Results 1 
2 of
2
Is mathematics consistent?
, 2003
"... Abstract: A question is proposed whether or not set theory is consistent. We consider a formal set theory S, where we can develop a number theory. As no generality is lost, in the following we consider a number theory that can be regarded as a subsystem of S, and will call it S (0). Definition 1. 1) ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: A question is proposed whether or not set theory is consistent. We consider a formal set theory S, where we can develop a number theory. As no generality is lost, in the following we consider a number theory that can be regarded as a subsystem of S, and will call it S (0). Definition 1. 1) We assume that a Gödel numbering of the system S (0) is given, and denote a formula with the Gödel number n by An. 2) A (0) (a, b) is a predicate meaning that “a is the Gödel number of a formula A with just one free variable (which we denote by A(a)), and b is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula A(a) in S (0), ” and B (0) (a, c) is a predicate meaning that “a is the Gödel number of a formula A(a), and c is the Gödel number of a proof of the formula ¬A(a) in S (0). ” Here a denotes the formal natural number corresponding to an intuitive natural number a of the meta level. Definition 2. Let P(x1, · · ·.xn) be an intuitivetheoretic predicate. We say that P(x1, · · ·,xn) is numeralwise expressible in the formal system S (0), if there is a formula P(x1, · · ·,xn) with no free variables other than the distinct variables x1, · · ·,xn such that, for each particular ntuple of natural numbers x1, · · ·,xn, the following holds: i) if P(x1, · · ·,xn) is true, then ⊢ P(x1, · · ·,xn). and ii) if P(x1, · · ·,xn) is false, then ⊢ ¬P(x1, · · ·,xn).
QUANTUM MECHANICS
, 2003
"... I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics, which is often abbreviated as QM. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounte ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics, which is often abbreviated as QM. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio x/v  between the space coordinate x and the velocity v, where x, etc. denotes the absolute value or length of a vector x. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system.