Re: Polysigned Numbers
From: Tim Golden (tttpppggg_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Tim Peters: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Polysigned Numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jan 2005 17:57:28 -0800
Well, what's the harm?
Embarrassment I suppose.
Anytime you want to quit please do so.
The three-signed numbers, if taken literally and applied to charge
would suggest that there are three types of charge. So -, +, and *
would be the three charges.
I would start with the * charge being neutral, because it has a
preservative nature. If I take a three-signed value y and take *y I
just get back y. In effect there is no action.
The - charge is very different. As a numerical operator it rotates y
around in thirds, so that three - operations get back to the original
position.
The + charge is just the exact opposite of the minus charge, so it
rotates in the opposite direction. Other than that it is identical.
I am not trying to strictly adhere to the math here, just using
portions of it as a charge interpretation. At one level the three are
symmetrical to each other equally, but at another level two of the
three are inverses and the third is neutral. The mathematical rotation
I would ignore for now. It generates symmetries and those symmetries
are what is important. Lets call the two non neutral charges the active
charges.
Remember hole theory as an explanation for semiconductor hehavior? I
think that ame view pertains to the two active charges. So what if
instead of current flowing in one direction only it actually flowed in
two? I suppose the mathematical expression for this would be:
I(+) = - I(-).
So this means that the plus current is exactly equal in magnitude but
opposite in direction to the minus current. Such a symmetry would hide
its counterparts.
I am not claiming that the proton is one of these charges. For now I
would prefer to completely overlook the proton.
To create three-signed charge we borrow something from nothing. In this
case we get back three particles. The sum of the three is zero in
agreement with the polysigned math.
For a start I think this has some consistencies. There are probably
numerous ways to break it. What is an electron beam? Surely there is
not a reverse current?
And what about simple Coulomb's law?
When a fuse blows does the material flow symetrically? If so it would
support this theory. If material flows toward the traditional positive
side then it goes counter to this theory and supports tradition.
-Tim
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Tim says,
> "Maybe we could do a gedanken on three-signed charge here? "
>
> When I was a little brat, Litton Industries published a really cool
> puzzle book, Problematical Recreations or something like that,
> if anyone knows about that please chime in....
>
> It's a bit of a shame that such little comical thought provoking
> booklets aren't available, that I know of. The thing I liked about
> those, is that it was really fun to consider the problem even if
> it was way beyond my ability to solve it.
>
> One puzzle (IIRC) consisted of having 3 sexs of Venusian
> fish, I'm still a bit puzzled...
>
> Ok, Tim, now you know my qualifications on 3 charges, let's
> go to the gedanken, I have 3 open ears :-).
> Seriously and regards, what's the angle?
> Ken S. Tucker
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time."
- Previous message: Tim Peters: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- In reply to: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Polysigned Numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
