Prev: Antonio Sanchez Turbine. Benchmark in the wind tunnel
Next: Countable infinities?
From: Cwatters on 10 Jun 2010 15:32

"BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:efbcd32b-8bf3-4adf-b5b9-5956399bef51(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> The next time you use the complex plane you can equally well plug in 1
> for i.

Could you show us worked examples from the field of electronics?

Complex numbers are used to calculate impedence and phase you would get the
wrong answer if you blindly sub 1 for i in the wrong place.


From: BURT on 10 Jun 2010 17:02
On Jun 10, 12:32 pm, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:efbcd32b-8bf3-4adf-b5b9-5956399bef51(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The next time you use the complex plane you can equally well plug in 1
> > for i.
>
> Could you show us worked examples from the field of electronics?
>
> Complex numbers are used to calculate impedence and phase you would get the
> wrong answer if you blindly sub 1 for i in the wrong place.


I invite you to move your i around in the complex plane.

It is simply equal to one multiplied by its coeffecient. That is all
you are moving around is a real number.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Tim BandTech.com on 11 Jun 2010 06:30
On Jun 10, 2:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:00 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 9:06 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 8, 9:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 8, 8:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 8, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 8, 6:25 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > There is no quantity below the absence of quantity or zero.
> > > > > > > > Depending on your definition of "quantity" this may be true.
> > > > > > > > Of course the idea that a number must represent quantity
> > > > > > > > is silly
> > > > > > > > - William Hughes
> > > > > > > Math is defined by quantitative thinking where we use number symbols
> > > > > > > to express quantities.
> > > > > > > Numbers are names for quantities.
> > > > > > > And no one can demonstrate a negative quantity just a subtraction. But
> > > > > > > even that not below zero.
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > > > Hey Mitch -
> > > > > > How about you think about zero first? Maybe zero itself doesn't exist,
> > > > > > right? Negative numbers are too advanced for you, let's start with the
> > > > > > existence or not of zero: how can nothing be something? Huh? You like
> > > > > > that?
> > > > > The number zero quantifies to the empty set. In this sense it is an
> > > > > abstract idea. But with any base system there must be a zero to
> > > > > describe numbers to the next diget.
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > Of course. Does the empty set exist? How can nothing be something?
>
> > > The number zero and empty set exist but not as a quantity.
> > > They are the names for the absence of quantity.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Actually Burt, you are near to defining the one-signed numbers. In
> > modern thought we mistakenly accept the real number as fundamental. It
> > is not.
>
> NO.Imaginary quantities do not exist. Only
>
> The next time you use the complex plane you can equally well plug in 1
> for i.
>
> All you are doing is moving the i symble around. The order for i comes
> from its coefficient. I is equavalent to one. But people think when
> they move the i around in the complex plane that they are doing
> something mathematically. They are not.
>
> Imaginary quantities are just that: imaginary.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

OK Burt. I appreciate your simplistic approach. What about
dimensionality? For instance do you accept that there is such a thing
as a two dimensional space? How do you define that space? Well, it
turns out that there is more than one way to do this. The old complex
number construction will use two real valued components, whereas
polysign uses three unsigned components, because their position is
their sign. We can always zero one of the three by reduction if we
wish, yielding the same (actually slightly less) information as the
cartesian construction.

I guess you've been over to my website, otherwise we'd be discussing
the subtraction problem that you OP'd. It is true that in polysign
there is no need of i when discussing the complex plane. There are
three fundamental positions: -1, +1, *1. i is roughly at *1-1.5 or
something thereabouts(this is a very rough figure). Really the complex
plane has bilateral symmetry so its not easy to distinguish -i from i
without stating a reference.

Beneath the two dimensional is the one dimensional, and here there are
still two signs. Beneath the one dimensional is the zero dimensional
and there is just one sign. This is the place where subtraction does
not exist; just like time. The real number is not fundamental; at
least not to me. Magnitude, or distance, is fundamental. This is not
unlike your concern over things below zero. When we attach a sign onto
magnitude then we have actually created a coordinated system of
algebra and geometry. It happens to be the geometry of the simplex,
and it has always been in use in every real line that is taken as a 1D
construction. Low and behold the plane need not be defined as two
lines, and instead can be defined on the three verticed simplex, which
is a slightly simpler construction, and voilla- the complex numbers
come naturally in parallel with the real numbers. The 'real' number is
no more real than the 'imaginary' number is imaginary. These words are
meaningless, yet their mathematical sensibilities survive in the
polysign construction. Still, the alterations are beyond the
comprehension of most people. This is a shame and a sham, and proves
that our training means much more that our reasoning abilities. This
becomes a statement on the human race. I describe something here which
I could train a gradeschooler to do. But the information conflicts
with the existing theory, and so a blockage forms. We've had the real
number drilled into our heads since an early age and guess what? The
brainwashing works! You Mitch, are crawling away from it and I have a
pretty good answer to your problem.

- Tim

>
> > While it is true that the complex numbers can be constructed
> > out of reals, this is not the only way to construct them. If effect I
> > am suggesting that even the complex numbers ought to be granted a life
> > of their own side by side, and one dimension up, from the real
> > numbers. Well, the system you propose of one-signed numbers does not
> > have any inverse. Subtraction as fundamental is a misnomer.
> > Superposition, summation, integration; these are the fundamentals. We
> > exist in a superpositional space, and we don't tend to worry so much
> > about the integral with an ability to perform subtraction. Instead we
> > observe that the derivative is a more appropriate inversion. This is
> > not merely a subtractive procedure, though it is nearby. The point is,
> > we only need one fundamental. Interestingly calculus does start off
> > teaching the derivative first. Perhaps this is a lead on a polysign
> > calculus, where the integral should be first defined. Well, that's
> > probably going to come out a wash, but back to your initial point
> > these numbers which do not carry an inverse(I call them P1) are
> > actually zero dimensional and match the behaviors of time.
>
> > Which is more fundamental; the ray or the line?
> > The ray is, because it is a simpler construction.
> > I don't believe in any finality of theory, and even if it comes it
> > should not be because we gave up looking. Instead we are buried in
> > accumulation at this point with no hope of reading our way out of the
> > piles of information that are available. This is not healthy in terms
> > of approaching problems from a fundamental perspective.
>
> > Please do reconsider the polysign numbers:
> > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
> > for they have the ability to change our minds.
>
> > - Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

From: BURT on 11 Jun 2010 15:11
On Jun 11, 3:30 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 5:00 am, "Tim BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 12:09 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 8, 9:06 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 8, 9:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 8, 6:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 6:25 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > There is no quantity below the absence of quantity or zero.
> > > > > > > > > Depending on your definition of "quantity" this may be true.
> > > > > > > > > Of course the idea that a number must represent quantity
> > > > > > > > > is silly
> > > > > > > > >                     - William Hughes
> > > > > > > > Math is defined by quantitative thinking where we use number symbols
> > > > > > > > to express quantities.
> > > > > > > > Numbers are names for quantities.
> > > > > > > > And no one can demonstrate a negative quantity just a subtraction. But
> > > > > > > > even that not below zero.
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > > > > Hey Mitch -
> > > > > > > How about you think about zero first? Maybe zero itself doesn't exist,
> > > > > > > right? Negative numbers are too advanced for you, let's start with the
> > > > > > > existence or not of zero: how can nothing be something? Huh? You like
> > > > > > > that?
> > > > > > The number zero quantifies to the empty set. In this sense it is an
> > > > > > abstract idea. But with any base system there must be a zero to
> > > > > > describe numbers to the next diget.
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
> > > > > Of course. Does the empty set exist? How can nothing be something?
>
> > > > The number zero and empty set exist but not as a quantity.
> > > > They are the names for the absence of quantity.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Actually Burt, you are near to defining the one-signed numbers. In
> > > modern thought we mistakenly accept the real number as fundamental. It
> > > is not.
>
> > NO.Imaginary quantities do not exist. Only
>
> > The next time you use the complex plane you can equally well plug in 1
> > for i.
>
> > All you are doing is moving the i symble around. The order for i comes
> > from its coefficient. I is equavalent to one. But people think when
> > they move the i around in the complex plane that they are doing
> > something mathematically. They are not.
>
> > Imaginary quantities are just that: imaginary.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> OK Burt. I appreciate your simplistic approach. What about
> dimensionality? For instance do you accept that there is such a thing
> as a two dimensional space? How do you define that space?

Space is 3 dimensional. You can have motion in a plane in 3 D space.
We call that elliptical orbit.
Actually it is four dimensional because it closes in the 4th
dimension. This is called the hypersphere or a closed round curve of
the 4th dimension emptiness surface.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Antonio Sanchez Turbine. Benchmark in the wind tunnel
Next: Countable infinities?