Introduction of Physics-Logics

[joigus]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Did you know there is a link in what are known as 'forbidden rotations'

I'm all ears for things forbidden. Imaginary angles?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Wind Fire said:

Then I have assigned a place of constant reference.

...

 

What would you call it?

 

Last time I did any programming it was called a seed for input to a stochastic or iterative process.

 

49 minutes ago, joigus said:

I'm all ears for things forbidden. Imaginary angles?

 

My apologies it should have been improper rotation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improper_rotation

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

it should have been improper rotation.

 

I see. Thank you. 

I agree with Studiot that a rotation does not necessarily imply a radius, btw.

Usually, it implies an angle and a point (centre of rotation), as far as I know.

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, joigus said:

I see. Thank you. 

I agree with Studiot that a rotation does not necessarily imply a radius, btw.

Usually, it implies an angle and a point (centre of rotation), as far as I know.

glad to hear you agree with me.

What I was referring to was the difference between finite rotations, which are not commutative and infinitesimal rotations such as considered in both traditional and modern differential geometry. If they had a radius other than zero (infinitesimal limit) they would not be commutatiive either.

[Wind Fire]

Not sure how to say this, I'm not trying to do physics. I'm trying to prove that the overall system is a missing physic link, filling a gap.

The illustrations logics are the environment rules. I'm not trying to prove a rotation has a radius. I'm stating the rule of the rotation has a radius.

A control environment is a condition of reference. The physics is what you understand of what - is, changes, how, when, and why, which you know more about than I. I'm asking you to look at the system and come to your own conclusions as to if the system fills a physics gas. If so, then maybe you will call it physic-logics.

The objective is to prove that logic-effects interaction are dependent on on conditions of their environment and can be visualized in an abstract structure that reflect true-logic in a real structure of physics.

Hope I said this such that it make sense.

 Responding to your points.

[studiot]

25 minutes ago, Wind Fire said:

 Responding to your points.

Really ?

 

You asked specific question and I gave you the only specific answer.

Yet you haven't proffered the courtesy of any response.

 

Am I wasting my time ?

[Wind Fire]

I agree with your answer.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Last time I did any programming it was called a seed for input to a stochastic or iterative process.

I agree with your answer. I'm still learning how to respond properly, I guess you use the quotes. I thought you did it with the next post.

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Really ?

 

You asked specific question and I gave you the only specific answer.

Yet you haven't proffered the courtesy of any response.

 

Am I wasting my time ?

I agree with your answer. I'm still learning how to respond properly, I guess you use the quotes. I thought you did it with the next post.

 

 

18 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm all ears for things forbidden. Imaginary angles?

I'm in agreement on all ears. Me too, though I try and keep it associated with reality. 

[studiot]

49 minutes ago, Wind Fire said:

I'm in agreement on all ears. Me too, though I try and keep it associated with reality. 

I already gave the correct reference to improper rotations.

Here is a link to what @joigus were discussing

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16378/why-are-infinitesimal-rotations-commutative-whereas-finite-rotations-are-not

 

1 hour ago, Wind Fire said:

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Last time I did any programming it was called a seed for input to a stochastic or iterative process.

I agree with your answer. I'm still learning how to respond properly, I guess you use the quotes. I thought you did it with the next post.

 

Thank you.

I assume you understand what stochastic and iterative processes are so here is an example from this book, relating random variables to rotations,  which you should appreciate with your electronics/ programming background.

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Wind Fire said:

I'm in agreement on all ears. Me too, though I try and keep it associated with reality. 

"Imaginary" in mathematics does not mean "external to reality". It's part of an algebraic extension of the other numbers.

It makes perfect sense and it is used to describe "reality" in the usual sense. The impedance of a circuit has an "imaginary" part, for example. The absorption coefficient of an optical medium can be understood as the imaginary part of its refraction index. Imaginary numbers appear in quantum mechanics too. Special relativity can be understood as velocities being imaginary angles... So nothing "unreal" about it. 

Edited September 25 by joigus
Addition

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Wind Fire said:

Not sure how to say this, I'm not trying to do physics

Then why is this called physics-logics? Seems to me it should be something that does physics.

[Wind Fire]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Then why is this called physics-logics? Seems to me it should be something that does physics.

Point taken. But if it bridges a gap for physics, then would it not qualify? like physics of quantum theory, of mathematics, etc. {

 

4 hours ago, joigus said:

"Imaginary" in mathematics does not mean "external to reality". It's part of an algebraic extension of the other numbers.

It makes perfect sense and it is used to describe "reality" in the usual sense. The impedance of a circuit has an "imaginary" part, for example. The absorption coefficient of an optical medium can be understood as the imaginary part of its refraction index. Imaginary numbers appear in quantum mechanics too. Special relativity can be understood as velocities being imaginary angles... So nothing "unreal" about it. 

Thanks, taking noted. 

 

4 hours ago, studiot said:

I already gave the correct reference to improper rotations.

Here is a link to what @joigus were discussing

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/16378/why-are-infinitesimal-rotations-commutative-whereas-finite-rotations-are-not

 

 

Thank you.

I assume you understand what stochastic and iterative processes are so here is an example from this book, relating random variables to rotations,  which you should appreciate with your electronics/ programming background.

 

 I got a little grasp of it.

Guy's I'm clearly wasting your time, and I apologize for that.

Can't tell you how much I appreciate you for your tolerance and attention. 

So, unless you see any reason for me to stay, I'll say ado 

I'll read a couple more replies, if any .

Respect to you all!!

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Wind Fire said:

Point taken. But if it bridges a gap for physics, then would it not qualify? like physics of quantum theory, of mathematics, etc. {

You haven’t demonstrated any gap. It’s not at all clear to me what problem this is meant to solve.