East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

And perhaps there is a small space for some northern logic by our own Marty Waldman?

An audio link to a classic song, around these parts,

Yukon Paradise

http://www.musicyukon.com/main/?q=node/243

Regards,

'Wench

[SteveA]

e ................ motion (compound 'constant' rate of growth)
i ..................chaos
pi ................ideality

~*~

'tear down those walls'

This equation is not precise on infinitesimal scales either! It was defined by analogy with a physical circle and not proven to hold true over any infinitesimal scale. That "0" is deceptive - it's actually a collection of infinitesimal forms

e=lim((1+1/n)^n) as n->infinity

But so is

e=lim((1+1/n+1/n^2)^n) as n->infinity

And also

e=lim((1+1/(n^2))^2n) as n->infinity

and

e=lim(select another semi-random equation) as n->infinity

...

All of these forms represent different objects on infinitesimal scales - just like every hydrogen atom must be unique, otherwise they'd all be the same atom and indistinguishable. Space should describe a spectrum of properties that objects inherit a perceived position within it.

An interesting subject is regarding various forms of infinite growth - there are an infinite number of distinct forms of infinite growth that can all be constructed from a single largest infinite that holds them all in precise relationship to each other and allows for the exist of a "coherent space" to exist between their interactions - much like a single infinite line as the trunk of a tree and everything else growing off it as scaffolding determined by an infinite number of possible mathematical forms (and then place these in terms of the conscious view of reality as various qualities of experiences and if there truly exists something infinite the possibilities are endless).

For example, we could construct the equivalent of a number line of magnitudes of infinite growth, like this (and these are just some simple examples):

-Infinity < -Infinity ^ 1/2 < 0 < 1/Infinity < 1 < log_m(log_n(Infinity)) < log_n(Infinity) < Infinity

And similar to real numbers, construct an infinite number line, recursively subdividing line segments.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by SB_UK


e ................ motion (compound 'constant' rate of growth)
i ..................chaos
pi ................ideality

~*~

'tear down those walls'

Hey Steve, go suck a big zero. If you somehow think you can contribute more to fundamental math than Euler did, then show us__give us your perfect universal formula, or keep the clap-trap to yourself. If not then listen to this Song__Yukon Paradise...

Math for Steve: Take two true infinite size perfect circles(no lim), and develop the log infinitesimals' functors(cos, sin of) between them, of such infinite Venn diagram analogy.

This equation is not precise on infinitesimal scales either!

No Sh*t...

e=lim((1+1/n)^n) as n->infinity But so is e=lim((1+1/n+1/n^2)^n) as n->infinity And also e=lim((1+1/(n^2))^2n) as n->infinity and e=lim(select another semi-random equation) as n->infinity...

And your point is...?

An interesting subject is regarding various forms of infinite growth... ...the possibilities are endless).

Infinite logically, is unprovable/unreachable by math. Cantor's pseudo-infinite infinitesimals were exceeded by Brouwer. And yes I'm familiar with IPM/APM+++...

For example, we could construct the equivalent of a number line of magnitudes of infinite growth, like this (and these are just some simple examples):

-Infinity < -Infinity ^ 1/2 < 0 < 1/Infinity < 1 < log_m(log_n(Infinity)) < log_n(Infinity) < Infinity

And similar to real numbers, construct an infinite number line, recursively subdividing line segments.

And your point, other than still playing tag with the mice in the sun...?

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by SB_UK


e ................ motion (compound 'constant' rate of growth)
i ..................chaos
pi ................ideality

~*~

'tear down those walls'

Hey Steve, go suck a big zero. If you somehow think you can contribute more to fundamental math than Euler did, then show us__give us your perfect universal formula, or keep the clap-trap to yourself. If not then listen to this Song__Yukon Paradise...

(You don't know how typical your reply is)

What I said was perfectly correct. There are an infinite number of possible forms by which, e, the base of the natural log can be constructed and those I listed are just some of them:

(This one is the definition, but it's actually incorrect in some ways. It actually describes a spiral growth, unless a precise infinite quantity is used and that's generally overlooked)
e=lim((1+1/n)^n) as n->infinity

Here's a numeric example of the convergence:
f(n)=(1+1/n)^n
f(1)=(1+1/1)^1=2
f(10)=(1+1/10)^10~=2.593
f(100)=(1+1/100)^100~=2.708
f(1000)=(1+1/1000)^1000~=2.717
...
e~=2.718

And as I said, we can take a different form of structural growth, yet describe the same real numbered point of convergence:

e=lim((1+1/n+1/n^2)^n) as n->infinity

So we have:
f(n)=(1+1/n+1/n^2)^n
f(1)=(1+1/1+1/1^2)^1=3
f(10)=(1+1/10+1/100)^10~=2.839
f(100)=(1+1/100+1/10000)^100~=2.732
f(1000)=(1+1/1000+10^-6)^1000~=2.720
...
e~=2.718

And also I said:
e=lim((1+1/(n^2))^2n) as n->infinity

Which you can verify for yourself if you want.

You believe I suck a big zero, but you didn't bother to think for yourself.

What does it gain you misrepresenting your thoughts? Does this improve something for you in life? Does it enable you to do better in some or is it simply a habit that's crippling?

Math for Steve: Take two true infinite size perfect circles(no lim), and develop the log infinitesimals' functors(cos, sin of) between them, of such infinite Venn diagram analogy.

They can both be infinite yet one be infinitesimally smaller than the other. You failed to tie your infinities together and so their relative sizes is indeterminate.

Notice that if there is an infinitesimal divergence over a complete cycle, then over an infinite number of cycles, the divergence can grow infinite and the circle is effectively a plane and not a circle (such is the case with the fourier transform and this also makes the Riemann Hypothesis indeterminate)

For example, if we construct a complex version of e (a single radian rotation in the complex plane) as:

e(complex)=lim((1+i/n)^n) as n->infinity

Notice that we have a vector tangent to a circle that points outward and does not align two points on the same perimeter.

If we continually rotate this over something like n^2 radians, we get a spiraling outward that isn't normally considered.

I really can't bother to get into this if you're not interested though. It would just be a waste of both of our times.

No Sh*t...

And your point is...?

Infinite logically, is unprovable/unreachable by math. Cantor's pseudo-infinite infinitesimals were exceeded by Brouwer. And yes I'm familiar with IPM/APM+++...

They never fixed it. The real number system has been rewritten over and over again (we're on something like the 7th revision and they continually claim to have finally recognized the problem and then they just obscure it with more reams of supposed proofs). Irrational numbers aren't 1-D objects and we have entire families of progressions of various forms of numbers - it's like a periodic table that never stops because we can always think of something yet another layer deeper in complexity.

And your point, other than still playing tag with the mice in the sun...?

If you see no significance, then it has no point for you specifically, but I see it correlated to objects that exist with fractional dimensional forms (quite an interesting and infinite tree of very naturally appearing objects http://www.cavin.name/CSE/en/Fractal...nal_dimension/)

You did start this thread. If you don't want me to post on it, just let me know and I won't. Your choice

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(You don't know how typical your reply is)

Steve, the only point is you are posting what I already know, and it's boring...

You did start this thread. If you don't want me to post on it, just let me know and I won't. Your choice

Steve, you are welcome to post, as I already stated, but how about pertaining the content to the content of this thread, and not your own personal vendetta against the math boogie-man...

p.s.
All new members always post too 'all over the place', I think to fit, as I did also years ago, but you'll fit much faster if you learn to relate directly to the people who own the threads, when your in them. It's just like entering someone's home, you respect the home and its owners or you get thrown out. So, relax a bit and get your bearings. It's simple, it's the courtesy of visiting people in their own homes, not the drunk's bar, down the street...

[MJA]

Originally Posted by SB_UK
If you somehow think you can contribute more to fundamental math than Euler did, then show us__give us your perfect universal formula, or keep the clap-trap to yourself.

I can!

=
MJA

[SB_UK]

- much like a single infinite line as the trunk of a tree and everything else growing off it as scaffolding determined by an infinite number of possible mathematical forms (and then place these in terms of the conscious view of reality as various qualities of experiences and if there truly exists something infinite the possibilities are endless).

---Figure 1---
~s larger~

---Figure 2---


If we hold the continuous structure at the connection between wings and extend -

---Figure 3---
_()_()_()_()_ ........... -> n=24
_()_()_()_()

== (structurally) ==


---Figure 4---


- the orange line (above) is in the plane of Frankenstein's neck bolts

== (structurally) ==

---Figure 5---


turn image 90 degrees CCW


and then encircle our planetary equator and not the poles with -


---Figure 5---
-
- the orange line (above) runs from top /\
- the orange line (above) runs from top '| to bottom in
- the orange line (above) runs from top \/
the metaphase s-p-r-e-a-d above.

~*~

The Lorenz attractor (butterfly) when spread takes on the exact same structure which the chromosomes adopt during division.

~*~

Division -> e (Euler's number)
- because the chromosome doubles in its entirety (100% growth).

Explanation from wikiP references -> betterexplained.com
The basis to Compound growth

- a basic system that doubles after a unit of time [compounds to e (Euler's number (x 2.7)) and not to x 2 after that unit time lapse].

- the image below features the compound growth of stuff where '1' unit of stuff is defined to double to '2' units of stuff
- every 12 months.



The final value after 12 months is: 1 + 1 + .33 + .04 or about 2.37 [Euler's number].

~*~

The pattern of ---Figure 2--- to---Figure 3--- appears to be the commonality here.

---Figure 2--- represents the compact form with ---Figure 3--- representing the expanded form of the same image.

---Figure 2---and---Figure 3---are eversions of one another -
representing the compact,compressed seed which
... by turning itself inside out and expanding sequentially -
through incorporation of water ??
... ... generates a tree.

~*~

O spherical seed -> () oval tree
() oval seed -> O circular tree

-> conker -> horse chestnut tree
-> acorn -> oak tree

? rather than oval and spherical -
- how about the two axes of polarity -
one of which is more subtle than the other


Polarity 1 - more obvious

'/\ ....apical
\_/ ...basal

Polarity 2 - less obvious (but there)

left < ) right

->-

representing the formation of a structure from orthogonally arranged geometric duals -
- the icosahedron and the dodecahedron.

~*~


General point

A continuous line (- the orange line (---Figures 3,4,5---)) which is growing (dividing) constantly (-> e)
- where the growth comes from recruiting -> i into an ever increasing structure which tends towards
- though never reaches the perfect circle -> pi




e ^ (i x pi) = -1

equals
=

... ... ... meaning that

Reality is defined over Exponential growth

- 'there's always change'
no standing still.

[melanie]

you are posting what I already know, and it's boring...

The '' I '' doesn't know, for it is already the known.

That's why the already known appears /seems boring to you, who ever you are ?

[SB_UK]

I can!
=
MJA

=
- where = is not a static relationship as in x = 3
- instead -
is a statement of equality to exponential growth ... ...

'- always change
(constant rate of change)'

The continuous line may be considered the ever increasing circumference of the outermost ripple caused by a stone being thrown into the lake

- equality is maintained -
as long as we see the equality to a structure which is undergoing constant (hence e) rate of (doubling)
change.

top

bottom


bottom -> top
- exponential growth (constantly exponentially) by compounding growth.

[melanie]

Steve, the only point is you are posting what I already know, and it's boring...

Steve, you are welcome to post, as I already stated, but how about pertaining the content to the content of this thread, and not your own personal vendetta against the math boogie-man...

p.s.
All new members always post too 'all over the place', I think to fit, as I did also years ago, but you'll fit much faster if you learn to relate directly to the people who own the threads, when your in them. It's just like entering someone's home, you respect the home and its owners or you get thrown out. So, relax a bit and get your bearings. It's simple, it's the courtesy of visiting people in their own homes, not the drunk's bar, down the street...

We're not talking about a persons home though, that is just an excuse for not wanting to listen to something new,
it's like you are closing your mind, rather than keeping it open to the new,
you might believe there is nothing new under the sun, and that is true, but remember there are infinite number of ways to express everything.

Steve in my opinion has a very beautiful mind, and he is only trying to express that here, you should be happy about that, and not talk to him like an idiot.

You are just plain rude, and people don't see through it because they don't want to rock the boat.
That's why reality sucks right now, because people are afraid to stick their neck on the line.

There's NOBODY HOME, what didn't you know that?, and i thought there was nothing you didn't know.
As i've already stated before there's no room in here for two.
The phantom need not show up to it's own show.

Why can't you respect the ideas of other posters too?
I don't see any other posters dis-respecting your thread, it's just you, or are you scared that someone knows something you don't know.
This is not your house, it is an open public discussion forum for people to offer their differing thoughts/ideas/and concepts.

If we are going to fight over who's territory it is, then where are the improvements going to me made?

Without getting ego personal with other free thinking out of the box individuals,shouldn't they too have their say?

And go on throw me out of your house Lloyd, no wait, don't bother, i'm already leaving.

By the way, it's better to suck zeros, because that's where the real truth is.

Not sucking ass because we've all got them and they all ...well you know!