| |
 | |
 | |
Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,010
| |
10-02-2005, 03:39 PM
| |
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Last edited by AntonioLao; 10-03-2005 at 01:04 PM.
| | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,010
| |
10-03-2005, 01:18 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE Why does it impply that complex numbers are algebraicallt closed? | It can be closed by two defined binary operations. Usually, it is addition and multiplication. But first, we need to defined a group, a ring, as well as a field. For the particular type of number we have in mind, it could be closed in a field but not in a ring or in a group. Therefore, a group is a bigger set than the ring or the field. Closed means that whatever you do to the number by the two binary operations, the resulting number belong in the field. If it is outside the field, then it went into the ring, if it is outside the ring, then it went into the group.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48  | |
10-03-2005, 01:29 PM
| | What is smaller the ring or the group? | | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,010
| |
10-03-2005, 01:33 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE What is smaller the ring or the group? | As far as algebraic properties, the group is more restrictive. But its membership could be more.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48 | |
10-03-2005, 01:45 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao As far as algebraic properties, the group is more restrictive. But its membership could be more. | Yes, I know that membership is not necesarily related. I meant as algebraic properties.
Now, is there a possibility that a new field of numbers is created/discovered? | | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,010
| |
10-03-2005, 01:54 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE Now, is there a possibility that a new field of numbers is created/discovered? | The H+ and H- of quantized space couldnt possibly belong to a group or a ring or a field, maybe a ring but they show multiple levels of rings? They dont have any inverses that is to say that their determinants are zeros.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48 | |
10-03-2005, 01:59 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao The H+ and H- of quantized space couldnt possibly belong to a group or a ring or a field, maybe a ring but they show multiple levels of rings? They dont have any inverses that is to say that their determinants are zeros. | But I mean numerically. Could it be that we arrive to a mathematicla problem that none o fthe numbers that enter in: 
And inhacing in the eqution the hypercomplex and hyper real numbers.
Then, if none of those numbers ciould help to solve this problem, could it be that a new field of numbers, like a 3rd dimension (one dimension are real numbers and another dimension are imaginary numbers), coudl it be that it is discovered/created in roder to solve the problem? | | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,010
| |
10-03-2005, 02:14 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE could it be that a new field of numbers | Similar to the binary system of numbers using 0 and 1. The universal number system use 1 and infinity.
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | The Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,278
48 | |
10-03-2005, 04:14 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by AntonioLao Similar to the binary system of numbers using 0 and 1. The universal number system use 1 and infinity. | Doesn't it actually use 0 to infinity?
When I come back from prague I will make a short paper explaining what I mean and why it's so important. | | | | Raider of the lost time
Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 6,010
| |
10-03-2005, 04:35 PM
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by GUILLE Doesn't it actually use 0 to infinity? | Only if space and time axes are connected. I have shown this to be false, that they are simultaneously connected at the exact value of 1 and infinity (not a value by definition).
__________________
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
| | | | | |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
VBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys.
| |
of degree 
has 
values 
(some of them possibly degenerate) for which 
. Such values are called polynomial roots. An example of a polynomial with a single root of multiplicity <IMG class=inlineformula height=15 alt=">1" src="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/FundamentalTheoremofAlgebra/inline7.gif" width=24 border=0> is 
, which has 
as a root of multiplicity 2. 
