Russell Paradox revisited

[AntonioLao]

Russell Paradox destroyed the hope for establishing a true philosophy of mathematics grounded on its foundation. This was argued by Reuben Hersh that this idea “showed that intuitive logic is riskier than classical mathematics, for it led to contradictions in a way that never happens in arithmetic or geometry.” P148 of What is Mathematics, Really?, Oxford University Press, 1997. Set theory became complicated. It needed new axioms. One of these is the axiom of infinity. However, axiom of infinity is not enough to patch up set theory and be identified with logic in the philosophical sense as rules for correct reasoning.

On the other hand, Russell paradox indirectly but prioritized a demand that a quantum theory of the space-time continuum necessarily requires at the least eight directional invariance properties in order to describe physical reality and its concepts of quantum field, of mass, of energy, of force, of three spatial dimensions, and of one time dimension. Unavoidably, most effective physical laws incorporate some or all of these physical concepts. It is now imperative that a physical theory of quantized space-time must ultimately explicates these concepts using all or some of these eight directional invariance properties. Their topologies are equivalent to Möbius topology.

[mkirkpatrick]

Russell Paradox destroyed the hope for establishing a true philosophy of mathematics grounded on its foundation. This was argued by Reuben Hersh that this idea “showed that intuitive logic is riskier than classical mathematics, for it led to contradictions in a way that never happens in arithmetic or geometry.” P148 of What is Mathematics, Really?, Oxford University Press, 1997. Set theory became complicated. It needed new axioms. One of these is the axiom of infinity. However, axiom of infinity is not enough to patch up set theory and be identified with logic in the philosophical sense as rules for correct reasoning.

On the other hand, Russell paradox indirectly but prioritized a demand that a quantum theory of the space-time continuum necessarily requires at the least eight directional invariance properties in order to describe physical reality and its concepts of quantum field, of mass, of energy, of force, of three spatial dimensions, and of one time dimension. Unavoidably, most effective physical laws incorporate some or all of these physical concepts. It is now imperative that a physical theory of quantized space-time must ultimately explicates these concepts using all or some of these eight directional invariance properties. Their topologies are equivalent to Möbius topology.

Thanks Antonio,I just knew that Mobius had to be there somewhere!

regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

But it is not self-explanatory since it needs to be connected with two time's directions, both the past and the future.

[mkirkpatrick]

But it is not self-explanatory since it needs to be connected with two time's directions, both the past and the future.

That would pose a slight problem for Mobius then?


regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Not really. Mobius topology already incorporates all the directional invariance properties, to be exact, there are only eight of these properties. Spherical topology such as Riemannian geometry of Einstein's general relativity used at most only 4 by 4 of these properties. But a quantum theory of space-time must necessarily use all 8 directional invariance properties giving an 8 by 8 matrix as composite of 4 two by two symmetric Hadamard matrices.

[mkirkpatrick]

Not really. Mobius topology already incorporates all the directional invariance properties, to be exact, there are only eight of these properties. Spherical topology such as Riemannian geometry of Einstein's general relativity used at most only 4 by 4 of these properties. But a quantum theory of space-time must necessarily use all 8 directional invariance properties giving an 8 by 8 matrix as composite of 4 two by two symmetric Hadamard matrices.

Well then we almost have a solution?

regards michael

[AntonioLao]

The practical solution would be cold fusion using Hadamard matrices. There are special Hadamard matrices that when multiply together give the zero matrix of the same order or dimension. The zero matrix can then be used to describe the vanishing of mass and the force of gravity.

[mkirkpatrick]

The practical solution would be cold fusion using Hadamard matrices. There are special Hadamard matrices that when multiply together give the zero matrix of the same order or dimension. The zero matrix can then be used to describe the vanishing of mass and the force of gravity.

So what is the basic problem with cold fusion,after all its been over sixty years since the A bomb,whats up with our science these days?

regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

for cold fusion to succeed it desperately needs a quantum theory of space-time.

[mkirkpatrick]

for cold fusion to succeed it desperately needs a quantum theory of space-time.

Well its about time they got one,lets bang some heads together and see what arises!

regards michael.