On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:23:14 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> magnitude would start over smaller in its rise...
>

In mathematics, the magnitude of a real number is it's absolute value, e.g. the magnitude of -2 is |-2| = 2, and the magnitude of 2 is |2| = 2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics)

I hope this helps.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 4:15:47 PM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:23:14 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > magnitude would start over smaller in its rise...
> >
> In mathematics, the magnitude of a real number is it's absolute value, e.g. the magnitude of -2 is |-2| = 2, and the magnitude of 2 is |2| = 2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics)

In that magnitude is simpler than the real value this definition is a reversal of structural thought. That is to say that mathematics has it wrong, and every time that R+ (with or without zero) is referenced the hangup is well strung.
Indeed, the possibility of polysign numbers further breaks into this awareness:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
That the ray is more fundamental than the line: this would be the graphical equivalent statement and certainly that a line is composed of two opposed rays is entirely acceptable. That this can take physical consequence, as in light rays by which we view the paper which we drew the analysis upon; that the one-signed system is zero dimensional; and that the age of a photon is always zero; while its path is unidirectional; these features are consistent. That time can take this zero dimensional interpretation resolves much of the time paradox; we are caught in the present moment. We can derive the three dimensions of space, yet when we apply that sense of freedom to time we see no such freedom. This is the falsity of Minkowski space, and in every application a light cone projection will zero out that time axis... not that anyone ever treated it as an arbitrary reference frame anyways. You obviously cannot rotate your coffee mug's vertical component into time. You are going to spill your coffee, sir.

That magnitude is completely lacking in sign is to separate it away from the one-signed values that the ray begets, then next the line, then the plane via three such rays (three directions rather than four as is the RxR interpretation, and so on up in dimension so that 3D space needs only four directions) so that Mitch's never ending awareness of magnitude as fundamental is appropriate even while his denial of the existence of sign is a fraud. That magnitude in and of itself lacks geometry; that geometrical rendering, and dimension, both can be gotten through sign: this is critical to the future of mathematics and physics. That sign is a rotational feature whose discrete form breeds continuous rotation... this we all are in a gray hazy awareness of. As elements of spacetime we are not inherently granted access to the basis. We exist as effects of it. Whether a substrate or a modulo containment (or both) lay beneath our existence: it is ours to guess, and when the guess carries physical correspondence then credence should be granted, yet ordinary mathematics has failed in this regard, and physicists have failed as well. Indeed the awareness that we ought to be deriving 3D space rather than pulling it out of a hat is only fair game for one group: the quantum gravity people, and they still do not have it. Polysign numbers do have it. Yet they do no physics either. Well, as a basis when you get unidirectional time as well with the 0D correspondence you'd think you would have arrived, yet when everybody else denies the possibility of the generalization of sign, which is readily proven to work out just fine, it suggests that there is a revolution afoot.

Sadly, Mitch won't budge. Yet the dimensional analysis and awareness suggests he should. Please note that while space does appear to be continuous that its dimension does appear to be discrete i.e. we do not live in a 3.521 dimensional space. We exist in spacetime and that three may be derived from real valued analysis and the Cartesian product (construction?) of space possibly makes a farce of the three as misbegotten artifacts of an archaic thought process named after a great thinker who never actually used said thought process, and whose own values were exactly in line with Mitch's own thinking... yes: Descartes called the negative roots of his own equations which he could see staring him in the face 'false roots':
https://www.cut-the-knot.org/fta/ROS2.shtml
He was not being punny here. Descartes did his work from Euclidean geometry, where no usage of negative values are in use. He got to algebraic systems in his geometry but never to Cartesian coordinates. The real number was only just gaining formal acceptance in his days.

That so many options were overlooked; that so many greats have missed the polysign numbers; surely they are wrong, no?
That you would think such a thing and leave them there to whither is a shame and a sham, sir.

>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:15:47 PM UTC-7, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:23:14 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > magnitude would start over smaller in its rise...
> >
> In mathematics, the magnitude of a real number is it's absolute value, e.g. the magnitude of -2 is |-2| = 2, and the magnitude of 2 is |2| = 2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(mathematics)
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Dan
>

A magnitude of a negative is a subtraction in all math.
Zero is the subtraction limit. You can only subtract
the absolute value or less...

Mitchell Raemsch

Dan Christensen wrote:

> In mathematics, the magnitude of a real number is it's absolute value,
> e.g. the magnitude of -2 is |-2|=2, and the magnitude of 2 is |2|=2.

No shit Sherlock, are you sure?? And there is no *magnitude* property
associated *scalars*, but vectors and vector fields alone.