Re: geek shamanic clue

From: David Dalton (dalton_at_nfld.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:51:13 -0230

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:00:23 -0230, David Dalton <dalton@nfld.com>
wrote:

>Some may find this, from FTE list July 18, 1994, to be amusing as well:

For some of you the following will look better in a fixed-width
font which you may be able to switch to with your browser
menus. Of course there is a reference to Anais Nin's
book Delta of Venus, where I was a rug, ha. For other
insights of course review the complex delta function
which is fairly advanced distribution theory.

>come back, complex delta function
>be love
> less of
> spiky delta
> -- biological
> more or
> like geological
> a
>
> than the real
> needle,
> the
> thinnest
> v
> e
> r
> t
> i
> c
> a
> l
> :-)

<snip>

Ha, when I tried following up in this post with Free Agent it
snipped off the following bit since my old quoted sig
was above it, but it is possible to turn off that behaviour
and have the sig quoted in the followup as well but I just
pasted the below in.

> So I must have added the heart bit later and the cardioid

The difference between the heart and the cardioid is that
the heart symbol has a slope discontinuity at the bottom point and
there the cardioid does not.

> mention even later though I thought I mentioned a
>seven-dimensional heart in July, August, or early September
>of 1994. Also I meant above three real spatial dimensions,
>two imaginary spatial dimensions, and two variables of
>time and only later did I think that those two variables
>could be posed as complex time though that depends on
>analyticity (whether Cauchy Riemann conditions hold).

That was vague, so on my walk home I decided to clarify.
Sure if you take two variables x and y and set z=x+i*y then
z itself is analytic (obeys the Cauchy Riemann conditions).

However the problem may be when you have a function

f(x_1,x_2,...,x_n) maybe n could be 7, maybe not, and
for a distinction between variables and dimensions review
your differential geometry, where a norm and metric is
not always required but is for certain things.

and you want to say that f can be rewritten as
g(z,x_3,x_4,...,x_n) where you defined z as
a complex variable x_1+i*x_2 . This is not a
useful operation in my opinion unless
g=u+i*v obeys the Cauchy Riemann conditions
in x_1 and x_2 , and for those review your basic
complex calculus (as I will tomorrow since I forget if
there is a minus sign in the second one or not
and don't want to fire up http://mathworld.wolfram.com
for example right now).

Now of course I imagine any published
proponents of complex time
have checked for such analyticity or their
reviewers have. Without it there is no real
advantage in going from two real variables to
one complex variable.

>So someone else may have been influenced by my two variables
>of time theory and made the leap to complex time before me,
>Ha, Riemann would roll over in his grave. But perhaps
>you can extract some useful components from the above,
>and/or I will consider them on the couch o' ryewoman (I wish).

Is there a couch on her tour bus? :-)

David