Recent content by loop quantum gravity

Hi @A. Neumaier I mean in quantum logic as it's written in the wiki page we don't have the distribuiton rule that connects between conjunction and disjounction, which in classical logic is called distirubitve law, i.e: ##p\wedge(q\vee r) = (p\wedge q)\vee (p\wedge r)##, and also by replacing the...

There's a book that some professor called Cohen with that name. I mean before measurement we are in a superposition of complementary states; which classically cannot be achieved since they contradict each other. I bet you know simple classical propositional calculus. So 0 and 1 are just like T...

I didn't even start it. I am first trying to understand the references that are in Jaffa's and Witten's proposal, I stopped somewhere in one of the papers by Konrad Schrader and another Professor. (I think they passed away). I guess if I ever find something tangible for a proof that such a...

the former.

Your second paragraph is what I am alluding. I mean there's a pure millenium math problem on YM and mass gap; and my gut feeling is that if one found a suitable axiomatics he would have found it already. But to prove that there is no 3+1 axiomatics for QFT, i.e no-go theorem; it will take me...

A conundrum indeed.... :cool: I still don't understand how you can use methods of semiclassical analysis in physics; what does it mean do they obey Heisenberg inequality or not? you can't have both, now can you? It's OK from physics and engineering standpoint that the theories won't be...

David Deutsch no brainer. :oldbiggrin: Though I am not into Everett's interpretation... I am more into Copenhagen mystical collapse and Mermin's "shut up and...".

What are these units of [phd] in the graph? Never heard of this measure..

Probably if there are aliens they don't want to be detected.. (espiecally with a violent animal like us... :oldbiggrin: ). Have you seen Men In Black, good movie! (some say it's a documentary... kiddin').

I would guess we would see something similar to the universe where sliders landed that they go somehow backwards in time. (I believe it was in their second season, one of their best episodes). I mean in Feynman digrams anti-particles seem to proceed backwards in time w.r.t the regular particles.

So here I have an interesting classical DG research question. I also think that in the general case it doesn't converge to a finite geometric shape. But how to prove it?

I would guess since it's a classical mechanics principle, it adheres to the three rules of Newton. But Q and R theories don't adhere to this third law.

So I was thinking about repeating an evolute of an evolute ad infinitum, it doesn't necessarily converge to some finite geometric shape, does it? Suppose we have a curve ##\gamma: [a,b]\to \mathbb{R}^n##, and let ##\dot{\gamma}(t)## be the tangent to the curve, and ##n(t)## its normal to the...

yes there exists an M such that... Anyways I thought it to be an interesting logical-calculus exercise to understand every subtelty. I guess I can ask an AI for further assistance. Thanks though!!

How about other variations of the quantifiers and perhaps also changing sometimes the logical connective from implication to conjunction? Usually the definition in books for bounded functions is as such: $$\forall M>0 \forall x (|f(x)|<M)$$ I can see indeed what you mean that it may be a bounded...