Zero or no quantity math and absolute values of quantity.
Your quantity line only goes to the right to sizes of infinity
beginning at no quantity.

mitchr...@gmail.com brought next idea :
> Zero or no quantity math and absolute values of quantity.
> Your quantity line only goes to the right to sizes of infinity
> beginning at no quantity.

Then it is not a line, but a ray.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:13:21 PM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com brought next idea :
> > Zero or no quantity math and absolute values of quantity.
> > Your quantity line only goes to the right to sizes of infinity
> > beginning at no quantity.
> Then it is not a line, but a ray.

No. it is a segment. and it is straight....

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Zero or no quantity math and absolute values of quantity. Your quantity
> line only goes to the right to sizes of infinity beginning at no
> quantity.

hi Mitch, nice to mitch you. Here's a nazi "ukrainian" eating another nazi
"ukrainian", thinking it was russian. Remark the cat running away. If
anybody still don't believe the Bible, read my lips.

Nazi cannibalism https://www.bitchute.com/video/vYRVXgL0uwOz/

Irish newspaper, front page - 'Pfizer knew their vaccines would kill'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/71yrzYhbvWMA/

Top 5 Reasons Your Car Is Smoking Out the Tailpipe - And How to Diagnose
Them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQUJfTWNG98

Zelensky's henchmen continue to eliminate dissenting views
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iLBi2hKvHJaL/

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:13:21 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com brought next idea :
> > Zero or no quantity math and absolute values of quantity.
> > Your quantity line only goes to the right to sizes of infinity
> > beginning at no quantity.
> Then it is not a line, but a ray.

Not even a ray.
Pure magnitude afaict.
The true ray is zero dimensional.
It's unidirectional nature is that of time itself.
Who needs wave function collapse when time does it for you?
What is ray behaved better than light itself?
How old is the photon that you see from a pair of binoculars aimed at Andromeda?
zero seconds, according to relativity theory.
Is a point zero dimensional?
Why then does it need dimensions to be addressed?
When you jot down a point on a piece of paper, say with an x and y axis denoted, and you get two dimensions for that point as say (1.2,3.4), and you walk away from your desk for a cup of coffee, look back and see that point from away are its rays emanating in every direction, and you get a glimmer of Descarte's 'trick of the eye'.
How far did the photon travel in its own reference frame? It is nill, sir, at the speed of light, which is as it was, zero seconds old somehow connecting positions in spacetime of disparate sorts.

Well, there is another way through, and if only Mitch would get over his sign leprosy he could meander into the unidirectional ray and its zero dimensional nature, as could you, fellow onlooker. We simply pop the top on the real value:
-1+1 = 0 : two-signed numbers
-1+1*1 = 0 : three-signed numbers
-1+1*1#1=0 : four-signed numbers (P4)
but look the other way for what we discuss here:
-1 = 0 : one-signed numbers (P1)
that these statements develop the vector geometry of these systems is completely foreign to modern mathematics, but for a few who have absorbed these details. The real line is so because of its balanced rays. No Cartesian product is needed to progress to the plane. The three-signed numbers get us there directly. As such the real value as fundamental is suspect. It is but a member in a family
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
all obeying the same rules in their own signature. While P1 may be zero dimensional in geometrical terms it can still do algebra:
(-2)(-3) = -6 ; - 2 - 3 = - 5 .
That these render to naught geometrically is tantamount to time.
To understand the progression balance three rays. You will eventually understand the plane in a new primitive form:
- z + z * z = 0
Yes, this works just fine too.
Mark three symmetrically spaced (120 degrees apart) rays on a piece of paper and see for yourself. P4 are four rays from the center of their simplex (the tetrahedron) out to the vertices. Skip the framework. Just the rays. They balance to zero, no? The term geometric algebra has been taken already, but clearly these descriptors are a perfect match. The product is easily discovered and it happens that P2 are the real numbers, so they've more been found than lost. Algebra in any dimension is available through polysign, but so much more is intact in polysign that ordinary mathematics looks a bit of a fraud in hindsight. Still, it is not as if physics just comes along for the ride, and until physics and polysign meet, and not so squarely, then the can of worms lays open. Emergent spacetime is available in polysign but making physical sense of the arithmetic product is not straight forward at all.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 2:16:01 PM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:13:21 PM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com brought next idea :
> > > Zero or no quantity math and absolute values of quantity.
> > > Your quantity line only goes to the right to sizes of infinity
> > > beginning at no quantity.
> > Then it is not a line, but a ray.
> Not even a ray.
> Pure magnitude afaict.
> The true ray is zero dimensional.
> It's unidirectional nature is that of time itself.
> Who needs wave function collapse when time does it for you?
> What is ray behaved better than light itself?
> How old is the photon that you see from a pair of binoculars aimed at Andromeda?
> zero seconds, according to relativity theory.
> Is a point zero dimensional?
> Why then does it need dimensions to be addressed?
> When you jot down a point on a piece of paper, say with an x and y axis denoted, and you get two dimensions for that point as say (1.2,3.4), and you walk away from your desk for a cup of coffee, look back and see that point from away are its rays emanating in every direction, and you get a glimmer of Descarte's 'trick of the eye'.
> How far did the photon travel in its own reference frame? It is nill, sir, at the speed of light, which is as it was, zero seconds old somehow connecting positions in spacetime of disparate sorts.
>
> Well, there is another way through, and if only Mitch would get over his sign leprosy he could meander into the unidirectional ray and its zero dimensional nature, as could you, fellow onlooker. We simply pop the top on the real value:
> -1+1 = 0 : two-signed numbers
> -1+1*1 = 0 : three-signed numbers
> -1+1*1#1=0 : four-signed numbers (P4)
> but look the other way for what we discuss here:
> -1 = 0 : one-signed numbers (P1)
> that these statements develop the vector geometry of these systems is completely foreign to modern mathematics, but for a few who have absorbed these details. The real line is so because of its balanced rays. No Cartesian product is needed to progress to the plane. The three-signed numbers get us there directly. As such the real value as fundamental is suspect. It is but a member in a family
> P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
> all obeying the same rules in their own signature. While P1 may be zero dimensional in geometrical terms it can still do algebra:
> (-2)(-3) = -6 ; - 2 - 3 = - 5 .
> That these render to naught geometrically is tantamount to time.
> To understand the progression balance three rays. You will eventually understand the plane in a new primitive form:
> - z + z * z = 0
> Yes, this works just fine too.
> Mark three symmetrically spaced (120 degrees apart) rays on a piece of paper and see for yourself. P4 are four rays from the center of their simplex (the tetrahedron) out to the vertices. Skip the framework. Just the rays. They balance to zero, no? The term geometric algebra has been taken already, but clearly these descriptors are a perfect match. The product is easily discovered and it happens that P2 are the real numbers, so they've more been found than lost. Algebra in any dimension is available through polysign, but so much more is intact in polysign that ordinary mathematics looks a bit of a fraud in hindsight. Still, it is not as if physics just comes along for the ride, and until physics and polysign meet, and not so squarely, then the can of worms lays open. Emergent spacetime is available in polysign but making physical sense of the arithmetic product is not straight forward at all.
It started to feel as though we were getting somewhere, but then something bad happened. Some posts disappeared, and an attempt to cover a valid analysis ensues. That the vector and the ray are one: now we need interdimensional analysis to even get here.
Why? Because, that first real line that your gradeschool teacher drew on the chalkboard was drawn in a plane. That plane was in a volumetric space, to the degree that we can understand the space which we inhabit. Beyond the problem of accessing the fundaments of spacetime
It started to feel as though we were getting somewhere, but then something bad happened. Some posts disappeared, and an attempt to cover a valid analysis ensues. That the vector and the ray are one: now we need interdimensional analysis to even get here.
Why? Because, that first real line that your gradeschool teacher drew on the chalkboard was drawn in a plane. That plane was in a volumetric space, to the degree that we can understand the space which we inhabit. Beyond the problem of accessing the fundaments of spacetime as colloidals in it, we can develop from thin air systems which exhibit similar structural behaviors, but whether we can guarantee that a model which depicts the situation is "The Basis", well, rather a lot has to fall out of such a model, and given the state of accumulation and its rampant rate of increase it is easily stated that we have not arrived yet. No: jumping through hoops for twenty or so years of your life will not get you there. No: developing habituated thought patterns which rely upon the same set of rules that are now becoming globalized as curricularly correct will only ensure your insulation from such a truth. The game cleanly stated is a matter of rule breaking. Of course complete anarchy puts you back as a blank slate, and some like to go to such an infantile place. Those Zen masters drooling in their beards with glee; perhaps one will find the way. We are only little better than Shakespear's monkeys in this pursuit.

The vector, Victor, is not really so old. It all gets swept into linear algebra, spat back out onto some old Chinese square game or something. If that isn't a diversion I don't know what would be.

There is a sense of collapse as one ponders P1; arguably the first of the polysign systems. This interpretation comes differently than the usual Cartesian thinking. P2 is a sibling to P1; not a post-generate. P3 likewise, and so forth:
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
Still, as we render these; typically on paper, or on a computer display, we have the puzzle of projection to address. I have what I believe to be valid projection code in Pn, yet mostly we think of projecting down from higher dimensions to as colloidals in it, we can develop from thin air systems which exhibit similar structural behaviors, but whether we can guarantee that a model which depicts the situation is "The Basis", well, rather a lot has to fall out of such a model, and given the state of accumulation and its rampant rate of increase it is easily stated that we have not arrived yet. No: jumping through hoops for twenty or so years of your life will not get you there. No: developing habituated thought patterns which rely upon the same set of rules that are now becoming globalized as curricularly correct will only ensure your insulation from such a truth. The game cleanly stated is a matter of rule breaking. Of course complete anarchy puts you back as a blank slate, and some like to go to such an infantile place. Those Zen masters drooling in their beards with glee; perhaps one will find the way. We are only little better than Shakespear's monkeys in this pursuit.

The vector, Victor, is not really so old. It all gets swept into linear algebra, spat back out onto some old Chinese square game or something. If that isn't a diversion I don't know what would be.

There is a sense of collapse as one ponders P1; arguably the first of the polysign systems. This interpretation comes differently than the usual Cartesian thinking. P2 is a sibling to P1; not a post-generate. P3 likewise, and so forth:
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 ...
Still, as we render these; typically on paper, or on a computer display, we have the puzzle of projection to address. I have what I believe to be valid projection code in Pn, yet mostly we think of projecting down from higher dimensions to two dimensions, and as usual I have to make a note that this term 'dimensional' is a Cartesian term. I do not mean to abuse it.

We have to address the lowlies now. When we inject a P2 line onto the plane did it sweep out the plane? Could it have? Should it have? Or should it be invisibly thin in your rendering? We know that we choose a finite thickness to draw that line in the plane with. And so our first misrepresentation is made. As to the level of ambiguity: I believe that our intent is toward the thin invisible version. Then in hindsight of polysign along comes P1. In its own terms it claims zero dimensional status via the general law of balance:
- x = 0 [P1]
and this law is tantamount to the rendering operation, though that sensibility comes in its own space; not in a higher space. So now how we handle these interdimensional concerns plays out as options that we investigate. Surely it would be excellent to settle upon one option rather than bifurcate the system. Yet in my mind this P1 action and its correspondence with the photon and all the relativistic thought that goes along that way exposes a P1 path that has closed space. It has joined distant positions and passed something along. Yet here we are seemingly doing pure mathematics, and no concerns of energy are involved.

"Well, that is old light", said the astronomer to a new pup: "You see how red it is? If we shift the spectrum up about 100 nanometers you'll see the hydrogen lines work out. We are so fortunate that we can work these things through." The student looked up from the work skeptically, nodded his head, and said: "Yes, I can see that it will work out."