Re: ? understanding the world by math
- From: "Tim BandTech.com" <tttpppggg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:15:32 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 30, 7:27 pm, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:09 pm, Cheng Cosine <asec...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I could be a much better show-off here.
Hi:
Math represents a set of powerful tools to help us approach
the true nature of this world. Though linear system theory provides
many very power tools for us to approach the nature, the real world
in many cases is not linear. Then, except conducting linearization
to under a small part of the nature within a small range, whatelse
can we use to understand this world?
The polysign numbers inherently contain spacetime correspondence due
to the behavior of the math beyond sign three. These higher sign
systems are somewhat nonlinear, though I hesitate to use that word
strictly since the higher sign systems do still obey the associative,
commutative, and distributive laws.
The most general answer to your question is to construct freely. Cover
new ground whatever way it can be found. Who'd have thunk that a
graphic so simple as
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeSweep/P3.png
could be undiscovered? Here is another:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeSweep/P6HighDensity.png
These graphics are an iterated function:
z = - z z @ m ;
or if you prefer the more formal
z[n] = - z[n-1] * z[n-1] @ m
where z[0] = 0 and m is a swept magnitude 0->inf and '@' means
superposition.
I point to your strong awareness of linearity issues. These are
behaviors of the space themselves, but yes, through a function. Surely
this must be so since I've just created them and this is the context
in which I was thinking when I constructed them. So I ask that you
grant me a new language and read my writing in my context, which
requires a fair amount of flexibility from a reader. This is because
the new language does carry slight inconsistencies with the old
language.
For instance unidirectional time is natural as P1 (the one-signed
numbers) while being zero dimensional and so inherently carrying the
meaning of 'now' within their very geometry.
I could just ramble on and on about this stuff. I need a reader who
talks back. The math can be taught to a capable high school student I
believe, though I suppose I should put this to the test somehow. But
Cheng, look at the structures in these graphics. There are no
conditionals within their construction. They've got cores, they've got
strings; nuclear structure. Structures rich with life from next to
nothing. I plead with you to consider seriously the polysign numbers.
The P6 graphic above is like an explosion, but it is stable. It is
five dimensional with so much character that thinning it can expose
more structure beneath the fireball surface:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeSweep
- Tim
Even once a grand new theory is found that covers your desires fully
don't you think that science will still remain open? Otherwise it will
become like religion. The book has been written... One must preserve
the book...
Try breaking some rules and see what happens.
- Tim
.
- References:
- ? understanding the world by math
- From: Cheng Cosine
- Re: ? understanding the world by math
- From: Tim BandTech.com
- ? understanding the world by math
- Prev by Date: Re: ? understanding the world by math
- Next by Date: Re: Is this proof of infinitely many primes flawed?
- Previous by thread: Re: ? understanding the world by math
- Next by thread: Re: ? understanding the world by math
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
