Re: Infinite Dimensional Polysign Numbers

On Jun 18, 7:00 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DEAR TIM

i have found very interesting stuff.

what would you say if we where BOTH CORRECT ??

sounds weird ?

however like i pointed out before,

im afraid of people stealing my ideas.

perhaps we could meet some day ??

Tommy, I do not believe that we can both be correct in terms of the
dimensional measure of P4.
In terms of ideas and ownership of them this is probably the best
media to share new ideas on since the information is distributed
widely. As far as I know only Google preserves this data indefinitely
but regardless one should feel grateful if someone else were to adopt
an idea shared here. But it is not stealing. When someone else adopts
an idea it becomes theirs as well. What if someone else makes a subtle
modification to your idea? Then is it yours or theirs? The whole
concept of ownership of ideas is nonsense. The ego holds people up but
now thanks to this uncensored media it is OK to let go. I am trying to
share some fundamental work. It would not surprise me if this work has
been submitted five times over in the past by some others to journals
who have refused it. It would not surprise me if a bright grade school
child brought this system to their teacher once upon a time. Perhaps
it was even published by some 1800's mathematician in some obscure
journal and forgotten. That is how simple it is. But this simplistic
system conflicts with the Cartesian thought process. So it is easily
rejected.

This is the place to share your secret if you dare to share it at all.
But so far Tommy we still have not come to agree on the dimension of
an n-signed system. I still am finding conflict in your statement and
worst of all you've now repeated the conflict over again. I do respect
your persistence however and am happy to have this interaction. Lets
get this straightened out. This is mathematics we are discussing and
there are rarely if ever such divergent conclusions as:
1. The four-signed construction is three dimensional.
2. The four-signed construction is two dimensional.
This does not compute for me. I am still of the opinion that you are
imposing an additional definition that is not there in the basic
polysign definition that I have offered. In struggling to communicate
the system I have gone over to the simplex as a starting structure
that then generalizes sign rather than imposing the sign
generalization from the outset. I have yet to see if this works any
better but here we are driven back to considering a two dimensional
system. And this has happened before with some good people. So I do
not wish to reject what you have in mind altogether. The 2D system
where
theta( s^n ) = 2 pi / N
where N is the signature of the system and s^n are the individual
signs does have remarkable similarities. But this is a definition
statement, not a conclusion. Upon choosing this statement the system
has inherently been tied to two dimensions. The above expression will
not ever be yielded from
Sum over s ( s x ) = 0
at least not in my opinion. You've been hunting for a behavior in the
product that will degenerate but I do not believe that this will be
fruitful. Still I will participate in your endeavor and keep my eye
out for why people grow fixated on the 2D scenario. I am learning some
about how to communicate the polysign math. Also I should admit that
there is in some far recess of my mind a little regulatory bean
counter who suggests that I've gotten it all wrong. So I will try to
remain open to your ideas and that mine may be wrong, but again this
is mathematics we are discussing. We can use rhetoric to gain
attention but the underlying math must be coherent.

If I were to adopt your 2D scenario would it really be your idea that
I stole? It has been suggested to me by several others before you. I
have played with a nonorthogonal sector system long ago. If you have
some unique biscuit you are hiding let it go out! I'd say don't even
worry about refining it too much. Most everybody will think that the
idea is stupid anyways but by letting it go you will allow your mind
to fully enter a progression. Some guys even seem to keep a journal on
here like Sarfatti and OsherD. Some don't even respond to their own
threads.

I have criticized relativity theory pretty harshly and am open to
being wrong but have yet to reach that understanding. If I am mistaken
then my credibility goes bad. But this judgement is somewhat beyond
any of us to dole out universally. We each have our own judgement and
work to the beat of our own drum. By sharing our judgement and our
work we allow a progression, both within ourselves and possibly
externally as well. So share your thoughts please, if not on this
thread then on a new one and please point me over to it.

-tpg20070618

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Multidimensional Man
    ... The Human body:-The Ego or Personality, ... The Spiritual Dimension - P8 ... The Soul Dimension - P9 ... What about our emotions, and our subconscious mind, and our feelings of ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Multidimensional Man
    ... The Human body:-The Ego or Personality, ... The Spiritual Dimension - P8 ... The Soul Dimension - P9 ... What about our emotions, and our subconscious mind, and our feelings of ...
    (sci.astro)
  • The Multidimensional Man
    ... The Human body:-The Ego or Personality, ... The Spiritual Dimension - P8 ... The Soul Dimension - P9 ... What about our emotions, and our subconscious mind, and our feelings of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The Multidimensional Man
    ... The Human body:-The Ego or Personality, ... The Spiritual Dimension - P8 ... The Soul Dimension - P9 ... What about our emotions, and our subconscious mind, and our feelings of ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.olap)
  • The Multidimensional Man
    ... The Human body:-The Ego or Personality, ... The Spiritual Dimension - P8 ... The Soul Dimension - P9 ... What about our emotions, and our subconscious mind, and our feelings of ...
    (sci.math)