Noncommotative structural numbers

Organic
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
0
Noncommutative structural numbers

Hi,


In the attached address (at the end of the web page) there is a short paper (a pdf file) on noncommutative structural numbers:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html


I'll be glad to get your remarks.


Thank you (and special thanks to Hurkyl that gave the formal definition, which is written in the first 7 sentences of the paper).





Organic
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I don't see any formal definition- certainly not in the first 7 sentences. I don't actually see any definition at all. I see a lot of general vagueness and use of undefined symbols.

You say "A single-simultaneous-connection is any single real number included in p, q
( = D = Discreteness = a localized element = {.} )."

What do you mean by "included in p,q"? In particular, what do you mean by "p, q"? I would tend to assume you mean "any of [p,q], [p,q), (p,q], (p,q) which you had given above. I take it then that "A single-simultaneous connection" is a singleton set?

"Double-simultaneous-connection is a connection between any two different real numbers
included in p, q , where any connection has exactly 1 D as a common element with some
other connection ( = C = Continuum = a non-localized element = {.___.} )."

Okay, so a "double-simultaneous-connection" is a pair of numbers?
"where any connection has exactly 1 D as a common element with some other connection" is not clear. You appear to be saying that two "connections" (I take you mean "double-simultaneous-connection") that have both elements the same are not considered to be different. That's actually part of the definition of set.

I have absolutely no idea what " = C = Continuum = a non-localized element = {.___.} )" could possibly mean.

"Therefore, x is . XOR .___."
This makes no sense. The only use of "x" before this was as a bound variable in the (standard) definition of [a,b], [a,b), etc.
In any case, you have been told repeatedly that your use of "XOR" has no relation to the standard use. Please don't use a standard notation for a non-standard use.

You seem to be still agonizing over the difference between the discrete integers and the continuous real numbers. I can only suggest again that you take a good course in basic mathematical analysis. (And it might be a good idea to learn what a "definition" really is.)

By the way, what does "non-commotative" mean? Did you mean "non-commutative"? I didn't see any reference to that in you post.
 
Hi HallsofIvy,


I wrote:
In the attached address (at the end of the web page) there is a short paper on noncommotative structural numbers:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html

First, thank you for the correction. it is noncommutative.

Please after you open the web page, go to the end of it (as I wrote above) and then open the pdf file, which is under the title:

Noncommutative structural numbers

I'll be glad to get your remarks.


By the way, please reply to my answer to you, that exists at the end of this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6896&perpage=15&pagenumber=2Organic

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
By the way, please reply to my answer to you, that exists at the end of this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showth...number=2Organic

You have not learned anything from the replies that many people have made to your posts. I see no reason to repeat them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top