Is it possible to express all mathematics through atomic pieces of computation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tanus5
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computation Genes
tanus5
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
I have been considering the idea for awhile that all mathematics could be broken down into atomic pieces that are indivisible, and therefore any formula could be determined through a process of elimination by trying every possible mathematical formula.

Here is what I have come up with so far, meant to be processed by a computer, but since I don't know everything about mathematics I don't know if every possible mathematical formula on the set of real numbers can be expressed with this method.

Every atom would be made up of the following 3 units

1. scaler {-∞,...,∞)
2. type { constant, variable, group/absolute value, floor/ceil value}
3. operation { + , * , ^ (power) }

In the case of a constant the scaler is that constant
In the case of a variable the scaler is multiplied by the variable
In the case of a group the absolute value of the scaler is the number of items in the group and the sign determines if it is a simple group or an absolute value
In the case of a floor the scaler is the number of items in the group and the sign determines if it is a floor or ceil

The reasoning behind the operations is that subtraction is expressed by a negative scaler, division can be represented by x^-1 * Y, and square roots can also be represented by powers.

The method of executing these operations would be by calculating the inner-most groups first and disregarding the operation from the first atom in each group such that "x + 1" could be represented by the 3x2 matrix

1 variable *
1 constant +

The operation on the first row of the matrix would therefore always be ignored, and in theory, a 3xN matrix could then define every possible mathematical formula.

I haven't included any calculus methods since sums can be expanded out and I believe integrals and derivatives can still be expressed with these atomic functions, but I could be wrong which is why I'm asking.

Using only standard variables (ie. no vectors, matrix, tensors, etc.) are there any other operations or features which should be included that are computable with finite computational resources?

[edit] Please note, a computer would solve this problem as a genetic algorithm since it wouldn't be possible to try every possible combination of scalars since there are infinite values that can be selected. Fitness values could be used to extract probable solutions and optimizations could be run to find the optimal constant values.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Google theory of computation - the Wikipedia article is an OK start.
 
@MrAnchovy,

Thanks I think that was exactly what I was looking for. It looks like I need to do more research into the turing machine also. What I was able to gather from the wikipedia article though is that there are problems that are unsolvable so before going down a rabbit hole to never return I'll also need to learn more about determining if a problem is solvable. There is no point in devoting computational resources to problems that can't be solved.
 
You should also look at Mathematica/Wolfram Alpha, Maple, MATLAB etc. which have had many lifetimes of effort put into them.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top