The New Mathematics

Toward a New Multi-Dimensional Scalar Number System 

Posted on Monday, October 19, 2015 at 04:42AM by Registered CommenterDoug | CommentsPost a Comment

I’ve played around with number systems in the LRC’s New Math blog for years, but until a recent email exchange with my daughter Michele, I had not given it much thought for some time.

To my dismay, however, I started thinking about it again and, now, I cannot get it out of my mind. Readers of the blog might recall how one of my favorite topics in mathematics is how math, employed in theoretical physics, has developed historically.

I like to start with Sir William Hamilton and his discovery and fascination with quaternions (see here.) I first learned about it from David Hestenes, who more or less resurrected the idea of quaternions, in connection with his work on his Geometric Algebra.

Not being a mathematician, or even one inclined to the subject, my interest was driven by the implications of scalar motion, which seemed to me to be almost, if not entirely neglected by everyone except Dewey Larson and his followers.

Just before the disagreement within ISUS drove me to organize the LRC, I had given some thought to expressing the fundamental ideas of Larson numerically. I had this idea that the numbers 1/2, 1/1, 2/1 could be used to quantify the RST concepts of material and cosmic sector space and time displacements, as defined by Larson.

But soon, I realized that these one-dimensional numbers, if they were to be useful to express scalar motion entities, would have to be extended to multi-dimensional numbers, and this eventually led me to understand the great disconnect in modern number systems, as mathematicians tried to understand how to extend non-scalar motion, or vector motion, to multi-dimensions.

Ironically enough, it was Hamilton’s discovery of quaternions that led the way to the derailment, even though it was he who complained most eloquently about the use of so-called imaginary numbers, which eventually were to enable him to form quaternions, ironically enough. However, this use of imaginary numbers to increase the dimensions of ordinary, or scalar numbers, has led to pathological algebras, which I’ve talked about many times (e.g. see here.)

The fact is, only the algebra of one-dimensional numbers is non-pathological. The two-dimensional complex numbers lose the order property of scalar algebra, while the three-dimensional quaternions lose both the order property and the commutative property, and the octonians, which would be four-dimensional numbers, add associativity to the lost properties of multi-dimensional numbers.

Of course, if we consider scalars as zero-dimensional numbers, then complex numbers would be one-dimensional, quaternions would be two-dimensional and octonions would be three-dimensional, which would help clear up the understanding of non-mathematicians, with a geometric perspective, letting them relate the number systems to the corresponding geometrical concepts of point, line, area and volume.

However, the mathematicians look at numbers as algebraic operators, and they like to designate their dimensions in those terms, so an algebraic expression of complex numbers, with two terms, z = (a + bi), for example, is considered two-dimensional, and an expression of quaternions, with four terms, H = (a+bi+cj+dk), is considered four-dimensional, and one of octonions, with eight terms, a scalar number and seven imaginary numbers, is considered eight-dimensional.

Thus, unfortunately, the dimensions of algebra, lose their direct correlation with the dimensions of geometry, among the mathematicians. Nevertheless, we were able to show how the dimensions of numbers are indeed correlated with the dimensions of geometry, when viewed through the tetraktys and Larson’s Cube (e.g. see here.)

With all this as prelude, we come to the core of this blog entry: What can replace the multi-dimensional vector aglebra of today’s number systems, based on imaginary numbers? The answer is a multi-dimensional scalar algebra, based on ratio, which is the mathematical corollary to motion. In the set of zero-dimensional numbers, correlated with geometric points, the members of the set are the familiar rationals called integers and their inverses:

1/n, …1/3, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1…, n/1

We can say that this set is based on multiples of the scalar unit 10 = 1, but what about a higher dimensional set based on multiples of the linear unit 11? What would its members look like? Or a set based on multiples of the square unit 12? What would its members look like? Or a set based on multiples of the cube unit 13?

The problem is that, in algebra, 10 = 11 = 12 = 13= 1 = (1x1) = (1x1x1), while in geometry, a unit point is a zero dimensional magnitude (10), differentiated from a unit line, which is a one-dimensional magnitude (11), differentiated from a unit area, which is a two-dimensional magnitude (12), and differentiated from a unit volume, which is a three-dimensional magnitude (13). 

These multi-dimensional, geometric entities are not algebraically inter-operable. How do you multiply or divide a line times an area, or a point times a volume, or how do you add and subtract them from one another? You can’t, because the geometric dimensions of these units differ, while the dimensions, represented by the exponents in the corresponding algebra are not even dimensions in the same sense.

Unlike geometric dimensions, where each dimension is an orthogonal magnitude, the algebraic dimensions are not orthogonal magnitudes, but simply denote a number of factors in the expression of a mathematical operation.

However, if we recognize this difference, we can change the meaning of the exponents, so that:

0D = 10 = unit point

1D = 11/2= unit line

2D = 21/2 = unit area

3D = 31/2 = unit volume

This may appear to be a strange suggestion, but there is a way to employ these multi-dimensional numerical units, as geometric units, by utilizing a geometric theorem: the theorem of Pathagoras. Thus, given

n = 1, 2, 3, …, ∞,

Unit point = (12)1/2;

Unit line = (n2)1/2;

Unit area = (n2 + n2)1/2;

Unit volume = (n2 + n2 + n2)1/2.

On this basis, the members of the 0D scalar set, based on unit point numbers, are noted as before:

1)  1/n, …1/3, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1…, n/1,

But the members of the 1D linear set, based on unit line numbers, are:

2)  1/n(12)1/2, …1/3(12)1/2, 1/2(12)1/2, (12)1/2/(12)1/2, 2(12)1/2/1, 3(12)1/2/1…, n(12)1/2/1.

The members of the 2D square set, based on unit area numbers, are:

1)  1/(n2+n2)1/2, …1/(32+32)1/2, 1/(22+22)1/2, (12+12)1/2/(12+12)1/2, (22+22)1/2/1, (32+32)1/2/1…, (n2+n2)1/2/1.

The members of the 3D cube set, based on unit cube numbers, are:

1)  1/(n2+n2+n2)1/2, …1/(32+32+32)1/2, 1/(22+22+22)1/2, (12+12+12)1/2/(12+12+12)1/2,(22+22+22)1/2/1, (32+32+32)1/2/1…, (n2+n2+n2)1/2/1.

If these multi-dimensional number sets turn out to have the properties required for mathematical groups, then their members should be able to be algebraically manipulated, with no pathology in the higher dimensions, as is now found in the higher dimensions of the legacy number system, based on imaginary numbers.

Some of the group properties are easily seen in the new sets. For instance, the identity element of all of them is equal to 1, which implies that multiplication by it will not change a member of the set. Also, a member of the set, when multiplied by its inverse is equal to 1. I think all the other group properties should hold as well, but I haven’t tested them to see.

For example, in the 2D case, the second element multiplied by its inverse element is:

Given x = sqrt(n), written in the form of the Pathagorean theorem, then:

(x)*(1/(x)) = 
sqrt(2)*(1/(sqrt(2))) =
(12+12)1/2 * (1/(12+12)1/2 = ((12+12)1/2)/((12+12)1/2) = 1

Now, when each element is divided by its inverse, the 1D elements are squared, giving us the progression series,

1) e/(1/e) = e2 = 1, 2, 3, …n2,

while the 2D elements divided by their inverses produce the progression series:

2) e/(1/e) = e2 = 2, 8, 18, …2(n2),

and then the 3D elements divided by their inverses, produce the progression series

3) e/(1/e) = e2 = 3, 12, 27, …3(n2)

We can visualize these multi-dimensional, geometric numbers graphically, by drawing the unit ball inside the Larson cube, which just contains it, and drawing a second ball that just contains Larson’s cube. Taking a 2D slice of the 3D result, we get the graphic of figure 1 below: 

Figure 1.                                                                                                               

Note that the graphic of figure 1 does not illustrate the 1D linear number system in Larson’s cube, as it does the 2D and 3D systems. This is because I did not understand at the time I first made the graphic that, just as our RSt here at the LRC differs from Larson’s RSt, in that it BEGINS with 3D entities, the 3D oscillations of SUDRs and TUDRs, rather than with the 1D entities, the 1D oscillations of photons, with which Larson’s RSt begins, so too should our new number systems.

We can do this by writing one system equation, with three values of n: n1, n2, n3, in the 3D equation of the Pathagorean theorem, as follows:

e/(1/e) = e2 = ((n12 + n22 + n32)1/2)/(1/((n12 + n22 + n32)1/2),

where n2 and n3 = 0, for the 1D system,

and n3 = 0, for the 2D system. 

The result is the three progression series, 1(n2), 2(n2) and 3(n2), shown above in 1), 2) and 3), respectively, for sucessive values of n1, n2 and n3.

While this simplification of the current multi-dimensional number system that is based on imaginary numbers (i.e. the square root of -1), may not appear to be relevant, at this point, to a civilization that has managed to construct the marvels of modern science and mathematics, building upon this imaginary foundation, we must remember that the theoretical physics community cannot complete it’s explanation of reality on this basis, given that quantum mechanics and general relativity are fundamentally incompatible.

It must be recognized that the dimensions of the fundamental energy equation, E = mc2, are the dimensions of inverse motion and that it follows that this fact cannot be ignored in light of our thesis that the universe consists of nothing but motion and its inverse.

This is especially clear, given Xavier Borg’s demonstration that the true physical dimensions of all physical units are the dimensions of motion (sn/tn) and inverse motion (tn/sn), where n = 0, 1, 2 or 3. Thus, the mass energy equation can be written in terms of these dimensions of motion and its inverse,

E=mc2 =

(t/s) = (t3/s3)x(s2/t2),

and the radiation energy equation can also be written in these terms, when the frequency term is recognized as just a convenient measure of vibration, clarifying the dimensions of Planck’s constant, s2/t, the dimensions of the so-called “quantum of action,” which dimensions are simply an ad-hoc compensation, derived to compensate for the use of the non-physical, but mathematical expression of the frequency term, 1/t. Making this correction, the radiative energy equation is simplified to, 

E=hv =

(t/s) = (t2/s2)x(s/t).      

However, treatment of physical equations such as these, and their implications, will be handled in our New Physics blog. For our purposes here in the New Math blog, it is sufficient to reform the number systems and their associated algebras, for application to the new physics. 

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Numbers and Motion and Geometry

Posted on Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 11:36AM by Registered CommenterDoug | Comments3 Comments

Almost two years ago, now, on August 20, 2013, I wrote about a meeting I had with Bruce Peret and Gopi Krishna V, at Rainer Huck’s home. I was really happy to have had an opportunity to discuss some important ideas of the LRC’s work with these guys, but I never managed to finish the post, as my LRC work was overcome by events.

This changed, however, when I found out about a new essay contest at FQXi, and I decided to enter it, albeit in February, just before the March 4th deadline. It was very stressful, but I managed to write and submit a paper in time.

The theme of the contest is: “Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics.” It was impossible to resist, but almost impossible to imagine that I could do justice to the theme, given the constraints FQXi puts on the essay entries and the little time that was left to write it.

Nevertheless, with much effort and prayer, I managed to meet the deadline with a paper I think made sense, even though there is nearly zero chance that it will be noticed much, with the hundreds of papers submitted, including one by Lee Smolin

There are also typos and editing errors in it that I wish I could have discovered in time to correct. Yet, I hope that the readers there will overlook them. The effort was worthwhile, I think, because it gets the ideas of the LRC’s RSt, and thus Larson’s work, on the table of the judges, participants and readers of the essay contest, many of whom are professional mathematicians and physicists.

The title of my essay is: “Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Numbers and Motion and Geometry.” I hope everyone will read it and comment on it at the FQXi site, when it is posted (it hasn’t appeared there yet, but should sometime next week,) but I thought I would post a corrected and expanded version of it here, as well.

And I will do that soon, but in the meantime, as a preface to the paper, I have determined to publish what I wrote nearly two years ago, after I met with Rainer, Bruce and Gopi, because, it is relevant, I think:

Yesterday I enjoyed  a discussion of scalar motion fundamentals with Bruce Peret and Gopi, as we met at ISUS HQ, in SLC, UT, as guests of Rainer Huck. It was the first time that I had met Gopi, a young physics PhD student, studying in Texas, but originally from India.

It was actually a fruitful discussion, in large part due to Gopi’s interest in the LRC’s RSt, which gave me a chance to not only explain somewhat the unique development of our RSt and how it differs from Larson’s RSt, and the RS2 re-evaluation of his RSt, but also to introduce Gopi to the new ideas of scalar motion fundamentals, which we have been developing, while they have been experimenting with substituting projective geometry for Euclidean geometry in their work.

I explained how the tetraktys incapsulates the concept of two “directions” in three dimensions (four including zero), and how Larson’s 2x2x2 stack of unit cubes is the geometrical equivalent of the tetraktys, which, by adding the concept of magnitude, to the tetraktys concepts of dimension and “direction,” incapsulates the totality of scalar motion fundamentals: magnitude, dimension and “direction.”

I’m not sure how impressed he was with this phenomenal connection we have found between the binomial expansion that we call the tetraktys and the 3D stack of unit cubes we call Larson’s cube, especially in the course of the disjointed give and take of a living room discussion. However, I was so pleased with his careful and thoughtful curiosity that I entertained the idea of extending the discussion into the implications for a scalar algebra fit for use in RST theory development.

In fact, we did talk about imaginary, complex, quaternion and octonion numbers, and the algebraic pathology that the use of them engenders, but I was not able to get much beyond that except to touch briefly on Hestenes’ geometric algebra and Altmann’s paper, “Hamilton, Rodrigues, and the Quaternion Scandal.”

From there we got into quadrantal versus binary rotation, and I tried to explain how that fit into our work with 3D oscillation (“pulsation” as Gopi calls it. I like that.), and its physical explanation of the 720 degree “rotation” of the LST community’s concept of quantum spin.

I was so pumped, for having the opportunity to lay out these vital discoveries we have made here at the LRC to Bruce and Gopi, that I continued the discussion in my mind as I drove home, after our meeting had ended.

It was then I felt a great desire to finish the conversation, maybe in a message to Gopi, or a presentation at ISUS HQ, or something else. I finally settled on writing this blog entry, because it is here that we document the development process of the LRC’s efforts to develop a useful RSt.

Of course, like I said, I never actually got around to writing it then, but now I have written it for the essay contest. In fact, I wrote it three times, trying to fit it into their constraints. So, in the next few days, I will take those three versions and try to combine them into one expanded article, without the constraint of the contest rules.

Wait for it!

Update: A few days later and here is the expanded paper!

The Mathematics of Scalar Motion

Posted on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 04:26AM by Registered CommenterDoug | Comments3 Comments

In the discussion forum, there is reference to the excitement going on over at the site due to the work of Miles Mathis.

Horace writes:

We have always been looking for the mathematical link between the magnitudes above and below one unit. Bruce uses the idea of projective geometry and counterspace to show how linear motion gets converted to reciprocal rotational motion below one unit (a.k.a. “crossing the unit boundary”). 
It looks like Miles Mathis has found another way:

Miles Mathis wrote:
I developed an equation to find one velocity from the other, using the radius r, and I later showed that at the size of the photon, a tangential velocity of c was equivalent to an orbital velocity of 1/c.

This is good news indeed for those who have accepted the departure from the fundamental postulates of Larson’s RST, but for those of us unwilling to accept the argument that requires the abandonment of Euclidean geometry in favor of projective geometry, as the geometry of the universe of motion, and a concommitant change in the wording of the second fundamental postulate, not so much.

Not that the controversial work of Miles Mathis might not be valid, it might be, but it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding in the mathematics of scalar motion that exists in the “RS2” community.

In their “re-evaluation of the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory,” the followers of the RS2 community have accepted the notion that the inverse of translational scalar motion in the material sector of Larson’s RSt appears to be rotational motion, from the point of view of the material sector and vice-versa: The inverse of translational scalar motion in the cosmic sector appears to be rotational from the point of view of the cosmic sector.

Consequently, crossing the boundary between the two sectors involves a transition from translational c-speed to rotational 1/c-speed, which Mathis has appeared to confirm in their minds with his work differentiating orbital and tangential speeds of photons.

However, in the LRC’s view, this approach confuses the fundamental concepts of scalar motion in the universe of motion, which are based on the principle of reciprocity, easily graphed as shown below:

Figure 1. The Unit Boundary Between the Material and Cosmic Sectors of the Universe of Motion.

Just as 1/2 is the mathematical inverse of 2/1, Larson’s “direction” reversals in the unit space and time progression created two sectors of the universe of motion, by effectively stopping the progression of one or the other of the two reciprocal (hence orthogonal) components of the universal progression.

When the space component of an expanding location oscillates, changing the space:time progression ratio at that point from 1:1 to 1:2 (think of the increase of space as alternatingly increasing, decreasing, while the increase of time continues increasing normally), it effectively changes the progression at that point to a progression of time only, as shown in figure 1 above.

Conversly, when the time component of an expanding location oscillates, changing the space:time progression ratio at that point from 1:1 to 2:1 (think of the increase of time as alternatingly increasing, decreasing, while the increase of space continues increasing normally), it effectively changes the progression at that point to a progression of space only, as shown in figure 1 above.

This concept can be formulated mathematically by understanding that there are two interpretations of numbers: One represents quantity (how much or how many), the quantitative interpretation of number, while the other represents a relation between quantities, the operational interpretation of number.

The difference is readily understood when we consider the rational number line:

1/n, …1/3, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, …, n/1

The numbers to the left of unity, 1/1, are the inverse of the numbers to the right of unity. However, they may be interpreted both quantitatively and operationally, with different results, depending on the desired interpretation. Interpreted quantitatively, the numbers to the left of 1/1 are less than 1, or fractions of the whole, while the numbers to the right of 1/1 are multiples of 1.

On the other hand, interpreted operationally, the sets of numbers to the left and right of 1/1 are both multiples of 1: the set to the left are multiples of 1 in the opposite “direction” of that of the set to the right. The set to the right is the inverse of the set to the left, which changes the “direction” of its magnitudes, in the following sense:

1:n, …1:3, 1:2, 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, …, n:1

This is the sense of “direction” we have when comparing two quantities, as, for example, when we weigh quantities in a pan balance. There are three possibilites and only three: The pans are balanced with equal quantities on either side, or the pans are unbalanced with unequal quantities favoring one side or the other.

The oscillation of the space or time component at some given point in the 3D universal progression produces the discrete units of motion postulated in the first fundamental postulate of the RST. These discrete oscillating units of scalar motion may be algebraically combined and the relations between such combinations algebraically analyzed in a manner completely analogous to number systems that are well understood.

For instance, we can combine integer multiples of each:

1x(1:2) = 1:2         1x(2:1) = 2:1    
2x(1:2) = 2:4         2x(2:1) = 4:2
3x(1:2) = 3:6         3x(2:1) = 6:3
.                              .
.                              .
.                              .
nx(1:2) = n:2n        nx(2:1) = 2n:n

Clearly, in terms of magnitude and “direction,” these two sets of numbers are equivalent to opposites

-1, +1
-2, +2
-3, +3
-n, +n,

when quantitatively interpreted, but when operationally interpreted, they are multiplicative inverses, such that 1/n times n/1 = n/n, or unity.

When used to formulate speeds of the universe of motion, as we have illustrated in figure 1 above, we must make a distinction between material sector speeds and cosmic sector speeds, because one is speed-displacement from c-speed in terms of time, while the other is speed-displacement from c-speed in terms of space:

Material Sector                      Cosmic Sector

Δs/Δt = 1/1 = c                   Δt/Δs = 1/1 = c
Δs/Δt = 1/2 = 1Mc              Δt/Δs = 1/2 = 1Cc
Δs/Δt = 2/4 = 2Mc              Δt/Δs = 2/4 = 2Cc
.                                           .
.                                           .
.                                           .
Δs/Δt = n/2n = nMc                 Δt/Δs = n/2n = nCc

Where Mc = material speed-displacement = Cc = cosmic speed-displacement = 0.5c.

Of course, because these speeds are inverses, one is four times greater than the other, quantitatively, when considered from the reciprocal point of view (i.e. 2/1 = 4x0.5).

The attempt to quantify the RST concepts has led to different approaches, but the LRC was established to ensure that Larson’s fundamental postulates were not changed in the process. Opponents object to Larson’s idea of “direction” reversals and have sought to find an alternate way to obtain the required reciprocity of the system, by resorting to rotation. This is understandable, but the LRC takes exception to the concept of rotation as scalar motion.

Of course, the rejection of rotation as scalar motion means that the LRC departs from Larson’s development of the consequences of the RST in his RSt, but it does not imply departure from the RST itself, which must be held inviolate.

In its abandonment of the RST, it appears to us that the RS2 community has lost sight of the meaning of true reciprocity and in the attempt to justify its rationale, it now seems willing even to abandon the concept of scalar motion. 

Seeking Closure

Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 at 11:17AM by Registered CommenterDoug | Comments7 Comments

Closure is something we all seek. Mathematically, it’s vital in order to successfully operate with numbers; i.e. to add, subtract and multiply and divide them consistently. Because the integers are closed under these mathematical operations, so too are the non-zero rationals.

However, the integer and rational number systems are actually composed of one dimensional numbers, or lengths. As we have discussed many times before, to deal with higher dimensional numbers, legacy system mathematics adds “imaginary” numbers to these number systems.

In the reciprocal system of mathematics (RSM), we recognize four scalar dimensions, with two “directions” each. At unit magnitude, these are isomorphic to the 4th degree of the binomial expansion, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which we call the tetraktys, because it consists of the first four numbers of the Pythagorean system of numbers: the monad, the dyad, the triad and the tetrad.

As we happily discovered some time ago, the binomial expansion of the tetraktys is the numerical equivalent of the geometry of the 2x2x2 stack of 8 unit cubes that we call Larson’s cube (LC). Its center, located where one corner of all 8 cubes coincide, defines the middle point of three, 1D, orthogonal lines, the intersection of three, 2D, orthogonal planes, as well as the intersection of the diagonals drawn between the eight reciprocal corners of the stack.

Figure 1. The Stack of Eight 1-unit Cubes Known as Larson’s Cube

The fact that this geometric figure contains the geometric representation of the four dimensions of the tetraktys and thus the first four binomial expansions of the tetraktys (counting zero), it follows that it also connects geometry with the eight mathematical dimensions of the four normed division algebras, the positive and negative reals, complexes, quaternions and octonions.

Moreover, the geometry of the LC not only represents the numbers of the tetraktys, it also defines a unit volume within its interior, and defines the inverse of this volume with its extent, a fact that connects the integer and rational numbers with irrational numbers, in a fundamental manner.

This connection between integers, rationals and irrationals provides a different approach to numbers and number systems that is not defined by Cantor’s sets nor Dedekind’s cuts, nor imaginary numbers. It is based on scalar expansion, where the three 1D lines, the three 2D planes and the eight 3D cubes expand outward from the 0D point.

Since a unit of space and a unit of time can be defined for the LC expansion, from point to cube, it follows that a unit of motion, v = Δs/Δt, can also be defined for it, and the inverse of the outward expansion, the unit inward motion of collapse. Since such a motion has only two possibilities, outward or inward, we can define them as the two scalar “directions” of motion, in contrast to the possible vector motion directions, which is a set of infinite directions.

Because these two scalar “directions” of motion, outward and inward, manifest themselves in each of the non-zero geometric components of the LC (the 1D line, the 2D area, the 3D volume), it’s easy to confuse them with the geometric “directions,” or poles associated with each of these entities, but we should note that the two poles of the 1D line can expand and contract, the four poles of the 2D area can expand and contract and the eight poles of the 3D volume can expand and contract.

Hence, we can use the base number 2 with non-zero exponents 1, 2 and 3 to represent the total “directions” of each non-zero dimension’s expansion, as indicated by the exponents: 21 = 2; 22 = 4, 23 = 8 “directions” respectively.

Given this isomorphism between the magnitude, dimension and “direction” of geometric expansion of the LC, and the magnitude, dimension and “direction” of the numerical expansion of the tetraktys, the question arises, “Can these geometric and numerical entities be used to form a number system that is closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?” If the answer is “yes,” then it follows that the resulting 3D algebra will also have 2D, 1D, and 0D subalgebras that are closed as well.

While this may seem obvious given Clifford algebras, it isn’t, because the dimensions of the 3D Clifford algebra are used only to define the 1D (vector) space that the Clifford algebra operates in. Thus, it is all about the mathematical operations that translate and rotate vectors in that space.

In our case, we are dealing with an algebra of the spaces themselves. We seek to add and multiply LCs, if you will - the whole LC at once, represented by its geometric properties and the isomorphic numerical properties of the tetraktys.

As described in the previous entry, the numerical expansion of the LC, and thus the tetraktys, can be accomplished by addition or multiplication of its poles. Since the monopole, the three dipoles, the three quadrupoles and the single octopole comprise the unit and its subunits, they can be consistently manipulated algebraically.

To demonstrate this requires only that the geometric coefficients (1331) of the four-part numbers (1(20)+3(21)+3(22)+1(23)) be removed, before the algebraic operation is performed, and then reinserted into the number after the calculation is complete. For example, we can show that this works for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, by letting the unit LC equal ‘a.’ Then,

a = (1+2+4+8)

b = 2a = 2 x (1+2+4+8) = (2+4+8+16)

c = 3a = 3 x (1+2+4+8) = (3+6+12+24)

d = 4a = 4 x (1+2+4+8) = (4+8+16+32)

Next we perform the following operations:

For multiplication,

1) a/b x c/d = ac/bd
(1+2+4+8)/(2+4+8+16)) x ((3+6+12+24)/(4+8+16+32)) =
(1+2+4+8)(3+6+12+24)/((2+4+8+16)(4+8+16+32)) =
(3+12+48+192)/(8+32+128+512)) =
3(1+4+16+64))/(8(1+4+16+64))  = 3(1+2+4+8)2/8(1+2+4+8)2 = 3/8

 Just as a/2a x 3a/4a = a(3a)/(2a)(4a) = (3a2)/(8a2) = 3/8

For addition,

2) a/b+c/d = ad+bc/bd = 

    (1+2+4+8)/(2+4+8+16) + (3+6+12+24)/(4+8+16+32) =
    ((1+2+4+8)(4+8+16+32) + (2+4+8+16)(3+6+12+24))/((2+4+8+16)(4+8+16+32)) =
    ((4+16+64+256)+(6+24+96+384))/(8+32+128+512) =
    (10+40+160+640)/(8+32+128+512) =
    10(1+4+16+64)/8(1+4+16+64) =
    10(1+2+4+8)2/8(1+2+4+8)2 = 5/4

Just as

(a/2a)+(3a/4a) = ((a x 4a)+(2a x 3a))/(2a x 4a) = 10a2/8a210/8 = 5/4

And finally, for division,

3) (a/b)/(c/d) = (ad)/(bc) =
    ((1+2+4+8)/(2+4+8+16))/((3+6+12+24)/(4+8+16+32)) =
1+2+4+8)(4+8+16+32))/((2+4+8+16)(3+6+12+24)] =
    (4+16+64+256)/(6+24+96+384) =
    4(1+4+16+64)/6(1+4+16+64) = 4(1+2+4+8)2/6(1+2+4+8)2 = 2/3 

Just as 

(a/2a)/(3a/4a) = (a(4a))/((2a)(3a)) = (4a2)/(6a2) = 2/3

Of course, since a = 1, 2/3 = 2a/3a = 2(1+2+4+8)/3(1+2+4+8) or, equivalently, 2(20+21+22+23)/3(20+21+22+23)

With the calculation complete, we insert the geometric numbers (1331) back into the final terms, which gives us the correct number of poles. For instance, in this last example,

2(20+3(21)+3(22)+23) = (2+12+24+16) = 54

3(20+3(21)+3(22)+23) = (3+18+36+24) = 81

54/81 = 2/3.

But then, why not just use the number of poles in the LC to begin with?

LCp = (1x(20)+3x(21)+3x(22)+1x(23)) = (1+6+12+8) = 27,

and since 27 = 33, then let

a = 33
b = 2(33)
c = 3(33)
d = 4(33)

and naturally, the algebra is still closed under addition and multiplication.

Towards the Unification of Algebra and Geometry

Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2013 at 02:41AM by Registered CommenterDoug | CommentsPost a Comment

Exploring the scalar properties of the tetraktys, we are exploring fundamental concepts of magnitude, dimension and “direction.” In the last post, we saw that the numerical expansion of what we call Larson’s cube (LC), which is the geometric equivalent of the tetraktys, can be expressed as:


where poles are the constituent components of monopoles (mp=1), dipoles (dp=2), quadrupoles (qp=4) and octopoles (op=8). This gives us a means to express the sum of the unlike dimensions of unit numbers: In other words, we can sum the unit points, the unit areas, and the unit volumes of elements of the expanded tetraktys (1331), which is the numerical equivalent of the expanded LC, in terms of these poles.

Consequently, the numerical expression of the scalar expansion of the LC is

33, 53, 73, …(2n+1)3, n = 1, 2, 3, …∞

Now, it’s important to distinguish between this 3D expansion of the tetraktys and the 0D expansion of Pascal’s triangle, or the binomial expansion, which is normally considered as the numerical expansion of geometric dimensions, without including the notion of magnitude and “direction.” The scalar expansion of the triangle is simply,

20, 21, 22, 23, …2n, n = 0, 1, 2, 3, …∞

We can interpret this expansion as the expansion of the countable number of points:

20 = 1 instance of 1 point; 21 = 2 instances of 1 point; 22 = 2 sets of 2 instances of 1 point; 23 = 2 sets of 2 sets of 2 instances of 1 point, etc.

1) 20 = (*) = 1
2) 21 = (*)+(*) = 1+1 = 2
3) 22 = [(*)+(*)]+[(*)+(*)] = 2+2 = 4
4) 23 = {[(*)+(*)]+[(*)+(*)]}+{[(*)+(*)]+[(*)+(*)]} = 4+4 = 8

Hence, unlike the numerical expansion of the tetraktys, which is equivalent to the 3D geometric expansion of the LC, the numerical pattern of the triangle is not equivalent to any geometric expansion, but it is simply a regrouping of 0D terms. Take line four for example:

4) 23 = {[(*)+(*)]+[(*)+(*)]}+{[(*)+(*)]+[(*)+(*)]} = 4+4 = (*)+(***)+(***)+(*) = 1+3+3+1 = 8

That this sum of points in line 4 of the triangle (4+4 = 8) is equal to the sum of dimensional coefficients in the tetraktys (1+3+3+1 = 8) appears to be the cause of a colossal error in the development of mathematics: The fundamental confusion resulting from an incorrect understanding of magnitude, dimension and “direction” in mathematics and geometry, is tantamount to a detour along the road to comprehending their unity.

As a result of this non-comprehension, mathematics has been developed along a non-geometric line, leading to the confusion in the theory of algebra lamented by Hamilton, wherein he observed:

…it requires no peculiar scepticism to doubt, or even to disbelieve, the doctrine of Negatives and Imaginaries, when set forth (as it has commonly been) with principles like these: that a greater magnitude may be subtracted from a less, and that the remainder is less than nothing; that two negative numbers, or numbers denoting magnitudes each less than nothing, may be multiplied the one by the other, and that the product will be a positive number, or a number denoting a magnitude greater than nothing; and that although the square of a number, or the product obtained by multiplying that number by itself, is therefore always positive, whether the number be positive or negative, yet that numbers, called imaginary, can be found or conceived or determined, and operated on by all the rules of positive and negative numbers, as if they were subject to those rules, although they have negative squares, and must therefore be supposed to be themselves neither positive nor negative, nor yet null numbers, so that the magnitudes which they are supposed to denote can neither be greater than nothing, nor less than nothing, nor even equal to nothing. It must be hard to found a Science on such grounds as these, though the forms of logic may build up from them a symmetrical system of expressions, and a practical art may be learned of rightly applying useful rules which seem to depend upon them. 

 The effect of this detour probably only appears to the non-genuises (Hamilton was truly a genuis) among us, when we seek to understand the properties of scalar motion. After all, who needs to understand n-dimensional scalars in the practical world of vector motion?

In the theoretical world of nothing but motion, we have to combine n-dimensional entities of motion and determine how these combos relate to one another. We can’t do it without first clearing up the confusion in our understanding of these fundamentals.

Hopefully, it’s getting to the point that we can begin to formulate the n-dimensional, scalar algebra we need to move forward, though the very idea must appear preposterous and nonsensical to the uninitiated.

Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next 5 Entries