Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 4 Apr 2010 08:01
On Apr 3, 10:22 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 11:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> >>> On Apr 1, 9:45 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 1, 5:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
> >>>>> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
> >>>>> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
> >>>>> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
> >>>>> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
> >>>>> I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of
> >>>>> independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason
> >>>>> to expect any order at all among world-events. Without Time, there
> >>>>> doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C.
> >>>>> Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but
> >>>>> "association" seems to bring no laws at all.
> >>>> ...there are two distinct viewpoints on time. (1) - One view is that
> >>>> time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a
> >>>> dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this
> >>>> view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a
> >>>> film strip, spread out across the time line. Sir Isaac Newton
> >>>> subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to
> >>>> as Newtonian time. (2) - The opposing view is that time does not
> >>>> refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move
> >>>> through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part
> >>>> of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and
> >>>> number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second
> >>>> view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds
> >>>> that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself
> >>>> measurable nor can it be travelled...
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
> >>>> (1) & (2) could be true at the same time.
> >>>>> Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then
> >>>>> try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the
> >>>>> harmony and order of determinism.
> >>>>> To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than
> >>>>> "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it,
> >>>>> above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated
> >>>>> with other events? Is there a law at work?
> >>>>> No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example,
> >>>>> that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each
> >>>>> of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated
> >>>>> with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other
> >>>>> words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We
> >>>>> can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as
> >>>>> a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that
> >>>>> aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world
> >>>>> itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as
> >>>>> there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as
> >>>>> these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed.
> >>>>> Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years
> >>>>> ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter
> >>>>> of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian
> >>>>> idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has
> >>>>> its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are
> >>>>> associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a
> >>>>> sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without
> >>>>> making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an
> >>>>> oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a
> >>>>> traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism.
> >>> Nowhere in the descriptions does the unidirectional nature of time
> >>> come to words.
> >>> This is just where the consistency arises. Consider not the real
> >>> number, but half of a real number as the medium of time. To fully
> >>> understand that simple ray, it is productive to generalize first, and
> >>> so the polysign number generalization (within which I've just
> >>> suggested going from two-signed numbers to one-signed numbers, but
> >>> generally we can consider three-signed numbers or n-signed numbers):
> >>> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
> >>> Now, what we witness is that dimension is tightly related to sign and
> >>> that those one-signed numbers are zero dimensional, even while they
> >>> are unidirectional. A representation can be made along the ray of
> >>> accumulating time, but the graphing of that number does not produce
> >>> any geometry as we know it in modernity.
> >>> This zero dimensional view of time is entirely corroborated by
> >>> observation. As we consider space to be three dimensional we see
> >>> freedom in space to move an object about within those three
> >>> dimensions. No such freedom exists for time. We are not free to move
> >>> an object either ahead in time some amount or backward in time, and so
> >>> the zero dimensional interpretation is already supported by existing
> >>> observation. Further, this method develops support for spacetime via
> >>> and algebraic behavioral breakpoint at P4.
> >>> - Tim
> >> I was endorsing the view that the reason why we can't move through time
> >> is because there is no time, and not because there is time with
> >> zero-dimensions or other.
>
> > Pure arithmetic suggests that the 'nothing' of your own viewpoint can
> > be had with a unidirectional algebra. This has been overlooked because
> > nobody bothered to generalize sign.
>
> You must pay close attention to the grammar and style of writing. What
> is "generalize sign"? If you are disposed to technical languages don't
> compromise plain English for it.

The answer is in the link that I've given you:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
so I will assume that you are challenging the concept.

Sign as people know it prepolysign has two types:
-, +
and these types appear at the front of a numerical type such as in the
real number
- 1.123, + 2.345 .
And here any structured thinker can see the symbolic content of those
real numbers contains some substructure. So we can consider those
numbers to take the form
s x
where s is sign and x is magnitude, which leads me to consider that
magnitude is more fundamental than the real number and should not be
defined in terms of the real number.
Next we see that s is a discrete form. It is fairly easy to expose the
modulo two behavior of sign of the real number. When we step up to
three signs that becomes a modulo three behavior. Also a symmetrical
form is exposed when we take
- x + x = 0
or
- 1 + 1 = 0
as fundamental to the two-signed numbers, which extends naturally to
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
where * is a new third sign. Obviously the signs of the three-signed
numbers are unique to the two-signed numbers. Polysign exposes a
family of number systems
P1 the one-signed numbers; time
P2 the two-signed numbers; the real numbers
P3 the three-signed numbers; the complex numbers
P4 the four-signed numbers; a new 3D form with ring behavior;
isomorph to RxC
...
All of these systems are well behaved algebraically. P1 is very
challenging to perceive through usual mathematics, since we have
traditionally taken the real number as fundamental. But it carries the
unidirectional qualities of time as well as the observed lack of
freedom (zero dimensional) which allows it to enter a unified
spacetime more consistently than the tensor form, which I have
presented disproof of here in the past.

If you find it difficult to legitimate the generalization of sign,
then please also consider that you've somewhat also denied the real
number in that process. I do not believe that I've compromised the
English language. Instead, I have compromised the real number, and
then recovered it as merely a member of a more general system of
numbers which includes arithmetic support for spacetime with
unidirectional time. One of the most obvious advantages is that the
complex number P3 comes along with no further rules than the real
number already contained.

- Tim

>
> > The behavior of one-signed numbers
> > allow them to have an algebra even while their geometry is nill, or
> > nearly nill. The spacetime paradigm of unification of space with time
> > is probably a more apt paradigm. I'm guessing that you refute the
> > spacetime paradigm.
>
> > Through polysign the spacetime paradigm is of structured spacetime
> > P1 P2 P3 ...
> > There is a natural breakpoint in product behavior in P4+ so the
> > progression can go onward and still maintain support for spacetime
> > with unidirectional zero dimensional time. Incidentally there is a ten
> > dimensional form as P5- that is inherently branish. I call this T5,
> > and the P3- version would be T3.
>
> > - Tim

From: John Jones on 4 Apr 2010 18:43
Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:22 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 11:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 1, 9:45 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 1, 5:34 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>>>>>>> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we do
>>>>>>> not need Time as an ordering medium. For example, rather than say "A
>>>>>>> comes before B" we can, without losing information, say "that A, rather
>>>>>>> than B, is associated with C, says that A comes before B".
>>>>>>> I have never dealt with the objection that without some sort of
>>>>>>> independent ordering medium, such as Time, then we ought have no reason
>>>>>>> to expect any order at all among world-events. Without Time, there
>>>>>>> doesn't seem to be any reason why A should always be associated with C.
>>>>>>> Time seems to give us the law of sequence and causality, but
>>>>>>> "association" seems to bring no laws at all.
>>>>>> ...there are two distinct viewpoints on time. (1) - One view is that
>>>>>> time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a
>>>>>> dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this
>>>>>> view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a
>>>>>> film strip, spread out across the time line. Sir Isaac Newton
>>>>>> subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to
>>>>>> as Newtonian time. (2) - The opposing view is that time does not
>>>>>> refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move
>>>>>> through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part
>>>>>> of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and
>>>>>> number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second
>>>>>> view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds
>>>>>> that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself
>>>>>> measurable nor can it be travelled...
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
>>>>>> (1) & (2) could be true at the same time.
>>>>>>> Of course, if there are no laws then determinism vanishes. Let us then
>>>>>>> try and keep the idea of Time as Association, and by doing so break the
>>>>>>> harmony and order of determinism.
>>>>>>> To do that - to keep the idea of "time as association", rather than
>>>>>>> "time as sequence" - we must tackle the objection I made against it,
>>>>>>> above: why is it that some events are always (atemporally) associated
>>>>>>> with other events? Is there a law at work?
>>>>>>> No, there is no law at work. It should come as no surprise, for example,
>>>>>>> that there can be more than one example of an object. We can divide each
>>>>>>> of such objects into parts, and these parts will always be associated
>>>>>>> with each other... that is why A is always associated with C... In other
>>>>>>> words, we have replaced temporal sequence with physical patterns. We
>>>>>>> can, in turn, dispose of physical patterns by noting that what counts as
>>>>>>> a pattern comes about through the imposition of limits, limits that
>>>>>>> aren't actually found in the world itself. There is nothing in the world
>>>>>>> itself that tells us where one object starts and another ends. Just as
>>>>>>> there is no before or after, so there is no here or there, except as
>>>>>>> these are the terms in which association, rather than sequence, is cashed.
>>>>>>> Logicians and mathematicians should have helped develop this idea years
>>>>>>> ago. The idea I have presented here, that Time comes to us as a matter
>>>>>>> of associations rather than sequence, is also a very unpopular Kantian
>>>>>>> idea but it has, surely, been endorsed by a modern mathematics that has
>>>>>>> its sequenced numbers arranged in non-sequenced "sets". And sets are
>>>>>>> associations. The fact that the mathematicians switched from making a
>>>>>>> sequenced to an associative link between objects (numbers) without
>>>>>>> making the full Kantian gesture of doing the same for Time is either an
>>>>>>> oversight, or a lack of familiarity with, or interest in, Kant, or a
>>>>>>> traditional stance taken on behalf of a sequenced Time and its determinism.
>>>>> Nowhere in the descriptions does the unidirectional nature of time
>>>>> come to words.
>>>>> This is just where the consistency arises. Consider not the real
>>>>> number, but half of a real number as the medium of time. To fully
>>>>> understand that simple ray, it is productive to generalize first, and
>>>>> so the polysign number generalization (within which I've just
>>>>> suggested going from two-signed numbers to one-signed numbers, but
>>>>> generally we can consider three-signed numbers or n-signed numbers):
>>>>> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
>>>>> Now, what we witness is that dimension is tightly related to sign and
>>>>> that those one-signed numbers are zero dimensional, even while they
>>>>> are unidirectional. A representation can be made along the ray of
>>>>> accumulating time, but the graphing of that number does not produce
>>>>> any geometry as we know it in modernity.
>>>>> This zero dimensional view of time is entirely corroborated by
>>>>> observation. As we consider space to be three dimensional we see
>>>>> freedom in space to move an object about within those three
>>>>> dimensions. No such freedom exists for time. We are not free to move
>>>>> an object either ahead in time some amount or backward in time, and so
>>>>> the zero dimensional interpretation is already supported by existing
>>>>> observation. Further, this method develops support for spacetime via
>>>>> and algebraic behavioral breakpoint at P4.
>>>>> - Tim
>>>> I was endorsing the view that the reason why we can't move through time
>>>> is because there is no time, and not because there is time with
>>>> zero-dimensions or other.
>>> Pure arithmetic suggests that the 'nothing' of your own viewpoint can
>>> be had with a unidirectional algebra. This has been overlooked because
>>> nobody bothered to generalize sign.
>> You must pay close attention to the grammar and style of writing. What
>> is "generalize sign"? If you are disposed to technical languages don't
>> compromise plain English for it.
>
> The answer is in the link that I've given you:
> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
> so I will assume that you are challenging the concept.
>
> Sign as people know it prepolysign has two types:
> -, +
> and these types appear at the front of a numerical type such as in the
> real number
> - 1.123, + 2.345 .
> And here any structured thinker can see the symbolic content of those
> real numbers contains some substructure. So we can consider those
> numbers to take the form
> s x
> where s is sign and x is magnitude, which leads me to consider that
> magnitude is more fundamental than the real number and should not be
> defined in terms of the real number.
> Next we see that s is a discrete form. It is fairly easy to expose the
> modulo two behavior of sign of the real number. When we step up to
> three signs that becomes a modulo three behavior. Also a symmetrical
> form is exposed when we take
> - x + x = 0
> or
> - 1 + 1 = 0
> as fundamental to the two-signed numbers, which extends naturally to
> - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
> where * is a new third sign. Obviously the signs of the three-signed
> numbers are unique to the two-signed numbers. Polysign exposes a
> family of number systems
> P1 the one-signed numbers; time
> P2 the two-signed numbers; the real numbers
> P3 the three-signed numbers; the complex numbers
> P4 the four-signed numbers; a new 3D form with ring behavior;
> isomorph to RxC
> ...
> All of these systems are well behaved algebraically. P1 is very
> challenging to perceive through usual mathematics, since we have
> traditionally taken the real number as fundamental. But it carries the
> unidirectional qualities of time as well as the observed lack of
> freedom (zero dimensional) which allows it to enter a unified
> spacetime more consistently than the tensor form, which I have
> presented disproof of here in the past.
>
> If you find it difficult to legitimate the generalization of sign,
> then please also consider that you've somewhat also denied the real
> number in that process. I do not believe that I've compromised the
> English language. Instead, I have compromised the real number, and
> then recovered it as merely a member of a more general system of
> numbers which includes arithmetic support for spacetime with
> unidirectional time. One of the most obvious advantages is that the
> complex number P3 comes along with no further rules than the real
> number already contained.
>
> - Tim
>
>>> The behavior of one-signed numbers
>>> allow them to have an algebra even while their geometry is nill, or
>>> nearly nill. The spacetime paradigm of unification of space with time
>>> is probably a more apt paradigm. I'm guessing that you refute the
>>> spacetime paradigm.
>>> Through polysign the spacetime paradigm is of structured spacetime
>>> P1 P2 P3 ...
>>> There is a natural breakpoint in product behavior in P4+ so the
>>> progression can go onward and still maintain support for spacetime
>>> with unidirectional zero dimensional time. Incidentally there is a ten
>>> dimensional form as P5- that is inherently branish. I call this T5,
>>> and the P3- version would be T3.
>>> - Tim
>

Algebra is object shunting. There's nothing you can do in algebra that
you can't do with a set of beer mats in the pub. So don't get lordy
about it.
From: John Jones on 4 Apr 2010 18:46
huge wrote:
> John Jones :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>> John Jones :
>>>
>>>> By breaking the guitar of time, we can lose sight of determinism.
>>>>
>>>> I have argued that sequenced events can be ordered by association: we
>>>> do not need Time as an ordering medium.
>>> Oh, for goodness sake, you bonehead; a sequence is simply a discrete
>>> function in mathematics.
>> You mean like an amorphous heap?
>
> No, I mean a *discrete* function in mathematics.
>
>> Or is there something better that can
>> be got out of your ad hoc, I'm a dinosaur, flap?
>
> You are a dinosaur flap.
>
>>
>>> Of **COURSE** it doesn't require time.
>> What on earth do you mean? don't quote New Age platitudes like "it
>> doesn't require time". It's Oh so modern'esque. Hooey. Watch out mother!
>> here comes another.
>
> No definition of a sequence in pure mathematics requires time -- or could.
> Sequences *are* defined in pure mathematics. Google it up, bonehead.
>
>> Listen boy, and you listen up good - if you can't tighten up your act
>> tighten your sphincter or its liquorice allsorts for you if you know
>> what I mean.
>> God. I'm bored..
>> Hey boy, I mean YOU boy. I'm bored. Wathcha gonna dooo about it? eh? Eh?
>> French fries and cheeseburger. Got iT?
>
> Jones, I don't believe you have ever taken a real math course.


The boring thing about these posts is that you've agreed with everything
I've said and only said that you haven't.
From: Immortalist on 4 Apr 2010 18:57
On Apr 3, 7:19 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Zerkon wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:19:29 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>
> >> I was endorsing the view that the reason why we can't move through time
> >> is because there is no time, and not because there is time with
> >> zero-dimensions or other.
>
> > zero duration
>
> That's a tautology. Time of "zero duration" necessitates the concept of
> temporal duration. The fact that it is zero doesn't absolve it from that
> necessity.

Time is part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to
compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to
quantify the motions of objects. The fourth dimension in this space
was sometimes interpreted as time, but this is no longer done in
modern physics. In the last century spacetime was developed, which
unifies space and time but with a different metric so the time
dimension is treated differently from Euclidean space. The resulting
space is a Minkowski space and is usually studied separately from the
space described here.

Therefore, in theoretical physics, Minkowski space is often contrasted
with Euclidean space. While a Euclidean space has only spacelike
dimensions, a Minkowski space also has one timelike dimension.
Therefore the symmetry group of a Euclidean space is the Euclidean
group and for a Minkowski space it is the Poincaré group whereby
isometries of the Minkowski spacetime, a 10-dimensional noncompact
Lie group, and the abelian group of translations is a normal subgroup
while the Lorentz group is a subgroup, the stabilizer of a point, that
is, the full Poincaré group is the affine group of the Lorentz group,
the semidirect product of the translations and the Lorentz
transformations. Its really simple if you think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 4 Apr 2010 19:17
On Apr 4, 6:43 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 10:22 pm, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> >>> On Apr 2, 11:19 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> You must pay close attention to the grammar and style of writing. What
> >> is "generalize sign"? If you are disposed to technical languages don't
> >> compromise plain English for it.
>
> > The answer is in the link that I've given you:
> > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
> > so I will assume that you are challenging the concept.
>
> > Sign as people know it prepolysign has two types:
> > -, +
> > and these types appear at the front of a numerical type such as in the
> > real number
> > - 1.123, + 2.345 .
> > And here any structured thinker can see the symbolic content of those
> > real numbers contains some substructure. So we can consider those
> > numbers to take the form
> > s x
> > where s is sign and x is magnitude, which leads me to consider that
> > magnitude is more fundamental than the real number and should not be
> > defined in terms of the real number.
> > Next we see that s is a discrete form. It is fairly easy to expose the
> > modulo two behavior of sign of the real number. When we step up to
> > three signs that becomes a modulo three behavior. Also a symmetrical
> > form is exposed when we take
> > - x + x = 0
> > or
> > - 1 + 1 = 0
> > as fundamental to the two-signed numbers, which extends naturally to
> > - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
> > where * is a new third sign. Obviously the signs of the three-signed
> > numbers are unique to the two-signed numbers. Polysign exposes a
> > family of number systems
> > P1 the one-signed numbers; time
> > P2 the two-signed numbers; the real numbers
> > P3 the three-signed numbers; the complex numbers
> > P4 the four-signed numbers; a new 3D form with ring behavior;
> > isomorph to RxC
> > ...
> > All of these systems are well behaved algebraically. P1 is very
> > challenging to perceive through usual mathematics, since we have
> > traditionally taken the real number as fundamental. But it carries the
> > unidirectional qualities of time as well as the observed lack of
> > freedom (zero dimensional) which allows it to enter a unified
> > spacetime more consistently than the tensor form, which I have
> > presented disproof of here in the past.
>
> > If you find it difficult to legitimate the generalization of sign,
> > then please also consider that you've somewhat also denied the real
> > number in that process. I do not believe that I've compromised the
> > English language. Instead, I have compromised the real number, and
> > then recovered it as merely a member of a more general system of
> > numbers which includes arithmetic support for spacetime with
> > unidirectional time. One of the most obvious advantages is that the
> > complex number P3 comes along with no further rules than the real
> > number already contained.
>
> > - Tim
>
> >>> The behavior of one-signed numbers
> >>> allow them to have an algebra even while their geometry is nill, or
> >>> nearly nill. The spacetime paradigm of unification of space with time
> >>> is probably a more apt paradigm. I'm guessing that you refute the
> >>> spacetime paradigm.
> >>> Through polysign the spacetime paradigm is of structured spacetime
> >>> P1 P2 P3 ...
> >>> There is a natural breakpoint in product behavior in P4+ so the
> >>> progression can go onward and still maintain support for spacetime
> >>> with unidirectional zero dimensional time. Incidentally there is a ten
> >>> dimensional form as P5- that is inherently branish. I call this T5,
> >>> and the P3- version would be T3.
> >>> - Tim
>
> Algebra is object shunting. There's nothing you can do in algebra that
> you can't do with a set of beer mats in the pub. So don't get lordy
> about it.

You've dodged the spacetime unification.
I just reread your initial post and you mention Kant.
Even in Kant's Critique there is much parallel of space to time. In
some passages the two are not mentioned seperately. They go parallel
in his words and so he parhaps deserves more credit for the spacetime
paradigm.

- Tim

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: speed of light found in purely mathematical numbers without any physical numbers #556 Correcting Math
Next: If economics is one of the soft social sciences, how is it's application different from hard sciences like physics or math?