Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory Development

  1. Feb 13, 2004 #1
    No theoretical system can survive without being aware to its limitations.

    It means that any x output can be only a model(X) input.

    Shortly speaking, x=model(X).

    Math is first of all a form of theory, therefore any concept that can be used by it is only a model(CONCEPT).

    For example, let us take infinity concept.

    If INF is infinity itself (= actual infinity) , then inf=model(INF)=potential infinity.

    Please look at this model for better understanding:
    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

    In this way we first of all aware to our input limitations, which are:

    No input = model(EMPTINESS) = lowest limit.

    No input = model(FULLNESS) = highest limit.

    If we translate this to set's representation then:

    {} content = model(EMPTINESS) = lowest limit.

    {__} content = model(FULLNESS) = highest limit.

    Between these limits ({},{__}) we can find inf=model(INF)=potential infinity, where inf has two input forms:

    {.} = singleton, which is a localized element.

    {.__.} = non-singleton, which is a non-localized element (connect at least two different singletons).

    {.} and {._.} can appear in two basic collections:

    Collection {a, b, c} is finitely many elements.

    Collection {a, b, c, ...} is infinitely many elements (=inf) .

    Any non-empty collection which is not a singleton, is an association between {.} and {._.}, for example:
    Code (Text):

                  b   b
                 {a , a}    
                  .   .  
                  |   |
                  |___|_
                  |    
                   
               
                 {a , b}    
                  .   .  
                  |   |
                  |___|
                  |        
     
    For more details please look at:

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


    I'll be glad to get your remarks and insights.


    Thank you.


    Organic
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 13, 2004 #2

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    'infinity itself'

    hmm. would you care to explain what this means?

    or for that matter explain what infinity the concept means to you?
     
  4. Feb 13, 2004 #3
    In this case actual infinity can be no input.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2004
  5. Feb 13, 2004 #4

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No, please state clearly what it is that you think the concept of infinity is that you to have a model for.
     
  6. Feb 13, 2004 #5
    Please try to understand this, any explanation by some language is only the model of the explained thing.

    For example: no explanation of simplicity is simplicity itself, and also no explanation of infinity is infinity itself.

    Therefore no theory can deal with the thing itself but only with the explanation of the thing.

    An explanation of a thing is what I call a model of a thing.

    The best way I have found to express this idea, is not by words but by:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

    I'll be glad if you find a way to translate this picture model to model of words.
     
  7. Feb 13, 2004 #6

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That is the point at infinity, the one point compacification of the complex plane (well, real line).

    It is NOT 'the infinity' in some abstract sense. it is "the point at infinity". this is the standard thing that people fail to grasp. by abuse of notation it is often labelled infinity, but it is not the infinity that people mean in the sum from one to infinity, it is not the infinity invoked when one says there are an infinity of possible solutions. it is not the infinity used when one speaks of 'the edges of the universe', it is not the infinity of (-infinity,0] - look at the definition of that, realize infinity is not used in the inequality defining it, but that the infinity is a useful short hand.



    Infinity is not a well defined mathematical entity. infinite is what one ought to use, but using the term infinity is a convenience.

    It means different things at different times, if every one would use the word infinite properly then we wouldn't need to have these problems.
     
  8. Feb 13, 2004 #7
    You are talking about what I call a rigorous agreement between people.

    I the first page of my website I wrote:

    Dear researcher,

    Math, in my opinion, is first of all a rigorous agreement that based on language.

    Symmetry is maybe the best tool that can be used to measure simplicity, where simplicity is the best platform for stable agreement.

    Any agreement must be aware to the fact that no model of simplicity is simplicity itself.

    This awareness to the difference between x-model and x-itself is the first condition for any stable agreement, because it gives it the ability to be changed.



    As for your question about what is 'infinity itself' my best answer at this moment is:

    'infinity itself' is some example of a non-approachable thing (or the limit) of any theoretical system.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2004
  9. Feb 13, 2004 #8
  10. Feb 13, 2004 #9

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Perhaps you should stop taking wolfram as gospel.

    That is one use for a symbol labelled infinity. In fact it is just defining the symbol [TEX]\infinity[/TEX]'s use in real analysis, that the ratio 1/x grows without bound as x tends to 0+.
     
  11. Feb 13, 2004 #10
    so the model of x is actually a function of it?
     
  12. Feb 13, 2004 #11
    Please look again at:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/4BPM.pdf

    The infinitely long base of the empty triangles is a representation of actual emptiness.

    The infinitely long base of the green triangles is a representation of actual fullness.

    Math cannot use them as an input.


    Another example:

    A meaningful circle with radius r exists between r=0 and r=oo.

    When r=0 or r=oo, we have no circle.

    Now instead of a 'circle' we can write 'some finite or infinite collection of elements'.

    {} is equivalent to r=0 and {__} is equivalent to r=oo.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2004
  13. Feb 15, 2004 #12
    To relate scientifically, one must translate feelings and images of beauty into rigorously applied mathematics and operable physics, which are beautiful in themselves. That evolution may take many years, and many revisions of an adaptive model.
     
  14. Feb 15, 2004 #13
    Hi Loren Booda

    You wrote:
    I think you know that "one good picture = 1000 words" :wink:

    But more to the point, let us examine a little part from your work.

    You write:

    Inflection point: p''[x]=0

    6x+2b=0

    x=-b/3


    As we can see, you use notations 6,3 and 2 in your equations.

    Please let me ask: what 6, 3 or 2 you use?

    And I am asking this because there are 2 structural possabilities of 2, 3 structural possabilities of 3 and 76 structural possabilities of 6.

    Please see for yourself:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ET.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf
     
  15. Feb 15, 2004 #14

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    would math want to?


    we *can*, but how on earth can you justify what follows is an equivalent statement, or infact meaningful in any sense? When did we become able to replace words at will in a sentence, and claim the new sentence is EQUIVALENT. I might perhaps accept analogous. But that's not the same, or am I just reading too much mathematical meanin into equivalence?


    Well, you theory asserts that current maths langauge is unable to handle sets because it doesn't allow for probability. As probability is defined using current maths (and sets) don't you think that statement a little mendacious?
     
  16. Feb 15, 2004 #15
    Dear Matt,

    Do you know what math wants?
    Please take this part of my previous post only as an analogy.
    Current Math langauge using probability, but not as a fundamental property of Set's and Number's concepts.

    Through my point of view, this is one of the most important insights that have to be transfered from modern physics to pure Math language.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2004
  17. Feb 15, 2004 #16

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    but th probabiltiy you cite is defined in terms of sets, to require sets to be defined probabilistically is circular.
     
  18. Feb 16, 2004 #17
    It is not, because my new information structures are at least complementary associations between {.} AND {.__.} fundamental structures.

    Please show me this point of view in standard sets.
     
  19. Feb 16, 2004 #18

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    in order to use probability in the foundations of your set theory, you must give a set theoretic independent way to define probability, which currently you can't because probabilty is defined as by measure on a probability space; they all require sets in their definition.
     
  20. Feb 16, 2004 #19
    I use symmetry-degree to define probability, again you are looking at my work from your point of view about probability.

    Semmetry-degree clearly represented by the information-sturctures, which based on associations among {.} and {._.} fundamental elements.

    Again please look at:

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/HelpIsNeeded.pdf

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf

    Please show me a conventional way to costruct my system by using the current set's definitions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2004
  21. Feb 16, 2004 #20

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    of course I'm using standard interpretations of the words 'probability' and 'set'. as you aren't perhaps you should consider using a different name ofr these different objects?

    how can i construct something in my model which is 'fundamentally' different from yours when the thing you ask me to construct is your 'fundamentally' different object? that isn't an issue, like i keep saying, you are free to develop whatever theory you want, just don't misuse the old one as you repeatedly do. so pick different names to avoid confusion - that is common sense.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?