On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:28:43 PM UTC-7, sobriquet wrote:
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 5:00:24 PM UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 4:47:47 PM UTC-7, sobriquet wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 12:11:30 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > Find out here:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/49478620/What_exactly_is_a_number_in_mathematics
> > > I think the concept number is a bit fuzzy and it can mean lots of things in different
> > > (mathematical) contexts. It seems silly to try to come up with some ultimate
> > > interpretation of the concept of a number and arguing that pi isn't a number.
> > > It's a fascinating topic though, and more generally math as the backbone of science.
> > >
> > > Science has achieved some remarkable conceptual progress, judging from the
> > > technological innovations it has enabled us to come up with, so the math
> > > can't be completely flawed, otherwise math wouldn't provide a reasonably
> > > solid conceptual foundation for science.
> > >
> > > The most profound scientific realizations so far seem to be quantum field theory
> > > and general relativity at the moment and they appear to go beyond numbers in
> > > the sense that they also deal with stuff like group theory as abstract structures
> > > where different phenomena that can be observed, like photons and electrons seem
> > > to obey certain principles from group theory.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_quantum_mechanics#Unitary_groups_in_quantum_field_theory
> > >
> > > Like the way some things have to be rotated around twice to match up with
> > > themselves, whereas our everyday intuition tends to deal with things that match up
> > > with themselves after a single full rotation. And then there are aspects like entanglement
> > > and superposition and I guess these kind of work like primitive concepts or the very
> > > conceptual building blocks for understanding reality that kind of render earlier
> > > conceptualizations of the fundamental constituent building blocks of reality redundant
> > > or outdated.
> > > Since many earlier ideas originated in a time when we had a lot less empirical knowledge
> > > about the world and back then we came up with ideas that made sense in that context but
> > > that seem kind of outdated in the context of contemporary science.
> > > If we had to start all over again from scratch while retaining all the observations and
> > > experiments done so far, we would probably come up with an entirely different conceptual
> > > framework. Our concepts have to fit the observations and outcomes of empirical science
> > > and not the other way around.
> > >
> > > We know from history that humans have come up with very clumsy conceptualizations
> > > of numbers like Roman numerals that make arithmetic needlessly complicated, so it
> > > stands to reason that our current conceptualization of numbers is probably far from
> > > optimal as well.
> > > We also can see that there are very different ways to go about abstract algebra (where
> > > algebra is understood as an abstraction of arithmetic) instead of the traditional
> > > linear algebra approach, like geometric algebra that seem way more suitable to
> > > handle advanced physics and computer graphics, where we have a unified
> > > conceptual framework that handles a wide range of applications in an elegant
> > > way.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX4H_ctggYo
> >
> > Numbers are values, mostly these days there is talk about real-valued number
> > systems, besides "models of integers, models of rationals, models of reals",
> > where of course integers "are" rationals and rationals "are" reals.
> >
> > The complex then for quaternions and octonions or after Clifford and Grassmann,
> > is much for the "geometric algebras" after Elie Cartan. These have real-valued
> > components or the scalar, and basically a system of units what is maintained that
> > in the algebras, of course there are closures of theorems about: arithmetic.
> >
> > Numbers are mostly arithmetic's and number theory's, but of course we know
> > that the points on a line in geometry's each have also a real-valued value.
> >
> > There are similar notions like polysigned numbers, or for example the artifacts
> > of the yenri, which is "old Japanese calculus" in a sense. There are determinantal
> > quantities and variously what results the products and projections in algebra,
> > what result in alignments with number systems.
> >
> > If you don't know the developments of Elie Cartan I'd recommend them for
> > the gentle introduction past the theory of complex numbers: hypercomplex numbers.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lie_Cartan
> >
> > Magnitude in geometry is defined by a prototype unit, it's the usual
> > organization of units then for arithmetic and algebra that suits the
> > 'ubiquitous success of mathematics the quantitative in physics'.
> >
> > That "quantities in reality more or less _are_ numbers", or, that measurement
> > results from fundamentally a usual Euclidean continuum of space and a ray
> > of time, or, "metal" and "concrete" numbers, makes for some platonists what
> > is a way to have a strong platonism without abandoning scientism. (And to have
> > a strong scientism without abandoning platonism.)
> >
> > Our "scientism" demands adherence to scientism, "platonism" can yet be arrived
> > at for itself as making for usual theories that science is... correct, and platonism true.
> >
> > Infinitesimals and infinities being real is a pretty advanced notion of numbers,
> > for some it doesn't exist the entirety just simply the iterable. But, such retro-finitists
> > more than less aren't relevant: beyond particular specialized domains.
> I like to explore group theory a bit and I kind of approach math from an abstract art angle,
> where I'm particularly interested in what makes certain visual patterns appealing
> with the right mix of order and chaos.
>
> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/njtsr5r8sk
>
> In a way a color or a tone is just like a number, since it's a kind of location embedded in
> a spectrum of possible locations.
>
> With desmos you can explore visual patterns from a mathematical perspective, like getting
> an idea of how we might represent all possible ways to color a particular visual pattern.
>
> https://www.desmos.com/calculator/yaygkpmhfa

I think the fractal explorer and the Mandelbrot or Julia then
what is the L-Systems, Lindenmeier or such, here that for
algebra's sake with cancellation and group operations, or
usual concrete algebra what the numbers provide the lattice,
most people have closure of either sums or products suffice.
(That from the one the other holds.)

Here this is that usual number systems are complete in a usual sense.

Complete and regular - these are two the notions of arithmetic for algebra.

When the fractal coloring exhausts the spectrum, that it becomes monochrome,
is though that it went through: what with respect to usual odds makes for stochasticity.

And geometry, complete and regular - "in theory".

Then after continuum mechanics and usual epiphanies about the number theory,
when in the Cantor space or 2^w I found this out the half-regularity made for the
strange it seemed composition what resulted for deduction that according to
finite combinatorics the "opposite" is true, or, "Borel vs. Combinatorics, superman",
makes for the "Factorial/Exponential Identity" as profound, while the usual theory
of fluxions or other old-fashioned or retro-classical infinitesimals the function what
results: the equivalency function or sweep, sweep of course with its exponential and
probabilistic character is of course a usual person's infinity and infinitesimals.
(A usual person in the applied, vis-a-vis, of course, the usual person in formalization.)

On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 11:00:24 UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 4:47:47 PM UTC-7, sobriquet wrote:

> Magnitude in geometry is defined by a prototype unit, it's the usual
> organization of units then for arithmetic and algebra that suits the
> 'ubiquitous success of mathematics the quantitative in physics'.

No. This is false. Magnitude is not properly defined in the Elements. It has a circular definition.

What is meant is this:

Magnitude is the concept of size, dimension or extent.

The Greek word μέγεθος (magnitude) has NOTHING to do with number. It is a primitive concept. The first definition is in Book 5:

A magnitude is a part of a(nother) magnitude, the lesser of the greater, when it measures the greater.

Clearly circular but the Ancient Greeks knew what they meant and since Euclid was about to establish the properties of arithmetic with magnitudes, he wasted no time talking about measure. The second definition dives straight into "multiples" (Πολλαπλάσιον). In fact the Greek word πλήθος was around long before Πολλαπλάσιον which means multiplication.

In Book 5, all the operations of arithmetic on magnitudes (NOT numbers) are established even before number in Book 7.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:06:41 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 11:04:45 AM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:27:55 PM UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:14:34 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 at 13:03:59 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 7:01:13 PM UTC+2, sobriquet wrote:
> > > > > >[..]
> > > > > > How do you expect people to understand what you're talking about? You expect them to look up
> > > > > > these words "NAME", "MEASURE", "MAGNITUDE" and "SIZE" in a dictionary and work out what
> > > > > > you could possibly mean by them (given that words typically have multiple connotations)?
> > > > > >[..]
> > > > See, if you paid attention to detail, you would study the links I mentioned. They explain all these concepts.
> > > >
> > > > And of course, a good starting point to get a grasp of the concepts is the dictionary! Chuckle.
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hasWyQCZyRN3RkdvIB6bnGIVV2Rabz8w
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLYTg1TGY4RTIwakU
> > > >
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/49478620/What_exactly_is_a_number_in_mathematics
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it really helps to study the links! Try it! :)
> > > I don't see the big deal with distinguishing between irrational numbers on the one hand
> > > and incommensurable magnitudes on the other hand.
> > > If you look up the word 'magnitude' in a dictionary it has the meaning of number anyway.
> > >
> > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magnitude
> > >
> > > We can also do arithmetic with these magnitudes just like we can do with numbers.
> > > E.g.
> > > sqrt(2)*sqrt(3)=sqrt(6)
> > Yes. Fundamental concepts should come first rather than second or third.. Real analysis has this backwards.
> > Magnitude is fundamental. Sign is fundamental. Together then you get:
> > s x
> > where s is sign and x is magnitude. Of course the modulo two sign is not the only system. That is P2 in a family of such systems
> > P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
> > and so the fundamental nature of the real number is lost completely under this thinking.
> > That P3 are a new form of the complex numbers and that algebra exists in general dimension through polysign which demands an exact geometry per Pn.... all of this is overlooked by existing mathematics. Emergent spacetime is just around the corner. Unidirectional time as P1. Structured spacetime from within this basis exposes the first cosmological principal as invalid. Whether it is P1P2P3 or P1P2P3P4 I cannot say yet, but the breakpoint at P4 is insurance like no other. From this basis abuses in standard mathematics continue to be exposed. The necessity of the Cartesian product is in doubt for me now. Operator theory as defined through the binary operator is bunk.. Abstract algebra can't even get out of its own way with a fraud polynomial that then requires extraordinary measures to return. No. The modulo form has been overlooked. Modulo sign; already in use; is all that is needed. That humans have a predilection for the bipolar form is entirely understandable, but to deny the generalization... that is sheer stupidity.
> Number theory
> Function theory
> Set theory
> Type theory
> Category theory
> Geometry
>
> it's useful to know these things, if only to know the names that others have for them.
> (The things that they are.)
>
> Model theory
> Theory
>
> Operator Theory

Sun 11 Jul 2021 07:49:46 AM EDT https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/FqLP7Am4eEc

This idea that operator theory comes last is a misfit for a reason.
For grade school children the problem is rather different.
In physics theory lags behind the experimental discoveries.
Is it possibly that mathematics with its lack of an experimental side falters?
Some might say: " accumulation is bliss " ,
but those who come after the accumulation look back with
jaundiced eyes, like a book store fiend that is only half way through the crappy
summer reading section. Critics are free to skip ahead I think. I'll take that one.

Simple principles can be laid down straightforwardly:
numbers and operators are distinct.
Without numbers operators cannot do much.
When operators are working, compositions of them with numbers will yield a number.
The operator should come early in a structural hierarchy
but in mathematics it does not.
For instance to define operators as functions could deny the usage of operators within functions,
and if not, then the topic is not structured.
In light of the principles of the integer form, even stripped of sign,
whose funny business in some ways is not really settled,
it should be clear that any principle that can be laid down as an n-ary procedure
is superior to one which requires a binary construction.
In this way a unary form will coexist with the form of multiples.
In this way addition as a first operator and as a universal one begets physical correspondence.
From this perspective it is the universe that is the starting set
with number a strict subset escaped as much as possible from physicality.
The denial of such a low laying bridge would be problematic to the men of the past
whereas in my generation that bridge is no longer safe to walk.
Could it be that the physicists simply kept pushing the men with bad ideas into mathematics?
At least as one roams the stacks could you dodge the entire section?
How far should mathematics have to go before it bumps into physical correspondence?
If it strikes upon it should it just go on branching and ignoring such?
Is this the mark of a 'true' mathematician?

I believe I have bumped into a new awareness with ties that I will call simply:
The Universe Versus The Number
which broadly exposes the problem of starting in high dimension versus starting in low dimension. According to our ordinary geometrical analysis these systems are only two apart. Possibly three apart. Maybe four apart. Make that five. Oh, six looks so good. Seven is prime. The double zeros of eight really suggest that somebody back in time already returned here, only to get the boot for nine which better joins the zero and the one. And now we are beyond that in a modulo format that nobody thinks about any more.

As we consider seriously the physics now in acceptance for nearly a century known as quantum physics could it be meaningful to admit that all of our numbers ever were quantum to begin with? That the very digits of our numbers can and do portray a modulo format that is arguably multidimensional and growing as we obtain better precision... it would satisfy a certain tension that has built, which the mathematician has already squandered. Not so for the physicist though. Their attention to dimension is scrupulous, though they do broadly defer to the real value of mathematics in their theoretical works. Neither has obtained emergent spacetime, whereas I have. This does not make statements such as this true, but it may lead to their serious consideration. It would be to say not that we exist in a multidimensional world, but that we exist in a general dimensional world. That there could be a marked distinction between these two would require a fairly trivial basic form; one that behaves much more in the modulo fashion than we care to admit. That this is default human behavior is well established now. The simplest things may be wafting beneath our noses, and but for a scrawl out of thin air, and nearly by accident, we will not detect them. That we work in a radix-10 numb system: this is universally true. The translations and mutations are trivial.
Convention leads to assumption, so caution is evoked. Does a branch code to three? Or is it one to two? Well, then one to two to three? Or would that be one to two to four? Three as the first skip? Or three as the first branch? Could it be true that under the general dimensional approach all structures are built as subdimensional entities? We actually may need this to get from naught to one. One might argue though that naught succedes one as 1234567890, but now our symbols and their meanings are getting construed. This is good because construetion is pretty close to construction. It's just a dash away.

The general dimensional form of number is clearly far simpler than our geometrical forms. As we impart these numbers onto physical reality we do organize the universe. That these numbers themselves are quantized: yes, they are arbitrarily quantized and carry no specific dimension. In this way they are general dimensional. That these numbers carry specificity: yes, they form a way of directing our gaze to distant objects as well as to nearby objects, so long as the tools that were used to express the original values are still accessible to the user, and the objects have remained stable. It is in fact quite a lot of work on the physical side to address the problems of the coordinate system. It is far easier both by training and by practice to settle down onto a piece of clean paper and jot the way. Obviously there are some reasons that children are not working out the coordinates of objects in their classroom, right? What a shame that the field has taken such a different meaning to what it should have been about. Poor mathematicians, running astray again.

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 7:57:09 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 11:00:24 UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 4:47:47 PM UTC-7, sobriquet wrote:
>
> > Magnitude in geometry is defined by a prototype unit, it's the usual
> > organization of units then for arithmetic and algebra that suits the
> > 'ubiquitous success of mathematics the quantitative in physics'.
> No. This is false. Magnitude is not properly defined in the Elements. It has a circular definition.
>
> What is meant is this:
>
> Magnitude is the concept of size, dimension or extent.
>
> The Greek word μέγεθος (magnitude) has NOTHING to do with number. It is a primitive concept. The first definition is in Book 5:
>
> A magnitude is a part of a(nother) magnitude, the lesser of the greater, when it measures the greater.
>
> Clearly circular but the Ancient Greeks knew what they meant and since Euclid was about to establish the properties of arithmetic with magnitudes, he wasted no time talking about measure. The second definition dives straight into "multiples" (Πολλαπλάσιον). In fact the Greek word πλήθος was around long before Πολλαπλάσιον which means multiplication.
>
> In Book 5, all the operations of arithmetic on magnitudes (NOT numbers) are established even before number in Book 7.

You've dodged physics completely here.
The dividers transfer magnitude directly and without number.
This is the geometer's perfection.

> You've dodged physics completely here.
> The dividers transfer magnitude directly and without number.
> This is the geometer's perfection.

To what degree is geometry an early form of physics?
We tend to think of geometry as occurring in the plane as a matter of training
yet true geometers will be working in the third dimension and carefully so
using every tool at their disposal to get actual good results
as in construction of the material sort.
When mathematics chose to neglect material
then the seas parted and the fable began.
This fable will end when the seas rejoin.

I do see the authentic mathematician holding his hands up to his screen in fear as he reads this.
For myself I must admit that late training in the third dimension does leave me 3D challenged.
As when a roof rafter of a circular roof at a given pitch requires a chamfer on each side of the rafter to receive the skin material, then what angle is cut on the rafter? This problem is a struggle for me. Yet the option to perform the graphical solution will always be correct; no matter how the numbers roll. It is thus that by laying two rafters; even miniatures of the final system; in the assumed position and simply observing the angle which a straight edge makes across them; with no actual need of ever developing any number. This direct solution and its family of such are the means by which experimental branches exceed the mathematical. It really leaves the mathematician as the one who is childish, while he computes a breaking strength of a system, whereas the experimentalist develops an actual breaking strength. Ah, yes; the numbers will always come back to haunt us won't they? Well, that is good, for what I am claiming is that the division is false. At the rope factory there is a section of line; hopefully the most dubious section; which will be put to a breaking strength test prior to printing a working strength of less than half that figure. Bad line is everywhere these days. The quality line is so good. Even the bad line is not so bad. Could it be true that the future household will contain a bot which reuses old fiber and spins up line and weaves out material and stitches it together for perfect fitting garments? That the excess sun each day on the household solar panels will be prioritized amongst such bots so as to keep a tight ship? I can only imagine what going organic could mean here: did you want the fine cut with some coarse cut soy bean burger? Shitakes or Oysters with that? Sunflower or corn oil fried? The idea that these bots will be our servants seems to have gone out of style now with the AI scare craze. Could this be merely capitalism in self destruction? The self sufficient household is problematic to the capitalist other than the bot makers.

As the academician looks down upon the poor carpenter who can barely do the trig... who is hiring who? who can and who cannot do the job? Strangely enough this concept of self sufficiency is dove tailing into the fake academic split. We ultimately exist in a material world, and in this realization attacks on materialism are denied. Those attacks are best foisted on the fakers, and as such the attack as fakes is what really holds water.

That my small state seems to be holding back on this front(New Hampshire), whereas our neighbors (Vermont and Maine) both are doing their share... is it any surprise that those two are here and NH is not: https://ourrevolution.com/endorsements/

The idea that socialism and self sufficiency are not intimately tied is a fraud concept. That small European countries managed to provide universal healthcare long before the EU became instantiated is a damning signal. The ignorance of American politics to its supposed allies whom it continues to arm twist to this day in a long series of lies; the truth will reign supreme; if not this day, then as the damn breaks all the harder down the road a bit. A wipeout is coming. The bunkers are built. The survivors have been chosen already and it ain't you or me. Of course at 7+billion our odds are poor.. The idea that global biological warfare could be operant now, while the OPCW is provably corrupted by the Western axis... just what was in those vaccines we've taken? Who is getting the Moderna? Which variant is next? A first wave to close borders followed by a second wave of variant seems a strategic mindset. Well then, it appears not to have happened... this time. I do believe that in our media corruption and outright labelling things as conspiracy theories the concept of pure theory and analysis is overlooked. This idea that the mathematician is the one who could apply themselves to such problems: I find this entirely believable. To leave this analysis to the political class is a deep mistake. They are the ones who have adopted their social animal instincts to a fault. So I do appeal to the mathematical class to please consider the branchings of possibilities of such a theory. To land in the unknown is but to land with an imperfect number. Epsilon/delta(Ed) leads the way here. That such terrible numbers exist; well; yeah. Still Ed applies. In rough terrain like this when you have an outlier and the stripes start to line up who you gonna call? Uncle Sam? Nah. Those are the stripes alright, but it's time to be calling the UN.

On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 09:28:48 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:

To what degree is geometry an early form of physics?

Geometry itself is about "earth measure", but the concepts that geometry uses has NOTHING to do with physics or anything else but sentient thought.

On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:59:47 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Friday, 9 July 2021 at 15:24:27 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 9:00:04 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Friday, 9 July 2021 at 11:49:15 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
>[...]
> > > > In case of arbitrary circles pi would be realized by considering the ratio of the area of the circle to the area of a square with side length equal to the radius of the circle.
> > > No moron, no. This would require that you already know pi. LMAO. How can you know the area of a circle without pi? And then you couldn't know about pi without first knowing about ratios.
> > Look, your claim was:
> > "For example, the attempted measurement of a circle's circumference using its diameter must be realised by an alien in exactly the same way. Pi cannot be realised in any other way. "
> I remains true!
> >
> > But this is obviously nonsense, since the alien can realize Pi just the same by measuring the area
> > of a circle in terms of squares with side-length equal to the radius of the circle.
> Go back and read the previous comment I wrote, you fucking idiot!!!
> This would require that you already know pi. LMAO. How can you know the area of a circle without pi? And then you couldn't know about pi without first knowing about ratios.

How would measuring the area of a circle in terms of a square units with side length equal to
the radius of the circle require to know pi in advance?
It seems analogous to measuring the circumference of a circle in terms of units equal in
length to the diameter of the circle.

Both are alternative ways to approximate the value of pi. But you were saying that pi can only be
realized in one way.

>
> >
> > In other words, you're babbling nonsense (which is kind of ironic in a document that claims to rigorously establish conceptual clarity).
> > > [..]

On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 19:26:59 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 1:59:47 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Friday, 9 July 2021 at 15:24:27 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 9:00:04 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 9 July 2021 at 11:49:15 UTC-4, sobriquet wrote:
> >[...]
> > > > > In case of arbitrary circles pi would be realized by considering the ratio of the area of the circle to the area of a square with side length equal to the radius of the circle.
> > > > No moron, no. This would require that you already know pi. LMAO. How can you know the area of a circle without pi? And then you couldn't know about pi without first knowing about ratios.
> > > Look, your claim was:
> > > "For example, the attempted measurement of a circle's circumference using its diameter must be realised by an alien in exactly the same way. Pi cannot be realised in any other way. "
> > I remains true!
> > >
> > > But this is obviously nonsense, since the alien can realize Pi just the same by measuring the area
> > > of a circle in terms of squares with side-length equal to the radius of the circle.
> > Go back and read the previous comment I wrote, you fucking idiot!!!
> > This would require that you already know pi. LMAO. How can you know the area of a circle without pi? And then you couldn't know about pi without first knowing about ratios.

> How would measuring the area of a circle in terms of a square units with side length equal to
> the radius of the circle require to know pi in advance?

There are so many things wrong with the way you think. I don't even know where to begin.

I am the world's greatest mathematician. You will address me respectfully and in the right tone if you want me to educate you.

You will write me an essay telling me why your idiotic claim

"Points are just circles with radius 0 and lines are circles with an infinite radius."

is wrong and then I might bother to educate you.

Never in my life has anyone ever said something so stupid.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:29:12 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 09:28:48 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> To what degree is geometry an early form of physics?
> Geometry itself is about "earth measure", but the concepts that geometry uses has NOTHING to do with physics or anything else but sentient thought.

I have to disagree with this overly purified claim. When you trace out a circle the tool you use does matter. The compass; the sharpness of the pencil tip at its end; the stability of the hinge; the backing behind the paper; the sharpness and finesse of the pivot. The gentleness of the user as well. These aspects are underappreciated. And this is the 2D problem that we've been habituated into believing is the way as we are forcibly seated at flat desks for the first quarter of our lives. That we even pay and indebt ourselves for such treatment: horses walking back from an open field to their stalls; all of us. This is why such scrutiny must be applied. Can't we see that the human condition is such? Here it is anyway. The Ford style; respond to the bell I've heard was one of the priorities of the schooling system. Of course babysitting while the parents work at the factory too. That our societies excess time has gone from artistic and pleasurable things to line work... financial stress... dubious belief systems fed from high up in the hierarchy... where lawless actions still are operant; then the thumbscrews down onto others attempting better... American sheep must be number one. Oh yes we are. We are the best. We are excellence. The reference standard forever. Even when we are wrong we are right. We make it so. Sadly tehrectum does fit this mentality and it is not just one nation's problem; the egotistical condition can lead us all astray. Some of my cuts and slashes here do hurt superficially, but upon landing with two feet on the ground, scouting it out a bit, then we will have some idea what to do next. From the current position we all must move. We are engaged in a progression.

Geometry as practiced with a straight edge (prove the edge is straight please) and a compass (any play is unacceptable) and a decent line tool, possibly a repitograph, though I don't have one... this is just a start to what is possible. The minimal toolset is a neat and compact kit, but as with other trades the toolset can expand endlessly. Somehow humans seem to believe that standards must be met; such as the Roubo work bench for wood working, or the standard light blacksmithing station (no idea what it's proper name is), or in the case of Euclidean geometry, though no background surface is specified, certainly it does matter. The paper matters too. The quality of the results are limited. As these limits are pushed then we witness a type of refinement that is aware of the material world. All this already in 2D. Taking on another dimension we land with that much more tooling. Clearly gravity starts to matter. The qualities of a long piece of twine can be helpful. To build those tools yourself would be meaningful too. Humans, defined as toolmakers, who no longer make tools have gone post-human by definition. Superior or inferior? Inferior, sir. Skills lost. Sensibilities too. The sensibilities of Newton, Descartes, Kant, Euclid, ... gone from the modern human's mind. And we are supposed to get to physics? No wonder theory lags so far behind. No wonder the modern physicist has to admit that they don't understand why what they do works. This I do believe is the height of despicable. The mantra now is to eat particle/wave duality BLAD and daily too.

If a philosopher of old were presented this new belief system that is being propagated it would clearly meet with rejection via the direct contradictions that are being taught. The realization that humans are very good at handling these sorts of exceptions as mimics: this is a political dynamic; a social animal dynamic; that has crept into STEM. And we haven't even gotten into actual government corruption, such as the early studies that came out promoting Covid-19 as naturally occurring. There lay dragons.

Scripps Research Institute: "An analysis of public genome sequence data from SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses found no evidence that the virus was made in a laboratory or otherwise engineered." March 17, 2020. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm

This sort of thing gets volleyed and rallied by the MSM whipping it up into a firm thing for soft minds. Leaks are not leaks anymore. Leaks are fakes. They've already done so many fake leaks with the volley and the rally that the whole system is frothed at the mouth. In such a time those who care about a concept of truth and its pursuit will have to stand simply for the truth, because the motives and the means of persuasion have caused an entire fog to envelop us. We are now swimming in their foam and breathing it too. Somehow we do carry on, but the back yard looks better and better. What they are building is not sustainable. If you catch yourself hunkering down a bit and being even just slightly more catatonic please consider the times that you are operating through. That a manmade virus has swept the world is one possibility, and the processing of this detail and its consequences, along with the corruption of organizations such as the OPCW; while I cannot claim to have proof there certainly is confluence; particularly under a trade war that the U.$.A. is bound to lose, while an orange clown felt bound to win. "What have we got?", says the clown. "Well, sir, why don't you have a chat with Dr. Fauci...", one of the chief goons responds. The confluence is omnipresent. The fender stories have been well laid. The notion that we are engaged in a grand propaganda storm atop a grand propaganda storm can only lead to more propaganda storm. This is the means that were to be avoided. This is the failure of a system which used democracy as a check on capitalism, but which faltered and which democracy lost through a corrupt class of greed induced payola and an interknit set of control freaks freaking out at the prospect of socialism arriving in the U.$.A. Hence the red baiting; hence the relight of the cold war with Russia; the rigged election against Bernie Sanders; and yet still I do have the audacity of hope which Obama so transparently betrayed... or did he? Who got an independent into the democratic primary in every state? The nearly sole competitor to the anointed HRC; the woman we love to hate; the anti-JimmyCarter; the full insider with no actual skills other than political arm twisting in the shadows of her husband's coat tails.

Unwinding this mess will happen hopefully. The likes of Aaron Mate https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEXR8pRTkE2vFeJePNe9UcQ
will take it on just as Seymour Hirsch did in the past. I would gladly do Aaron's bidding should he need me. While you who feel the same about Rachel Maddow realize that you've been breathing foam all these years.

Hawking's numbers are really names for eternal quantity...
Math quantity counts... not names...

Mitchell Raemsch

I did not know that there was other guy doing stuff, it seems that he did not post too frequently
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/TNwh4rb9qGs/m/y5WM_hNGDAAJ

> tan(pi/2) is undefined. As such, arctan (y/0) is interpreted as pi/2 or 3pi/2 or any integer multiple thereof.
>> of the yenri, which is "old Japanese calculus" in a sense.

There are some japanese guys trying to push some division by zero and a 'yamada field' (another W included)
https://romanpub.com/dbzc-vol-1--2021.php

an old thread here
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/8dqpnerxmGs/m/0zaUqUjlX1AJ

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 3:54:51 PM UTC-7, michael Rodriguez wrote:
> I did not know that there was other guy doing stuff, it seems that he did not post too frequently
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/TNwh4rb9qGs/m/y5WM_hNGDAAJ
> > tan(pi/2) is undefined. As such, arctan (y/0) is interpreted as pi/2 or 3pi/2 or any integer multiple thereof.
> >> of the yenri, which is "old Japanese calculus" in a sense.
> There are some japanese guys trying to push some division by zero and a 'yamada field' (another W included)
> https://romanpub.com/dbzc-vol-1--2021.php
>
> an old thread here
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/8dqpnerxmGs/m/0zaUqUjlX1AJ

Sure, there are tons of methods.

Thank you for this interesting information.

Newton-Coates is really pretty great and for lots of means of calculation
and including how for numerical methods usually have variously the
rational forms, still is that analysis is free and includes real analysis.
Retro-finitism as a platform is fine, of course that it's an application.
Lots of methods after the planar trigonometry are interesting and often
from the perspective of numerical resources in numerical computing
with numerical methods in numerical approximation.

Various laws of large and small numbers, keep things interesting
where here these days I'm interested in Ramsey Theory and Birkhoff
or the lacunary, and boolean algebras with pathological topologies.
(Quasi-invariant measure theory after modern foundations with
sweep principle.) I have an approach in the geometric after
Vitali and Hausdorff into Banach-Tarski. (For measure theory.)

Basically looking for a good model of unipotential,
after the usual linear, what makes for free analysis
in solving problems under potential (as, for example,
in some theories of physics it's the potential fields
that are real).

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 6:54:51 PM UTC-4, michael Rodriguez wrote:
> I did not know that there was other guy doing stuff, it seems that he did not post too frequently
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/TNwh4rb9qGs/m/y5WM_hNGDAAJ

at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lORU03yuvY&t=14m
(turn off closed caption to view full text in pause mode)
it seems to me that he is doing some pattern matching over to the table on the right, but that his dropping of R[z1,z2,z3] in the expression of a triple and the lack of performance of an evaluation such as he just did lined up from there on a pair R[z1,z2] is inauthentic. I don't quite think I have the notation right here but I don't think he has it right either.
I don't mean to be insulting either. I barely understand the significance of what he is doing.
In modernity there is a MAC operation; multiply and accumulate; which seems nearby; from my simplistic perspective.

I do see a sort of educational trick here too of reusing a familiar symbol to mean something else which is as well a notational quagmire, yet which really works well because the familiarity of the symbol is not intimidating. I do suffer this sort of intimidation in mathematics. It seems as if he's broken through nicely, yet to come the other side completely I would think he'll land with another symbol rather than the bar that means division.

Recently I was pondering whether I've gotten the notation of polysign set up so as to be too repulsive in this same genera. The prime symbol to mean inversion, whereas the minus symbol once meant it... the reversal seems daunting, yet does sign one deserve better too? Already we do need a new zero sign. That MU is so important could indicate that it does require some such, or rather if this modification led to the adoption of polysign more easily then that would be relevant. The usage of a value as an operator is of course at the heart of the matter. That inversion was one of its meanings: this is more the context I suppose that matters. Negative versus minus versus inverse... synonyms? Not in polysign. That P2 maintains its form for actual computation consistent with the reals is not worth quibbling over; I suppose is where I land on this. Still, such review comes to mind when seeing your video above. I like the prime symbol as inversion though 'z may be better than z'. Hmmm... maybe that allows 'z' to be valid too. Now that's really confusing.

I see later polynomials and division, and of course polysign puzzles there.
To what degree does our polysign division algorithm lay in the general exponential form
z1^z2 ?
AP is off thinking exponents in terms of FLT whereas I'm on FTL.
Yet he's got me thinking that in high sign, and integers are signed, so they can be generalized to polysign, where arguably power solutions lay that are far easier to solve, even just on rudimentary values as they are used to working with as sn where s is sign n is a whole number... Then too we know that logarithms do make ease of multiplication and division as addition and subtraction. So then where is this construction in general dimension? In polysign? Does the difficulty of doing division indicate that it is not readily had?

Neat research links. Thanks. And thanks for not overloading us too.

> > tan(pi/2) is undefined. As such, arctan (y/0) is interpreted as pi/2 or 3pi/2 or any integer multiple thereof.
> >> of the yenri, which is "old Japanese calculus" in a sense.
> There are some japanese guys trying to push some division by zero and a 'yamada field' (another W included)
> https://romanpub.com/dbzc-vol-1--2021.php
>
> an old thread here
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.math/c/8dqpnerxmGs/m/0zaUqUjlX1AJ

On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 08:48:18 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:29:12 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 09:28:48 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > To what degree is geometry an early form of physics?
> > Geometry itself is about "earth measure", but the concepts that geometry uses has NOTHING to do with physics or anything else but sentient thought..

> I have to disagree with this overly purified claim.

You can disagree all you like. FACTS don't need anyone to agree that they are FACTS. Chuckle.

> When you trace out a circle the tool you use does matter.

You CANNOT trace out ANY circle regardless what tools you have. Do you even know what is a circle? For fuck sakes, you read my presentation (There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8) and called it a remarkable work. Now here you are right back to your vomit.

You CANNOT draw ANY geometric object. You CANNOT reproduce objects like POINTS or DISTANCE. They are intangible by definition.

.. IS NOT a point
____ IS NOT a line
o IS NOT a circle

What part of the above do you still NOT understand?

<drivel>

On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 06:05:22 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 6 juli 2021 kl. 00:11:30 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > Find out here:
> >
> > https://www.academia.edu/49478620/What_exactly_is_a_number_in_mathematics
> that is nothing but your PERSONAL opinion.

But of course! My personal opinion is based on FACTS, unlike the drivel one finds in mainstream math academia.

LMAO.

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 9:45:21 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 08:48:18 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:29:12 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 09:28:48 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > To what degree is geometry an early form of physics?
> > > Geometry itself is about "earth measure", but the concepts that geometry uses has NOTHING to do with physics or anything else but sentient thought.
>
> > I have to disagree with this overly purified claim.
> You can disagree all you like. FACTS don't need anyone to agree that they are FACTS. Chuckle.
> > When you trace out a circle the tool you use does matter.
> You CANNOT trace out ANY circle regardless what tools you have. Do you even know what is a circle? For fuck sakes, you read my presentation (There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8) and called it a remarkable work. Now here you are right back to your vomit.
>
> You CANNOT draw ANY geometric object. You CANNOT reproduce objects like POINTS or DISTANCE. They are intangible by definition.
>
> . IS NOT a point
> ____ IS NOT a line
> o IS NOT a circle
>
> What part of the above do you still NOT understand?
>
> <drivel>

Let's now go to a heating element at one end of a silicon rod. A 12 volt car battery with a current monitor exposes the energy instilled into the rod. A nice long time span will be used so that initial conditions are well accounted for. Even the heat loss exterior to the element, wrapped in insulating materials finalized by a tin can with several thermometers attached; several measuring ambient as well in a windless room. Energy in well accounted for. An ice bath at the other end of the rod. No better yet cryogenics. Steady state 1000 watts in and 1000 watts out. We insulate the rod over its length, installing thermometers as we go.100 watts in and 100 watts out. 10 watts in and 10 Watts out. 20, 30, 40, 50, ... all day long and a few months later a graph appears. This empirical data is all that we have to go from. No analysis portrays what is happening.Thermodynamics is still an open science.

It is somewhat by declaring openings rather than closures that I get my contributions in. I know that much of my language dwells in a place that cuts man down from on high up. I need that myself, and pretty clearly others here do as well. I don't mean to whip myself on the back or something like that. I however do feel that landing with two feet on good soft duff is very sweet. The footing for pole feet is wonderful too. Some places have nothing but mud and rivers and crazy terrain. But here in NH we are blessed with granite and duff. Apples and peaches. Blueberries and grapes. Some years cranberries too. Pine poles are treated as trash yet should be treasured. Brush as well has curious properties that were forgotten long ago. Assimilation: we are assimilated to a degree that is so understated in our culture; so easily reassimilated as well. Then too when these reassimilations yield conflicts how readily they can be swept clean by the human mind. We are made to get through a life of mine fields. How we will look back on the stupor of empire down the road: as the times were never better, yet somehow they weren't so good either. The idea of a new balance taking hold; one that is less like feeding a rabbid dog; that would be nice.

Meanwhile, back in number theory, of the degenerate usenet kind, it seems that children are the only ones who are authorities on the operations of addition and multiplication. Higher ups love to qualitatively describe these things, but they don't care to get down and dirty with them. In this way the ring operators are a fraud and a fuss about nothing at all. They have brought nothing burger upon us until they go instantiated. Once they do then the work falls apart at the polynomial level. That a+b could actually yield c somehow has gone amiss in the strains that the generals in charge have meandered away from. That math as a game of pin the tail on the donkey would come to be known as true but for physics... this then is the mantra that I keep alive.

On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 12:45:48 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 9:45:21 AM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 08:48:18 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 3:29:12 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 09:28:48 UTC-4, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To what degree is geometry an early form of physics?
> > > > Geometry itself is about "earth measure", but the concepts that geometry uses has NOTHING to do with physics or anything else but sentient thought.
> >
> > > I have to disagree with this overly purified claim.
> > You can disagree all you like. FACTS don't need anyone to agree that they are FACTS. Chuckle.
> > > When you trace out a circle the tool you use does matter.
> > You CANNOT trace out ANY circle regardless what tools you have. Do you even know what is a circle? For fuck sakes, you read my presentation (There are no axioms or postulates in sound mathematics - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vlU-PJeIk672bFwZyULD1ASTRFF3jXg8) and called it a remarkable work.. Now here you are right back to your vomit.
> >
> > You CANNOT draw ANY geometric object. You CANNOT reproduce objects like POINTS or DISTANCE. They are intangible by definition.
> >
> > . IS NOT a point
> > ____ IS NOT a line
> > o IS NOT a circle
> >
> > What part of the above do you still NOT understand?
> >
> > <drivel>
> Let's now go to a heating element at one end of a silicon rod. A 12 volt car battery with a current monitor exposes the energy instilled into the rod. A nice long time span will be used so that initial conditions are well accounted for. Even the heat loss exterior to the element, wrapped in insulating materials finalized by a tin can with several thermometers attached; several measuring ambient as well in a windless room. Energy in well accounted for. An ice bath at the other end of the rod. No better yet cryogenics. Steady state 1000 watts in and 1000 watts out. We insulate the rod over its length, installing thermometers as we go.100 watts in and 100 watts out. 10 watts in and 10 Watts out. 20, 30, 40, 50, ... all day long and a few months later a graph appears. This empirical data is all that we have to go from. No analysis portrays what is happening.Thermodynamics is still an open science.
>
> It is somewhat by declaring openings rather than closures that I get my contributions in. I know that much of my language dwells in a place that cuts man down from on high up. I need that myself, and pretty clearly others here do as well. I don't mean to whip myself on the back or something like that. I however do feel that landing with two feet on good soft duff is very sweet. The footing for pole feet is wonderful too. Some places have nothing but mud and rivers and crazy terrain. But here in NH we are blessed with granite and duff. Apples and peaches. Blueberries and grapes. Some years cranberries too. Pine poles are treated as trash yet should be treasured. Brush as well has curious properties that were forgotten long ago. Assimilation: we are assimilated to a degree that is so understated in our culture; so easily reassimilated as well. Then too when these reassimilations yield conflicts how readily they can be swept clean by the human mind. We are made to get through a life of mine fields. How we will look back on the stupor of empire down the road: as the times were never better, yet somehow they weren't so good either. The idea of a new balance taking hold; one that is less like feeding a rabbid dog; that would be nice.

More matter with less art...

>
> Meanwhile, back in number theory, of the degenerate usenet kind, it seems that children are the only ones who are authorities on the operations of addition and multiplication.

You should learn to say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't write long irrelevant essays even though it's quite clear you love writing.

> Higher ups love to qualitatively describe these things,

Do you perhaps by "higher ups" mean the baboons who run the academic trash heap? Just say so. No need to speak in riddles.

> but they don't care to get down and dirty with them.

It's not this at all. What can they do when they know that they DO NOT understand? Do you expect them to say so? It would be equivalent to revealing their irrelevance.

> In this way the ring operators are a fraud and a fuss about nothing at all.

Ring theory (like set theory) is a bunch of rot - just a shitload of rules that assume those things the prime orangutans have never understood.

> They have brought nothing burger upon us until they go instantiated.

Actually, the last laugh is on them! Chuckle. Students are beginning to awake to the New Enlightenment of the Gabrielean age of mathematics.

> Once they do then the work falls apart at the polynomial level.

It can't fall apart because being the mountain of shit that it is, it tends to be very cohesive.

> That a+b could actually yield c somehow has gone amiss in the strains that the generals in charge have meandered away from.

2+2 is one of the *definitions* of 4. There are innumerable others.

4 is very well defined as: _ _ _ _ / _ which is a name given to the measure of the antecedent part of the ratio _ _ _ _ : _ since both aliquot parts of the ratio are divisible by _

> That math as a game of pin the tail on the donkey would come to be known as true but for physics... this then is the mantra that I keep alive.