samedi 21 avril 2012

Some Mathematics

Further to my entry No Mathematics that iffy concept time has been on my mind, as has gravity. Since I have not yet read Physics, my physical insights have mainly been from information theory. For example, the stable wormhole I constructed in summer 2011, taking advantage of Vancouver-area's deceit, is my online communication network via medias and letters, and my Vancouver-area local, who are disassociated with each other yet pass some data via me. Clearly many have similar information space wormholes stabilized and some pass data via friendly environments. My 5 March 2012 claim that if = iff is of course based on my mathematical absence of reference to the physical universe. Electrons, humans, gamma rays, tossed tea cups, Darwinian selection and relations all have clear sense of direction and show discernment... insofar as tossed tea cups discern their future. In Physics and Mathematics (the latter does exist even though Jon Borwein put an interesting question forward, specifically, do a mathematician's mathematical skills disappear due to expedience and declaration by people with titles?), cancelling wave crests and troughs to get an illusion of zero seems acceptable, although we know we added two inputs. However, the same practice in trade relations causes enmity IE repulsion. Consider purchasing £100 of gold then receiving a 50-50 mixture of gold and tungsten and being told acceptance of the mixture in lieu of the purchased product is compulsory, and "no harm" was done since the sum of gold and tungsten is zero, yet conspicuously the £100 isn't returned for an alleged absence of product. That way of doing business, which I learned at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver-area Canada, is repulsive and causes enmity.

Since I am being held financial hostage in a hostile environment (hating is different from Heyting and the locals assure me they are unaware of the latter), I thought I might get some positive constructions and experiments in information theory handled. Richard Feynman imagined particles travel via every possible path. My results based on human correspondence and information transfer during 2011 to 2012 show a correct analogy to gravity exists in the information space of human relations, said space being a path connected manifold; and shows human minds are correctly analogous to particles, IE energy concentrations with dispersion and distribution options. The mechanical theory of kinetic and potential energy is an incorrect analogy for minds as particles in information space. Of course I extended my work to include my tribe of eight cats who, doing what they do, mindfully interact in the process. For example, while I was working with Mikhail Prokhorov on Finance and Logic in summer 2011, I was wondering what to do with the world and Saith coincidentally clawed my exercise ball which reminded me of slow deflation. Good Saith. In this information space model of what could be happening in a Physicist's experiments with particles, particles (minds) discern paths as do macroscopic entities observed in the real world. For example, animals who do real physical work while moving themselves from A to B disagree with the idea in Theoretical Physics that all work calculations are path independent and that return journeys take zero work; similarly businesses also demonstrate path awareness and discernment while relocating from State of Affairs A to State of Affairs B. Ohm's Law indicates electrons are opportunists, and slit experiments with photons indicate the same about photons. When is if = iff? The supply chain of existence, nature, business, relations and all subsequent activities indicate dropping the idea of 'only if' and working with if, sufficient and necessary conditions, IE supportive guidance, works. Darwin's individual to environment adaptation theories are for slow adaptation and are based on mutual positive relation (sufficiently analogous to gravity, different from repulsion). Slow adaptation to extreme putridity and hatred differs from what Darwin observed and set out to explain. Thus part of the global solution implemented in summer 2011 has anyone expressing putrid hatred toward logic do so on record, else remain silent; by putting themselves on record they volunteer for the equal opposite response to their own expressed volition.

Today I started reading about ammonia and external forces on systems of masses which have conserved momentum. I remember the n-body problem for n greater than 2 is said to be unsolved and yet am wondering why an n-body problem appears to have n external forces, each different, rather than being understood as sharing the one external net force which then reduces the n body problem to the n-1 body problem previously solved. IE  I think proof by induction could be applicable. For example, the 3 body problem is analogous to the ammonia molecule where the net external force is supplied the nitrogen atom, and since the nitrogen atom wants to bounce, it could reasonably be ignored from the perspective of the hydrogen atoms whose configuration is still given by the nitrogen regardless of anthropomorphic awareness. Similarly, people live their entire lives in our world totally unaware of the market, the invisible hand, the Rothschild Family, DARPA and advances in mathematical disciplines; I could be anthropomorphising those people when saying their configuration is given by a net external force regardless of the extent of their awareness of human intelligence.

Answering Stephen Hawking's question(s) asked on page 224 of Illustrated Brief History of Time, is there a unified theory? Yes. Is the theory complete? Yes. Is it a collection of overlapping formulations? No. Is our understanding an infinite, asymptotic approach? No. Is the universe random, perhaps chaotic? No. From page 67, does the universe have a beginning? No. Whence energy? With reference to page 15, we disagree about what a good theory (or model) is, and we seem to disagree about the role of proof in Physics, a role which atrophied due to our understanding of gravity. A model does accurately describe observed phenomena. For example, Euclidean R^n does accurately describe some financiers' public communication patterns. However, prediction is another matter. From the perspective of living in state machines in ecosystems of, rather than plans, we do what we do while what we do works, then we switch. For example, financiers are at liberty to publicly communicate via knot theory rather than R^n per their preferences, provided communication continues. An alternative example is provided by my work with mice in 2002: Bridgit's garden was unpredictable. I provided Brigit with the same support as other mice, most of whom had names, and she's the only one who gardened. So the provisioner's role is to provide environments in which a wide range of responses may happen, and then see what does happen, which is different from top-down control techniques and different from typhoon (hurricane) prediction techniques. The recent sonic booms heard in Britain surprised the people due to the same principle of unpredictability of future events based on past trends having lurking variables. Traditional scientific methods make seeing lurking variables, such as untagged sharks, difficult. Prerequisite to developing the proper role of proof in Physics is Physicists adapting for including lurking variables in their work. IE the previous theories had difficulty obtaining the GUT of Physics due to an excessively restrictive logistical methods, due to rigorously applying Occam's razor too soon in development. This adaptation differs from what slows me down when reading Physics: your discipline has the habit of being lazy in notation describing value, difference and rate of change. Values, differences and rates of change are very different concepts, and have been inappropriately swapped with each other in some expositions of Physics.

How can I answer Stephen Hawking with certainty while I'm still discerning when Physicists intend to subtract, differentiate, or do neither? Physics and Mathematics have a relation; Physics and Logic have a relation; Physics and matter have the relation that Physicists observe what matter does; therefore Mathematical Logic exists; therefore the existence question posed by Jon Borwein on my graduate student record in 1996 is answered as (a) declarations by people with titles are insufficient to make skills disappear, and (b) the GUT of Physics is the unification of Mathematics, which suffices to bring Mathematics to market entirely and properly. In this context, asking me to state the GUT of Physics in terms of something material such as gamma rays almost makes sense, except, I haven't got a particle accelerator, so I'm doing this experiment on humanity modelling particles in information space modelling the universe, since I'm being held financial hostage thus found something to do with my time and resources - once again demonstrating the key to solving the n body problem.

From a Mathematical Logic perspective, subsequent to the work done in No Mathematics, the sensible next step is identifying axioms and relations which work and which hold true to the unification of mathematics, which is given in the positive definition of the empty set, rather than following the scientific approach of listing all types of anything we know exists and hoping to develop the theory from data while ignoring scientific progress of the past 300 years. To my surprise (the sonic boom of my life), there exists in our biosphere a set of Mathematical Logicians who do Constructive Mathematics and who have already reviewed several axiom system options and implications across the Mathematical disciplines. Whence my astonishment? During my recruitment to the Centre for Experimental and Constructive Mathematics (CECM) in 1993 and 1994, Peter Borwein let me know Constructive Mathematics is his and Jon Borwein's new mathematical revolution. During my graduate studies in 1994 and 1995, Jon Borwein spoke of introducing experimental practices from Physics into Mathematics, which readily made sense to me from my high school Physics course, and spoke of constructive mathematics being applicable in "industry", exemplified by selling Maple to companies and by solving a medical imaging problem. The aim of and basis of the CECM was presented to me as work entirely new to humanity. The courses of the graduate studies programme I was in were all irrelevant to the agendas of experimental mathematics and constructively bringing mathematics to a financially sensible position beyond academia, for bridging directly from mathematical academic programs into sensible jobs in industries for mathematical skills. Thus in January 1996, I returned Jon Borwein's intellectual property on multisectioning to him and requested the role of bringing mathematics to market as my thesis topic - his intellectual property which I agreed to develop and return with the results. Jon Borwein said yes. I negotiated with Bruce Clayman, VP Research and Dean of Graduate Studies, for a time stop on my graduate degree. I aimed to bring mathematics to market yet the work hadn't been previously done thus we couldn't pre-imagine the results apart from being clear, it places mathematicians in industries in positions to exert mathematical skills to advantage. Bruce Clayman and the Department Chair, Len Berggren, agreed in writing to give me two years, then extended the agreement in writing for two more years. In 1999 and in 2000, I got the results, and aimed for degree completion.

Throughout 1993 to 2000, local subject matter expert expressed awareness of Constructive Mathematical Logicians making progress since the 1950s was nil.

During my 1993 and 1994 recruitment to the CECM in Simon Fraser University, I expressed concern about our lack of similar mathematical interests and Peter Borwein assured me, between him and Jon Borwein, they read all of Mathematics thus I would have liberty to work on my selected topic. In 2012 looking back, Jon and Peter Borwein are arithmeticians who read all of arithmetics and who in the 1990s expressed disdain for the role of logic in mathematical disciplines. The field of experimental arithmetics has made progress since 1993 and Jon Borwein's work shows.

As my work develops and the bridge from academia to industries for mathematical minds is constructed upon my results, mathematical minds will be who drives entire industries, military organizations, governments, intelligencia, medias, transportation, information, waste and distribution systems, environmental clean-up, and education. Formalizing my work to date, rather than learning Physics, my best proper response to the questions Stephen Hawking asks in his work is to respond directly to Constructive Logicians who reach for description of reality without the gift to humanity from Physics: the discipline of observing real data and discarding ideas which are disproved by observation. (I disagree with the notion of energy being a free gift since so much work of mind went into putting the product together.) I think reading Physics could be a good second step. In summer 2011, Mikhail Prokhorov and I confirmed, at the core, Logic, Physics, Finance and the constructive (state machine) method in business and in natural existence are all identical. In autumn 2011, my seeing Baron Edouard de Rothschild's mind express displacement in media showed the same core insight, which agrees with my negation of the traditional square of opposition and correction of the definition of if expressed in summer 2003. What remains is an adjustment in Calculus.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire