Prev: EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT - SPACE AND TIME BEND
Next: A brief history of time and science
From: Huang on 24 Jun 2010 09:46
Chicken shits
From: Edward Green on 24 Jun 2010 16:56
On Jun 18, 8:00 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the great feedback. Clearly Im right and nobody can
> argue against any of the silly things I say.

I wouldn't draw any strong conclusions from the lack of feedback. It
seems to me I said you were simply relabeling classic probability
theory more than once, and I got tired of saying it, so I shut up.
Also, if you want feedback, I suggest you stop replying to your own
posts.
From: Huang on 27 Jun 2010 08:16
On Jun 24, 3:56 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:00 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for all the great feedback. Clearly Im right and nobody can
> > argue against any of the silly things I say.
>
> I wouldn't draw any strong conclusions from the lack of feedback.  It
> seems to me I said you were simply relabeling classic probability
> theory more than once, and I got tired of saying it, so I shut up.
> Also, if you want feedback, I suggest you stop replying to your own
> posts.



Thanks Ed, ordinarily I dont ever expect much serious feedback in
these groups even though there are some very skilled folks hanging
around.

I think that if I cant find someone to argue with, I'll just argue
with myself, and so that's why I keep replying to my own threads.

I think the overall approach outlined above makes sense, but I dont
think I solved that problem to completion, just cant quite wrap my
brain around it.








From: Huang on 27 Jun 2010 12:56
Ok - so here's a summary of what Im trying to do, how far I got, and
where Im stuck.

The general idea is that I want to write problems using a tool which I
call "conjecture", which is similar to mathematics but is not the same
thing as math.

The important principle that Im using is something which I invented
myself, (which is also not to be considered a mathematical statement),
which can be stated as follow:
"Any probablistic problem can be restated in terms of existential
indeterminacy anmd conservation of existential potential."

Because of the inherent difficulty in simply creating conjectural
models from scratch, the above principle should allow us to look at
probabilistic problems and reword them as conjectures, hopefully
making it easier to work with conjectural models.


So, as an example, we start with a simple example describing
rectilinear motion using vector calculus.

Say f = < a, b, t > where a b are constants and t = time

Instead of t, we substitute a random variable which is always yielding
t as the expected value. It is a kind of trivial substitution, and we
can parameterize the random variable to accomplish this.


Once we've written things in that form it's pretty easy to convert
this into a conjecture. But the constants a,b also need to be
substituted because in conjectural modelling there can be no such
thing as a constant which is strictly existent.

That is where I got stuck - but only because my imagination was
stalled.

a and b can easily be substituted with random variables which yield a,
b as expected values. This would be a neccesary step.

Then, one must be able to somehow imagine the whole picture coming
together as a cohesive model, and it's a very perplexing thing to
attempt if you are accustomed to mathematics because you want to have
things existing, and nothing in this scheme can be regarded as such.

Ultimate goal is to show that a given model, written as either
mathematics or conjecture, is equivalent whether written one way or
the other.

So - thats how far I got on it. Trying to comprehend the big picture,
globally, and that is where I'm stuck.

It is very easy to visualize geometric models which are embedded in R3
or whatever using mathematics where everything is existing nicely and
everything is very easy to visualize.

It is a bit more difficult to visualize a model which is embedded in a
space where all of the points in that space "may or may not exist with
potential p"....etc etc. I am having some difficulty visualizing it -
that's all.

I agree with Ed Green that all of this is in some sense a kind of
relabelling or probability theory, but I dont really believe that I am
doing probability theory because Im messing with things which "may or
may not exist" and that just simply aint math afaik.








First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT - SPACE AND TIME BEND
Next: A brief history of time and science