Self organizing systems : Conway's The Game of Life

[yesicanread]

This one's easier for me.

1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite height.
But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.

 

[Imparcticle]

1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex,

Convert in what manner?

the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

What is a planar point?

If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

That is brilliant. Did you contrive this yourself?

What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite height.
But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

Consider a line which is constituted by an infinite set of points. Is there a line that is equal to this line? No. It is meaningless to prescribe a property of equivalency to an infinity. Is there an opposite line? The opposite of infinity, I presume (I could be incorrect) would be an absence of it, which, considering Zeno's Paradoxes would indicate an absolute nothingness...which doesn't make sense either (if you'd like me to explain why, I'd be honored, as it is my favorite subject to explain).

Anyway, my point here is regarding your application of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion to Euclidean geometry. How about Hyperbolic or Reinmann geometry?

 

[yesicanread]

Convert in what manner?
Answer. The vertex had a single point. The two planar points on the plane + the vertex are 3 points. Three planar points define a plane.



What is a planar point? Three non-collinear planar(on a plane) points define a plane.



That is brilliant. Did you contrive this yourself?
Yes.

Consider a line which is constituted by an infinite set of points. Is there a line that is equal to this line? No. It is meaningless to prescribe a property of equivalency to an infinity. Is there an opposite line? The opposite of infinity, I presume (I could be incorrect) would be an absence of it, which, considering Zeno's Paradoxes would indicate an absolute nothingness...which doesn't make sense either (if you'd like me to explain why, I'd be honored, as it is my favorite subject to explain).

Anyway, my point here is regarding your application of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion to Euclidean geometry. How about Hyperbolic or Reinmann geometry?

I describe geometry. It follows.

- Vertex, from which I draw a altitude joining two vertices. Is one point.

- Plane. Which is three sets of two points: Triangle inequality theorem.

Which each constitute 360 degrees(A circumference) when used with the opposite perpendicular vertex's bisected by the plane.

- Line. The altitude(Note. I saide altitude/height)between each vertex is perpendicular.

- These three things constitute geometry. Geometry is termed Intersection as well.

I then stated the idea of the vertex having two properties. 1.) A vertex. 2.) 3 bisected circumferences, joined on a bisecting plane with a equal and opposite setup.

The plane is three sets of two points: triangle inequality theorem. It is not circular. So the property is AA, or BB.

Then. Newton's third law says the vertex causes a equal and opposite reaction/Vertex acting on the plane. Also the opposite vertex equals it, so both the plane and opposite vertex experience action from the vertex.

I didn't break the definition of Geometry or Newton. I unified them. And the science that uses them, basically all science.

Peace.

b11ng00

 

[ryokan]

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

After reading this article,

I suggest the reading of other old papers on cellular automatons.
For example, Physica 10D (1984) 1 - 328.
It can be also interesting Cellular automata machines (Toffolli and Margolis) MIT Press. 1987.
It seems to me also interesting the recent work of Wolframm: A new Kind of Science in www.wolframscience.com

 

[Imparcticle]

I didn't break the definition of Geometry or Newton. I unified them. And the science that uses them, basically all science.

So you're saying that there is something that is equal and opposite to a line? (i.e., a line that is an infinite set of points)

I suggest the reading of other old papers on cellular automatons.
For example, Physica 10D (1984) 1 - 328.
It can be also interesting Cellular automata machines (Toffolli and Margolis) MIT Press. 1987.
It seems to me also interesting the recent work of Wolframm: A new Kind of Science in www.wolframscience.com

Wow! That's fantastic. I was afraid I'd have to buy the book! Thanks.

Do you think its possible for us to contrive a "logical" (i.e., "logical" in the sense that all our conclusions/theorems are based on axioms that we just made up, and don't neccesarily comply with the logic of this universe) system like that of cellular automata? In multiverse theory, it is said that there may be subuniverses that have physical laws that are in contradiction with ours.
BTW, in response to my own post on page two concerning disorder and order, I was wondering if it may be that what we see as order and balance are really not order and balance, but a state of fixed chaos.

 

[yesicanread]

So you're saying that there is something that is equal and opposite to a line? (i.e., a line that is an infinite set of points)

Um. I'm saying I didn't leave geometry undefined, and as well I didn't leave Newton's third law undefined.

As a matter of fact. You can translate the vertex, to the plane, to the vertex, and within this context, of possible translation. I have defined Geometry + Newton's third law = Unified stuff.

I said "Plane", and a bunch of other stuff. You should read what I typed out. Patiently, concidering every word. Kind of like right now.
:shy:

 

[ryokan]

I was wondering if it may be that what we see as order and balance are really not order and balance, but a state of fixed chaos.

As selfAdjoint wrote in his post, "equilibrium is a state of maximum disorder (maximum entropy, minimum free energy)". I think that other dictionary concepts of equilibrium are not applicable to the question that I suppose you pose here.
Equilibrium is a thermodinamyc concept. Change, evolution only have sense in a thermodynamic context: in the time's arrow.
The thermodynamics of irreversible processes (Ilya Prigogine...) is interesting as an explanation of how "order" can arise without contradiction with the second law. Such is the case of stationary status far from the equilibrium, which would be the case of biological systems.
I think that cellular automatons can be useful tools to simulation or to play. I don't have yet read the book of Wolfram. After its reading, it is possible that I think differently.