S-Denying A Theory
S-Denying A Theory
S-Denying A Theory
2(2013), 01-07
S-Denying a Theory
Florentin Smarandache
(Department of Mathematics, University of New Mexico - Gallup, USA) E-mail: fsmarandache@gmail.com
Key Words: operator of S-denying, axiomatic system AMS(2010): 51M15, 53B15, 53B40, 57N16 1. Introduction Let T be a theory in any domain of knowledge, endowed with an ensemble of sentences E , on a given space M . E can be for example an axiomatic system of this theory, or a set of primary propositions of this theory, or all valid logical formulas of this theory, etc. E should be closed under the logical implications, i.e. given any subset of propositions P1 , P2 , in this theory, if Q is a logical consequence of them then Q must also belong to this theory. A sentence is a logic formula whose each variable is quantied i.e. inside the scope of a quantier such as: (exist), (for all), modal logic quantiers, and other various modern logics quantiers. With respect to this theory, let P be a proposition, or a sentence, or an axiom, or a theorem, or a lemma, or a logical formula, or a statement, etc. of E . It is said that P is S-denied on the space M if P is valid for some elements of M and invalid for other elements of M , or P is only invalid on M but in at least two dierent ways. An ensemble of sentences E is considered S-denied if at least one of its propositions is Sdenied. And a theory T is S-denied if its ensemble of sentences is S-denied, which is equivalent to at least one of its propositions being S-denied. The proposition P is partially or totally denied/negated on M . The proposition P can be simultaneously validated in one way and invalidated in (nitely or innitely) many dierent ways on the same space M , or only invalidated in (nitely or innitely) many dierent ways.
at the First International Conference on Smarandache Multispaces and Multistructures, June 28-30,2013, Beijing, P.R.China. 2 Received March 27,2013, Accepted June 5, 2013. 3 The multispace operator S-denied (Smarandachely-denied) has been inherited from the previously published scientic literature (see for example Ref. [1] and [2]).
1 Reported
Florentin Smarandache
The invalidation can be done in many dierent ways. For example the statement A =: x = 5 can be invalidated as x = 5 (total negation), but x {5, 6} (partial negation). (Use a notation for S-denying, for invalidating in a way, for invalidating in another way a dierent notation; consider it as an operator: neutrosophic operator? A notation for invalidation as well.) But the statement B =: x > 3 can be invalidated in many ways, such as x 3, or x = 3, or x < 3, or x = 7, or x = 2, etc. A negation is an invalidation, but not reciprocally - since an invalidation signies a (partial or total) degree of negation, so invalidation may not necessarily be a complete negation. The negation of B is B =: x 3, while x = 7 is a partial negation (therefore an invalidation) of B . Also, the statement C =: Johns car is blue and Steves car is red can be invalidated in many ways, as: Johns car is yellow and Steves car is red, or Johns car is blue and Steves car is black, or Johns car is white and Steves car is orange, or Johns car is not blue and Steves car is not red, or Johns car is not blue and Steves car is red, etc. Therefore, we can S-deny a theory in nitely or innitely many ways, giving birth to many partially or totally denied versions/deviations/alternatives theories: T1 , T2 , . These new theories represent degrees of negations of the original theory T . Some of them could be useful in future development of sciences. Why do we study such S-denying operator? Because our reality is heterogeneous, composed of a multitude of spaces, each space with dierent structures. Therefore, in one space a statement may be valid, in another space it may be invalid, and invalidation can be done in various ways. Or a proposition may be false in one space and true in another space or we may have a degree of truth and a degree of falsehood and a degree of indeterminacy. Yet, we live in this mosaic of distinct (even opposite structured) spaces put together. S-denying involved the creation of the multi-space in geometry and of the S-geometries (1969). It was spelt multi-space, or multispace, of S-multispace, or mu-space, and similarly for its: multi-structure, or multistructure, or S-multistructure, or mu-structure.
2. Notations Let < A > be a statement (or proposition, axiom, theorem, etc.). a) For the classical Boolean logic negation we use the same notation. The negation of < A > is noted by A and A =< nonA >. An invalidation of < A > is noted by i(A), while a validation of < A > is noted by v (A): i(A) 2<nonA> \{} and v (A) 2<A> \{}, where 2X means the power-set of X , or all subsets of X . All possible invalidations of < A > form a set of invalidations, notated by I (A). Similarly for all possible validations of < A > that form a set of validations, and noted by V (A). b) S-denying of < A > is noted by S (A). S-denying of < A > means some validations of < A > together with some invalidations of < A > in the same space, or only invalidations of
S-Denying a Theory
< A > in the same space but in many ways. Therefore, S (A) V (A) for k 2. 3. Examples
Lets see some models of S-denying, three in a geometrical space, and other three in mathematical analysis (calculus) and topology. 3.1 The rst S-denying model was constructed in 1969. This section is a compilation of ideas from paper [1]: An axiom is said Smarandachely denied if the axiom behaves in at least two dierent ways within the same space (i.e., validated and invalided, or only invalidated but in multiple distinct ways). A Smarandache Geometry [SG] is a geometry which has at least one Smarandachely denied axiom. Lets note any point, line, plane, space, triangle, etc. in such geometry by s-point, s-line, s-plane, s-space, s-triangle respectively in order to distinguish them from other geometries. Why these hybrid geometries? Because in reality there does not exist isolated homogeneous spaces, but a mixture of them, interconnected, and each having a dierent structure. These geometries are becoming very important now since they combine many spaces into one, because our world is not formed by perfect homogeneous spaces as in pure mathematics, but by non-homogeneous spaces. Also, SG introduce the degree of negation in geometry for the rst time (for example an axiom is denied 40% and accepted 60% of the space) thats why they can become revolutionary in science and it thanks to the idea of partial denying/accepting of axioms/propositions in a space (making multi-spaces, i.e. a space formed by combination of many dierent other spaces), as in fuzzy logic the degree of truth (40% false and 60% true). They are starting to have applications in physics and engineering because of dealing with non-homogeneous spaces. The rst model of S-denying and of SG was the following: The axiom that through a point exterior to a given line there is only one parallel passing through it (Euclids Fifth Postulate), was S-denied by having in the same space: no parallel, one parallel only, and many parallels. In the Euclidean geometry, also called parabolic geometry, the fth Euclidean postulate that there is only one parallel to a given line passing through an exterior point, is kept or validated. In the Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss geometry, called hyperbolic geometry, this fth Euclidean postulate is invalidated in the following way: there are innitely many lines parallels to a given line passing through an exterior point. While in the Riemannian geometry, called elliptic geometry, the fth Euclidean postulate is also invalidated as follows: there is no parallel to a given line passing through an exterior point. Thus, as a particular case, Euclidean, Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss, and Riemannian geometries may be united altogether, in the same space, by some SGs. These last geometries can be partially Euclidean and partially Non-Euclidean simultaneously.
Florentin Smarandache
3.2 Geometric Model Suppose we have a rectangle ABCD. See Fig.1 below. P1 Pn
D R1 Rn
Fig.1 In this model we dene as: Point = any point inside or on the sides of this rectangle; Line = a segment of line that connects two points of opposite sides of the rectangle; Parallel lines = lines that do not have any common point (do not intersect); Concurrent lines = lines that have a common point. Lets take the line MN, where M lies on side AD and N on side BC as in the above Fig. 1. Let P be a point on side BC, and R a point on side AB. Through P there are passing innitely many parallels (P P1 , , P Pn , ) to the line MN, but through R there is no parallel to the line MN (the lines RR1 , , RRn cut line MN). Therefore, the Fifth Postulate of Euclid (that though a point exterior to a line, in a given plane, there is only one parallel to that line) in S-denied on the space of the rectangle ABCD since it is invalidated in two distinct ways. 3.3 Another Geometric Model We change a little the Geometric Model 1 such that: The rectangle ABCD is such that side AB is smaller than side BC. And we dene as line the arc of circle inside (and on the borders) of ABCD, centered in the rectangles vertices A, B, C, or D. The axiom that: through two distinct points there exist only one line that passes through is S-denied (in three dierent ways): a) Through the points A and B there is no passing line in this model, since there is no arc of circle centered in A, B, C, or D that passes through both points. See Fig.2.
S-Denying a Theory
A .... .
... . ...
D ...
.... .
.... B
. ...
..
. .. ....
....
G .... .. .. ... . .. C
Fig.2 b) We construct the perpendicular EFAC that passes through the point of intersection of the diagonals AC and BD. Through the points E and F there are two distinct lines the dark green (left side) arc of circle centered in C since CEFC, and the light green (right side) arc of circle centered in A since AEAF. And because the right triangles COE, COF, AOE, and AOF are all four congruent, we get CEFCAEAF. c) Through the points G and H such that CGCH (their lengths are equal) there is only one passing line (the dark green arc of circle GH, centered in C) since AG=AH (their lengths are dierent), and similarly BG=BH and DG=DH. 3.4 Example for the Axiom of Separation The Axiom of Separation of Hausdor is the following: x, y M, N (x), N (y ) N (x) N (y ) = ,
where N (x) is a neighborhood of x, and respectively N (y ) is a neighborhood of y . We can S-deny this axiom on a space M in the following way: a) x1 , y1 M and N1 (x1 ), N1 (y1 ) N1 (x1 ) N1 (y1 ) = , where N1 (x1 ) is a neighborhood of x1 , and respectively N1 (y1 ) is a neighborhood of y1 . [validated] b) x2 , y2 M N2 (x2 ), N2 (y2 ), N2 (x2 ) N2 (y2 ) = , where N2 (x2 ) is a neighborhood of x2 , and respectively N2 (y2 ) is a neighborhood of y2 . [invalidated] Therefore we have two categories of points in M : some points that verify The Axiom of Separation of Hausdor and other points that do not verify it. So M becomes a partially separable and partially inseparable space, or we can see that M has some degrees of separation. 3.5 Example for the Norm If we remove one or more axioms (or properties) from the denition of a notion < A > we get a pseudo-notion < pseudoA >. For example, if we remove the third axiom (inequality of the triangle) from the denition of the < norm > we get a < pseudonorm >. The axioms of a norm on a real or complex vectorial space V over a eld F , x , are the following:
Florentin Smarandache
a) x = 0 x = 0;
c) x, y V , x + y x y (inequality of the triangle). For example, a pseudo-norm on a real or complex vectorial space V over a eld F , x may verify only the rst two above axioms of the norm.
p
b) x V, F , x = || x ;
A pseudo-norm is a particular case of an S-denied norm since we may have vectorial spaces over some given scalar elds where there are some vectors and scalars that satisfy the third axiom [validation], but others that do not satisfy [invalidation]; or for all vectors and scalars we may have either x + y = 5 x y or x + y | = 6 x y , so invalidation (since we get x + y > x y ) in two dierent ways. Lets consider the complex vectorial space C = {a + bi, where a, b R, i = 1} over the eld of real numbers R. If z = a + bi C then its pseudo-norm is z = a2 + b2 . This veries the rst two axioms of the norm, but do not satisfy the third axiom of the norm since: For x = 0 + bi and y = a + 0i we get x + y = a + bi = a2 + b2 x y = 0 + bi a + 0i = |ab|, or a2 + b2 a2 b2 . But this is true for example when a = b 2 (validation), and false if one of a or b is zero and the other is strictly positive (invalidation). Pseudo-norms are already in use in todays scientic research, because for some applications the norms are considered too restrictive. Similarly one can dene a pseudo-manifold (relaxing some properties of the manifold), etc. 3.6 Example in Topology A topology O on a given set E is the ensemble of all parts of E verifying the following properties: a) E and the empty set belong to O ;
b) Intersection of any two elements of O belongs to O too; c) Union of any family of elements of O belongs to O too. Lets go backwards. Suppose we have a topology O1 on a given set E1 , and the second or third (or both) previous axioms have been S-denied, resulting an S-denied topology S (O1 ) on the given set E1 . In general, we can go back and recover (reconstruct) the original topology O1 from S (O1 ) by recurrence: if two elements belong to S (O1 ) then we set these elements and their intersection to belong to O1 , and if a family of elements belong to S (O1 ) then we set these family elements and their union to belong to O1 ; and so on: we continue this recurrent process until it does not bring any new element to O1 .
4. Conclusion Decidability changes in an S-denied theory, i.e. a dened sentence in an S-denied theory can be partially deducible and partially undeducible (we talk about degrees of deducibility of a sentence in an S-denied theory).
S-Denying a Theory
Since in classical deducible research, a theory T of language L is said complete if any sentence of L is decidable in T , we can say that an S-denied theory is partially complete (or has some degrees of completeness and degrees of incompleteness).
References [1] Kuciuk L. and Antholy M., An Introduction to Smarandache Geometries, Mathematics Magazine, Aurora, Canada, Vol.12, 2003. [2] Mao Linfan, An introduction to Smarandache geometries on maps, 2005 International Conference on Graph Theory and Combinatorics, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, Zhejiang, P. R. China, June 25-30, 2005. also appear in Smarandache geometries & map theory with applications(I), Chinese Branch Xiquan House, 2007. [3] Dmitri Rabounski, Smarandache spaces as a new extension of the basic space-time of general relativity, Progress in Physics, Vol.2, L1-L2, 2010. [4] F.Smarandache, Paradoxist Geometry, State Archives from Valcea, Rm. Valcea, Romania, 1969, and in Paradoxist Mathematics, Collected Papers (Vol. II), Kishinev University Press, Kishinev, 5-28, 1997. [5] F.Smarandache, Multi-space and multi-structure, in Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic Logic, Set, Probability and Statistics, American Research Press, 1998. [6] Matthew Szudzik, Sentence, From MathWorld A Wolfram Web Resource, created by Eric W. Weisstein, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sentence.html.