nothing anyone would want to read (or: crank boxing (or: the death of the dance))


still nothing?

no contribution?

you are not doing very well in this

if you want to assert that someone is stupid
you have to illustrate why you don't also fit the label

you have to demonstrate

you have to show why that label is something to dislike
and offer up some hierarchy

if you accuse someone of faulty novelty
offer up some novelty of your own

toni(c)o
i've seen you answer standard student problems
which certainly demonstrates an understanding of curricula

but i've rarely seen you express novelty

and i've seen you express distaste for the ignorance of others

so don't i have to figure
if that's how you play the game around here
then might as well play to win?

right?

i mean
if someone is out there
constantly measuring up some label of crank
as the means to hierarchical dominance
don't i have to do that too?

and if cranks are subhuman
can't i treat them anyway i want?

i've seen many posters do that

so long as i demonstrate
right?

you're angry because you don't think i should post with titles like
"why does professor david c ullrich have to put people down to feel good about himself?"

you want me to post a bunch of links that illustrate
david ullrich providing justification for my actions
because you can't see how he may have deserved my attack
simply by stating i was wrong
addressing it to someone else

but he has a history of questioning
perfectly legitimate theories

a crank history

and he has repeatedly illustrated a frequent need to demean others
extending to stalking other posters with negative followups
in what can only appear to be desperate attempts at hierarchy

hell
he's still doing it to tommy
making a lot of foolish mistakes in his attempts to show tommy foolish
and even still
after all this bluster has been exposed
erring against perfectly legitimate questions

david ullrich is the crank he attacks others of

and i was simply calling out his crank for having questioned
the possibility of having a workable X^Y concept

i stepped into the ring

he came back and suggested that i had shown i didn't know much
demonstrating an improved convergence criterion
and played out the sidestep to claim benevolent aims

david knows how to box

he's a bit older
so he's quite familiar with crank boxing

his rebuttal was a bit weak in that it was incorrectly stated
but his point was fundamentally sound and it landed solid enough

it added information not already posted

as have others

many who stay out of the crank boxing
and contribute for reasons other than hierarchy games

people like robert israel and gottfried helms
and others that regularly demonstrate

tommy contributed both initially and with additional convergence extensions
as did david petry

but
toni(c)o
lately you have contributed very little information

denis
who is also of an older generation
seems to have grown tired of the boxing as well
and has taken lately to roosting and sniping without much content

if you guys think it is shameful
tommy's capabilities as an innovator
then you guys need to demonstrate

show how someone who is competent creates whole new theories
taking the idea through all the steps well-known of the learned

i see so much talk about cranks around here

but questioning X^Y
or questioning the possibility of x = [x]
or questioning the legitimacy of realist quantum theories
or questioning operationalist definitions
or any of the many strange attacks i have seen

those are much more cranky positions
by ignorant people who do not yet understand the literature
and
according to their own logic
ought read the appropriate

there is a lot of talk about reading

and they seem to talk about definitions a lot
even though they don't seem to understand what definitions really do
in the scheme of syntax and semantics
and the role of language in meaning

not in the ways fundamentally important to control

many including david have posted many times
illustrating a familiarity with model theory

but the ways they i've seen play out the knowledge
fallaciously assume certain hierarchies are given
absolute
in place of the personal hierarchies that are actually observed

they become so focused on the authority of a definition
bad (unhealthy) assumptions of legitimacy get made
(followed by belittlement)

it is an entrancement

david's focus on the definition of a function by a power series
comes from the same place as
moeblee's focus on classical definitions of an algorithm

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/67bcf33134e5efeb?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/b39f8c310a5f04a2?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/6d329dd567ad95ce?hl=en

such fundamentalisms arise when it is not acknowledged
that when people have deeply different definitions
their communications are not immediately very meaningful

there is no automatic sync of semantics

there must be a period of negotiation
and during this period
simply from the differences in perspective
there will often be error

with different perspectives
it can be difficult to understand what is expected
and there can be quite a learning process involved

hierarchy games are played using assumed linguistic referents
and cross-semantic interpretations
may invoke the errors of the lost correlation

that is the nature of the hierarchy games being played
a hodgepodge of authoritarianism and expectations of error
used as a means of aggression against legitimate mathematical inquiry

i am not one to lose hierarchy games easily
particularly when aggressively challenged of me
outside my own decision

david ullrich is great preparation for the championship belt

defeating him will set me up nicely for the great match

you
toni(c)o
and denis
are too light weight to matter in any of this

you guys can run off and continue scaring poor lwalke3

i rarely see much in your posts that even comes close to good crank boxing
and i suspect lwalke3 will soon find a more steady voice

your insinuation that i am doing something excessive
might be more insulting to david than it is to me
because it shows you do not have much of an understanding of
david's posted positions and philosophy on this

david is all for crank boxing

he regularly demonstrates the most basic move
the jab

cf.
david finds an ignorant
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/4dfe7b5b6d8146cf?hl=en

with interesting response on admirability of crank boxing
(and on metaphor as a source of ideas
- extremely relevant in one of those obvious ways i don't like to point out)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/e01c3d7e2c95dc7b?hl=en

ullrich finds an idiot
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/ad65e42c8987ba73?hl=en

ullrich finds another idiot
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math.undergrad/msg/5b3050b3f803a455?hl=en

ullrich finds a lunatic
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/bd37927e4251b574?hl=en

ullrich finds a dumb fucking ***
(and how to play the game with those)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/4541e67b14499654?hl=en

ullrich himself has forcefully argued
that namecalling is an appropriate tool in crank boxing
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/f0dd47a3d43a2ca8?hl=en

when in a tight corner during a particularly tough match
david certainly believes it is okay to suggest
that someone knows nothing about a topic
when he jokes about an alternate identity theory
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.philosophy.meta/msg/21f1b58d682078b0?hl=en

(even though earlier he had decided on a different identity theory)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/1e8957f07c39f132?hl=en

david proposes the relationship between meaning and retardedness
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/fbca557c1981177b?hl=en

and yet
like many who first responded
not thinking very deeply about what they were doing
david thought tommy was a fool
and claimed a theory inconsistent that isn't
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/566e06cc0cc01b4c?hl=en

david explains the lack of a point
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/c0cfac082de3955e?hl=en

david explains why misslips in convergence are important
(ironic for several reasons)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.matlab/msg/56b493099348895f?hl=en

you call my if-laced first round actions questionable?

david believes the word 'if' can make things unoffensive
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f00214fefaa8f061?hl=en

david believes ideas might be ridiculous even without an argument
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/265106d7ac8117be?hl=en

david on learning and listening to sounds
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/87c88938357db2a0?hl=en

david on a test for crackpottiness
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/517c16165cbbc2d6?hl=en

david offers another test for crackpottiness
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/ba46387cff030bf5?hl=en

david questions the historical infallibility of the crackpot label
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/96fc9d4c40657b0f?hl=en

it only shows your weak boxing skills
toni(c)o
that in your attempts to defend david ullrich
you fail utterably to respect the philosophy he espouses

accusing me of tresspass
you trespass against david's stated positions

i understand the reason for people's defense of david

he can show himself to be quite intelligent
and he does
sometimes
reveal a human side:

bizarro david questions the usefulness of put downs without backup
http://groups.google.com/group/borland.public.delphi.graphics/msg/156a3fbf8b9ede40?hl=en

bizarro david defends against labels
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4a862dd7bb7e570a?hl=en

but being a successful crank boxer
means one should not take much time
to consider their opponents humanity

moeblee has
amusingly
illustrated this bloodlust of the hardcore crank boxers
in a way that is directly relevant to david

moeblee calls x in x pathetic
(watch the bloodlust and desire for authority
even though
unbeknownst to him
everything he says is actually incorrect)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/006a5cd896f8909e?hl=en

the goal in crank boxing
is to be the top

the best defense and the most offensive

you have to be narcissistic to be a good crank boxer

david certainly is

but i will be the better

i will be muhammad aaliyah
and unfortunately
ullrich will not reach even ernie terrell

unlike you
toni(c)o
i am an excellent crank boxer
with highly developed skills and a keen sense of the ironic

i know that there is much astray
and many reasons left unsaid

those who seek responsible aggressions
understand that aggression can easily lead to unstable dynamics

when aggressions are directed only towards aggressors
and of a proper proportion
the aggressions may still quench

the collection of participants does not grow beyond existing participants
and if initial aggressors subside
the aggressor aggressions also subside

so i feel no shame at the role i am playing

there are many crankish things in which to step into the ring over

david reveals his mathematical fundamentalism
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/512ebae7272f80a0?hl=en

fundamentalism is the ultimate crank

and of course
all this bluster on everyone else's part
is simply there to obscure the intellectual dishonesty
of those
like david
(or moeblee or jesse hughes or fuckwad or bilge or..)
who have screamed quite loudly for crank status
on ideas
like x = [x] or operationalism or realist quantum models or ...

and all of your cries claiming i am whining
are just screams of laziness
unable to do what you so desperately ask of others

don't you see?

over the many years i have crawled the tunnels of usenet
i do regularly demonstrate

not because i've been looking to aggress
but very very often simply because others were aggressing
and i happened to have familiarity with theory that countered their aggressions

if you can't keep a discussion moving forward
providing interesting material to unite and abstract relations
then you show weakness in the material

everyone knows
when a crank boxer smells something in the posts
that assures them they have derived correctly
that's not the time to back down

and as i learn to feed my anger through crank boxing
through this utter disrespect for you
i am fueled by this so easily seen weakness

(secretly i am finding it addictive)

i see the drive and secret bloodlust
that must be the secret shame of all crank boxers

and sometimes
as i realise how much more there is to go
i picture myself becoming a robot to the compulsion

i fear what this must mean about those most dedicated boxers
who have continued many years along this path

but it's an exciting fear

you know that scene in fight club
where edward norton loses it and nearly kills that fellow fighter?

the bitterest punches are the details:

the topic is exponentiation

what does it mean to take some abstract object A
and exponentiate it to some abstract object B

after arithmetic
exponentiation is often introduced as the next step in iterative self reference
building off of the previous (arithmetical) operations

but really
as computer scientists have long known
exponentiation is the primitive operation on which iteration is built

in a very precise sense
exponentiation is a primitive of functional generation

this can be seen in the computer science theory of cccs
but let's focus on the analysis here

look at the classic operator formula

tD
e f(x) = f(x + t)

which expresses translations in terms of exponentiations of the derivative operator

this was the fundamental discovery of taylor and maclaurin on the power series form

oo
--- j
\ D f(.)(t) j
f(x + t) = / --------- x
--- (1)
j=0 j

this is the basic form of equation
on which all orbit generators work in the neighborhood of a given point

it's a foundational equation of all modern physics

determining the evolution of some initial state given a hamiltonian on the space
is the basis for the action principle
and the formulation of dynamics in variational forms like path integrals

now
take a basis of operators on a function space analytic around 0
through the power basis over the function space
and look at the infinite matrix forms mentioned much by gottfried helms and others

we can represent the power series

oo
---
\ j
f(x) = / f x
--- j
j=0

as the vector

/ f \
| 0 |
| |
| f |
| 1 |
| |
| f |
| 2 |
| |
| .. |
| .. |
| .. |
\ /

then
in this representation
the derivative operator has basis form

| 0 1 0 0 . . . |
| 0 0 2 0 . . . |
D = | 0 0 0 3 . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |

from the classic power theorem

n n-1
D x = n x

multiplying out
one gets

| 0 0 (1) 0 0 . . . |
| 2 |
| 0 0 0 (2) 0 . . . |
2 | 2 |
D = | 0 0 0 0 (3) . . . |
| 2 |
| . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . |

or generally

n
/--^^--\
| 0 0 .. 0 (1) 0 0 . . . |
| n |
| 0 0 .. 0 0 (2) 0 . . . |
n | n |
D = | 0 0 .. 0 0 0 (3) . . . |
| n |
| . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . |

so if one takes the exponential of this operator

oo
--- j
D \ D
e = / ----
--- (1)
j=0 j

and applies this to function vector f as above
the result is

/ \
| (1) f |
oo | j j |
--- 1 | |
\ ---- | (2) f |
/ (1) | j j+1 |
--- j | |
j=0 | (3) f |
| j j+2 |
| |
| . |
| . |
| . |
\ /

and so

/ oo \
D | --- |
e f = | \ |
| / f |
| --- j |
| j=0 |
| |
| oo |
| --- |
| \ |
| / (j + 1) f |
| --- j+1 |
| j=0 |
| |
| oo |
| --- |
| \ (j + 1) (j + 2) |
| / --------------- f |
| --- 2 j+2 |
| j=0 |
| |
| . |
| . |
| . |
\ /

now
looking at the terms
it should be pretty clear how stringent the convergence criteria must be
to satisfy this as an analytic identity
but the formal theory has much application even outside convergence
and describes much of the geometrical properties in the algebra

going the other way from the series

oo oo j
--- --- --- (1)
\ j \ \ j k j-k
f(x + 1) = / f (x + 1) = / f / ----------- x 1
--- j --- j --- (1) (1)
j=0 j=0 k=0 k j-k

oo oo
--- --- (1)
\ m \ n
= / x / ----------- f
--- --- (1) (1) n
m=0 n=m m n-m

which should be compared to above

in the context of the discussion in which ullrich showed a weak first round
given an infinite matrix A
one might want to investigate the meaning of

D
A

exploring it's proper domain and value

from the form i described
D ln(A)
this is e
D D
(can we maybe call this A and the dual form A ?
or is this ambiguous with some well accepted matrix subscript form?)

the matrix can be formally computed termwise

oo
--- j
\ j-1 D (A - I)
D ln(A) = / (-1) ----------
--- j
j=1

the terms of this matrix are

oo
--- m-1
\ (-1)
dla = / ------- k ami
j,k --- m m j,k+1
m=1

(j the column, k the row)

where m
ami is the (j, k)-th matrix element of (A - I)
m j,k

which can be computed from

ami = a - del
1 j,k j,k j,k

(del is kroneckers)

and the recurrence

oo
---
\
ami = / ami ami
m+1 j,k --- 1 n,k m j,n
n=0

note that if the alternate form of exponential were explored
the shift that occurred on ami would have been seen on the columns instead

these formulae simplify considerably
2
if we are working not on the power basis (1, x, x , ...)

2
x
but the exponential basis (1, x, --, ...)
2
*
then D (the D on this space) is a simple infinite circulant form following the W series
* n
so D is like a W
oo

where

| 0 1 0 0 ... |
* | 0 0 1 0 ... |
D = | 0 0 0 1 ... |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |

n n-1
* x x
since D ---- = ------
(1) (1)
n n-1

notice also that if ln(A) is toeplitz
as in the case with the earlier multisection results on W
* n
the D operator application results in a toeplitz matrix
and
in fact
gives the same answer no matter which side it is applied to

in other words:

if ln(A) is toeplitz

D D
A = A (where defined)

now when is ln(A) toeplitz?

that is an interesting question
because the product of toeplitz matrices is not necessarily toeplitz
even by itself
so what A works here?

circulants form multiplicative closures here...

there are many such questions that pop up
as the investigation progresses...

but instead
look at a related infinite operator

| 0 0 0 0 ... |
| 1 0 0 0 ... |
| 0 1 0 0 ... |
X = | 0 0 1 0 ... |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |

this is the operator that
when acting on f(x)
produces x f(x)

it takes


/ f \ / \
| 0 | | 0 |
| | | |
| f | | f |
| 1 | | 0 |
| | | |
| f | | f |
| 2 | to | 1 |
| | | |
| .. | | f |
| .. | | 2 |
| .. | | |
\ / | .. |
| .. |
| .. |
\ /


this operator is
in that very loose way that is often labelled colloquially
like a

oo-1
W
oo

in the
this operator has the following multiplication rules
over the power basis


| 1 0 0 0 ... |
| 0 2 0 0 ... |
| 0 0 3 0 ... |
DX = | 0 0 0 4 ... |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |

| 0 0 0 0 ... |
| 0 1 0 0 ... |
| 0 0 2 0 ... |
XD = | 0 0 0 3 ... |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |

which gives a very famous relationship of modern mathematical physics

DX - XD = I


for this operator

| ( 0 0 0 0 ... |
| ( . . . . |
| n 0s < . . . . |
| ( . . . . |
n | ( 0 0 0 0 ... |
X = | 1 0 0 0 ... |
| 0 1 0 0 ... |
| 0 0 1 0 ... |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |
| . . . . . |

/ 0 ) \
oo | . ) |
--- | . > j 0s |
X \ 1 | . ) |
e f = / ---- | 0 ) |
--- (1) | |
j=0 j | f |
| 0 |
| |
| f |
| 1 |
| |
| . |
| . |
| . |
\ /

/ \
| f |
| 0 |
| |
| f + f |
| 1 0 |
| . |
| . |
| . |
= | n |
| --- f |
| \ n-j |
| / ---- |
| --- (1) |
| j=0 j |
| . |
| . |
| . |
\ /

now
if one looks at

oo oo
--- j ---
x / \ x \ / \ k \
e f(x) = | / ---- | | / f x |
\ --- (1) / \ --- k /
j=0 j k=0

oo n
--- --- f
\ n \ n-m
= / x / ----
--- --- (1)
n=0 m=0 m

we can see the behavior of X
as an x representative in the operator space

and when we look at the form

X X ln(A)
A = e

again the toeplitz and circulant forms pop up
through extension of the multisection results to the infinite case

the dual matrix-exponent forms
are represented in swapping the roles of columns and rows
and the symmetries of these matrix types
respect those symmetries
providing a class of equalities among the dualities

now
if we want to look at the multisection operator
we see a completely new type of behavior

the multisection operator may be represented

| 0 _ |
| . ) m-1 0s |
| . ) |
| 0 0 |
| 1 |
| 0 _ |
|m | . ) n-1 0s |
| = | . ) |
|n | 0 |
| 1 |
| 0 _ |
| . ) n-1 0s |
| . ) |
| 0 |
| 0 1 |
| . |
| . |

this is a projection operator
so it is idempotent

all idempotent operators O obey

O
e = (e - 1) O + 1

(can you see why?)

so in this case
the exponential map is simply a scale factor and shift

as above
one can investigate

|m |m
| | ln(A)
|n |n
A = e

now
this operator applied to another matrix M with elements m
j,k
gives a matrix of striped rows

| ( 0 0 0 ... |
| ( 0 0 0 ... |
| m-1 0s < . . . |
|m | ( . . . |
| M = | ( 0 0 0 ... |
|n | |
| m m m ... |
| 1,m 2,m 3,m |
| |
| ( 0 0 0 ... |
| ( . . . |
| n-1 0s < . . . |
| ( . . . |
| ( 0 0 0 ... |
| |
| m m m ... |
| 1,m+n 2,m+n 3,m+n |
| |
| . . . |
| . . . |
| . . . |

since all of the entries of a row not indexed by m (mod n) are 0
the powers of these types of matrices are all similarly striped

the dual theory stripes columns

therefore
the exponent also has this same striped form

ie.
|m |m
| M | M
|m |n |n
| e = e
|n

and one is led to consider a B suchThat

|m
|
|n |m
A = | B
|n

what does this form correspond to in powerseries transformations?

again
as with the other forms
there is a deep relationship between powers and the exponential map
exposed by the algebraics here

these lead to an interesting class of results in the generalised trigonometrics...

..

the study can be extended in many ways
but perhaps another geometric view can be extracted
by delving into the theory of chern classes

the complex exponential map can be seen as a map
exp: C -> C*
from the complex numbers to the multiplicative subgroup C\{0}

this map can be used to produce an exact sequence commutative diagram
for sheaves S over any compact kahler manifold K

0 --> Z --> S --> S* --> 0
|| ^ ^
|| | |
0 --> Z --> C --> C* --> 0

which induces the cohomological

1 1 r 2
H (K, S) --> H (K, S*) --> H (K, Z)
^ ^ ||
|p |q ||
1 1 2
H (K, C) --> H (K, C*) --> H (K, Z)


looking more closely at this latter diagram
1 1,0 0,1
H (K, C) may be decomposed into H (K) (+) H (K)
and p is a projection represented by the second term
and thus surjective

therefore
following the commutative relations around the diagram
we have image(q) = kernel(r)

looking at what this means
a complex line bundle on K is represented in the cohomology
and mapped to the 0 of the second homology (the chern class)
when it lies in the image of the simple cech cohomology map q

and so any line bundle on K with chern class 0
can be given by constant transition functions

in other words:

any pair of line bundles having the same chern class
are translates of each other

here
the orbit generation through multiplicative scaling group
provides a deeper description of the structural classification
made possible through exponentials
and fundamentally
the chern character is built from the exponential

..

so it's time to call it again

this puerile exchange is still quite lacking
from all whom i am now attacking of crankhood

it is clear to me that i am quite ahead in the many rounds
going way back over the years
over numerous issues that a number have considered controversial

david's contributions are getting weaker
and seem to lately be more of the lame are-you-stupid-for-considering-that type posts
each of which are clumsily
well
wrong

toni(c)o and denis are
well
pretty impotent these days
trying their best to jump on poor lwalke3
whose persecution complex is obscuring his clarity

i'm training well
and finding better form every day

let's see who will fall next
to the bluster and fury of my defensive crank boxing

i've easily convinced myself
through the secret mechanism all crank boxers learn as the lust grows
that over many years
i have fought the glorious battle and won valiantly many times

i repeat to myself
mantra-like
that the battles i have fought and won include the legitimacy of:
extended probabilities
logic in topology
quantum logic in a correspondence theory of truth
realist quantum theories in the face of aspect's experiment
realist quantum theories and fields
noncommutative geometries
many of sarfatti's old topics like
zero-point inertia and gravities
pioneer anomalies as hedgehogs
operational definitions
x in x and x = [x]
matrices exponentiated by matrices
...

these battles have been against professors in their fields
many of them occurring during student days
as i tried desperately to take some time to learn
despite school

and even though this most recent fight was aborted early
due the effectiveness of my initial blow and the insight of the crank i was fighting
still there was quite some confusion tossed around
about "ill-defined" terms and other nonsense
meant as aggressions
which were valiantly thwarted

and so the fight continues...

what's my name?

come on
tell me

what's my name?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.

Loading