these problems from the point of view of the possibilities of building not sham ones, as they are now, but real informatics and economics built in the image and likeness of arithmetic.
From that we have already said, many people will probably think that all this looks like something too fantastic to be a reality. But everyone so thought also about Fermat. When he offered his task to someone, that someone discourses very simply: well, if Fermat is a Gascon, it means a prankster. In Simon Singh’s book about the FLT, Descartes allegedly called Fermat a boast man, what confirms this common opinion, but his exact phrase was: “… unlike Monsieur Fermat, I’m not a Gascon”. If this introduction of ours also will causes distrust or will be perceived as humor then this is exactly what is needed, because it consistent with the spirit of our main hero.
On the other hand, all the themes touched here, are too fundamental to be disclosed in the traditional style of scientific monographs. Then it would have turned out something like, say, the British Encyclopedia or the complete works of Leonard Euler consisting of about 800 volumes, which for more than 200 years anyone had not been able to publish completely at least once. So that our works would not be lost at all, we had to take an extraordinary step i.e. to use for this book an unusual literary genre called here the scientific blockbuster – a combination of narrative in the sharp style of artistic prose along with the separate fragments of purely scientific content.
How one would not to relate to this kind of i
The plot of the first miniature is very interesting because in the proof of BTA from German professor Ernst Zermelo (a student of Max Planck himself!) 1912 there is such a barely noticeable error that upon learning of this the authors of the textbooks will be extremely surprised. But no less surprising here is the fact that this error in fact is the same as in the Gerhard Frey’s idea for the FLT "proof" by Andrew Wiles 1995 only more veiled. Thus, the mistake coming from 1912 and appear in 1993 turned out with just terrible consequences, which completely destroyed the "solutions" of two fundamental problems that the scientific world so carelessly allowed himself to admit.