The Transitive Property (a=b=c=d, a=d) is incomplete.
Using an equal sign is not appropriate-since every character is different, no symbol may 100% “equal” to the former or latter.
In my system {Assuming A is not equal to B,C,D; B is not equal to C,D; C is not equal to D} the following is shown as a revision of the Transitive Property:
A~B~C~D
The ~ may be put wherever a significant change. Although this is all relative.
EXCEPTION: For mathematical purposes, the Revised Transitive Property works, because there is an assumption that all figures can be the same as the others. To distinguish this, we put the following small characters:
A~[1]B~[2]C~[3]D
(Therefore:) A~D[3]
The [ x ] number shows how many items there are in a chain like a,b,c,d. There are 3 moves from A to D (b,c,d)…so the [ 3 ] is used to show how many items are now assumed to be there. Gives viewer an idea of how relative on figure is to the next.
HOW THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE TIES IN:
(x)A~D[3]
The [ 3 ] I now call the Half-Life Degenerative. The (x) is a variable of how much difference is equally between A,B,C, and D. Say in this^ equation (X)= 50%…then:
a=original number, can be any number you choose, for our sake, im going to say 100
b= 50
c= 25
d= 12.5
The Uncertainty Principle says that the approximate mX cannot be used to find the approximate mY…or vice versa. (m=measurement). Why can’t we just use more definite approaches like these therefore we don’t have to assume? I do understand that not all solutions to problems are certain… But is certainty our laziness of equations or inevitability? Please critique my equation ^^.