The Leaky Triangle - system of systems - please poke holes in it - it's mine.

[simplify3]

Yes, absolutely. Reality is certainly more than triangles. (apologies to trig lovers everywhere ).

They're just useful for my purposes. Just as the use of averages and randomness and probabilities are useful in statistical models of reality, but they aren't reality itself.

They're descriptions. Very good ones. I couldn't possibly compete, nor am I competing.

Just because I'm choosing this method doesn't take away from other methods.

It's not the best. Not even close. But my audience isn't the people who understand the math. Some of them don't even speak English.

I'll use this model to describe things as accurately as possible until the model simply can't handle it. I have a lot of systems to describe, not just physical processes. There's thousands.

It's not for prediction. It's for quick comprehension of processes and interactions with a minimum of symbols and behaviors.

I could have used points or circles or squares I suppose. but notice how the triangles looked like life? Squares look like a game. Points look like something you'd have in school. Circles, well, I find circles boring and they have no "left" and "right". Triangles easily show left right up down moving towards and away - without any words necessary.

[Mordred]

well if this is your intention, then you will definitely find Roads to Reality handy. For example he models electromagnetic waves as zig and zag model, zig being left zag being right. This is done with 90 degree angles with a forward movement. Sounds hilarious but it does a good job of simplifying the complexity of waves. though he is modelling the Dirac spinor in terms of the left and right components. So it is also mathematically accurate.

 

though this model has some accuracy there is also some debates on its inaccuracies in particular aspects,

The zig-zag road to reality

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4909v1.pdf

 

this is where you will need to be careful with oversimplification, you will need to make sure what your modelling is also accurate and non misleading. Its great to find ways to simplify a model, but don't add confusion with oversimplification.

 

a good example of this is the common confusions with the balloon analogy or the rubber sheet analogy, while they are useful to explain expansion and gravity they tend to cause a lot of confusion an misinterpretation

Edited July 14, 2014 by Mordred

[Bignose]

The future can't be predicted with absolute accuracy. We approximate using calculations but then REALITY happens when we put them into play and unexpected things happen.

I won't disagree with any of this. But, we can predict reality with a pretty darn good level of accuracy with our current mathematics.

 

If your system can't even predict a simple problem with a decent level of accuracy, then there is nothing scientific about it. Despite your expressed personal feelings, science is all about making predictions and comparing those predictions to observations. Your method apparently can't even make simple predictions.

 

You claim your system will help children and you claim that today education isn't helping them. Yet, you are going to present them a world view of triangles that isn't supported by evidence? I'm sorry, but if I had a kid, I wouldn't present them with this view. I'll take the current system that actually makes fairly accurate predictions. I don't see much value in learning about triangles just to have to unlearn it.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Bignose

[simplify3]

Ah yes - the zig zag does sound like a fun description. I've used a teacup illustration for Dirac to describe a 720 rotation (it took a few tries to get my shoulder to do what I wanted it to do - I wasn't as limber as the ones I've seen on the videos ) on Vine and also modeled it by pointing the camera at my face and doing a 720 rotation around my own head - that always got a few "how did you do that?" and then I mention that our shoulder upper arm, forearm, wrist can make a 720 degree rotation quite easily - there's nothing strange about it.

 

What I've done in the past and what I *can* do, is something that textbooks _don't do_: bold broad disclaimers:

"THIS IS NOT REALITY. These are moving triangles. "

I wish a lot of science would put disclaimers on their predictions. "MATHEMATICS IS SYMBOLIC OF REALITY - IT IS NOT REALITY ITSELF". But you get people like Max Tegmark "The Universe Is Made Of Math" fame.

The symbols are not the reality. Unless you are a devotee of Pythagoras, they never were the actual reality.

They're simplifications that serve practical purposes.

I'm taking a different tactic to describe some things but not all things. The background for the movements will be mathematical; I'll use the best formulas I can find and use the shapes to illustrate it. It's simple vector drawings of different processes.

That it even generated irritation doesn't surprise me - that's the nature of forum ethos - but mostly due to me trying to describe a work in progress in a rambling way.

I'm not adding any math. I'm not taking away any math. I'm using the existing math to draw shapes to describe existing processes.

For physics, I'll use the same formulas of interaction that already exist. For other processes, I'll either use formulas of interaction that exist, or mimic static illustrations (the best I can find in each subject matter) symbolically through triangles and movement.

If I show a triangle opening up its small end, taking in a large triangle, using smaller triangles to turn the large triangle into smaller ones, then zoom in to little alternating triangles moving the small triangles down a tube into another triangle, I've described chewing and swallowing. Using triangles. I'm not telling people they have triangles inside of them.

 

A zoom into the tongue, and triangles can show the enzymes working on the food particles.

Zoom in further, I can symbolize proteins being cleaved by H20. (I'm NOT folding proteins here - too complicated)

zoom in further, you can see the H20 molecule. Further in, you see the electrons interacting - not in any new way - but in the same types of ways we already use in our illustrations.

By using a consistent set of symbols (keeping it very small and consistent behaviors, the abstraction from reality will be quite clear.

[Bignose]

I'm not adding any math. I'm not taking away any math. I'm using the existing math to draw shapes to describe existing processes.

So, then, why triangles? Why not actually draw the shapes as they are. Modelling an electron as a sphere seems much more natural and simple than modelling it as a bunch of triangles?

 

If you aren't changing the math -- and hence not changing the results -- why change how it is depicted? And why seemingly force everything into triangles?

 

For example, if I took your entire post and replaced "triangles" with "squares", I don't think a single thing is really materially changed at all. Mankind has made simplifying examples a part of learning for just about as long as learning has been around. What good is there in wedging learning into a particular favorite shape?

[Sensei]

So, then, why triangles?

 

Simplify said he is programmer. In 3D graphics and 3D games triangle is the main building brick. The all more complex objects can be simulated using triangles. Square, or quad, are 2 triangles with uniform normal vector which share one edge.

 

But he is extending this idea to the whole real world... without any experimental confirmation.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Sensei

[Bignose]

Simplify said he is programmer. In 3D graphics and 3D games triangle is the main building brick. The all more complex objects can be simulated using triangles. Square, or quad, are 2 triangles with uniform normal vector which share one edge.

 

But he is extending this idea to the whole real world... without any experimental confirmation.

I get that. But I don't see a need to explicitly display everything as a triangle when the graphics are capable of drawing pretty good spheres and polygons, etc. Especially when physically these things aren't triangles.

 

He thinks it simplifies it, but I think making everything 3 sided obfuscates it more than it helps.

[Sensei]

I get that. But I don't see a need to explicitly display everything as a triangle when the graphics are capable of drawing pretty good spheres and polygons, etc.

Computer graphics cards don't render anything but triangles.

Sometimes gfx card driver is even simulating lines using triangle drawing procedure (one shared vertex and triangle looks like line).

This saves need to create line and point drawing in hardware using transistors, for rarely used tasks.

 

Sphere made of 528 triangles:

 

 

Sphere made of ~29,000 triangles:

 

 

It looks pretty smooth:

 

 

Not distinguishable from perfect sphere.

 

Concave polygon:

 

 

If we order gfx card to draw polygon, it's triangulated internally:

 

 

And gfx card is receiving just stream of triangles to render..

 

Especially when physically these things aren't triangles.

Yep. That's why I am suggesting he is extrapolating his experiences in computer programming to also real world..

 

He thinks it simplifies it, but I think making everything 3 sided obfuscates it more than it helps.

I am not sure. Maybe he is suggesting that real world is some kind of simulation.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Sensei

[Bignose]

And gfx card is receiving just stream of triangles to render..

Again, I get all that. I know it. I am objecting to his proposed "zoom in and see triangles" when the graphics capabilities aren't really restricted to that (because they are good enough to not look triangular anymore, just one of many examples: http://www.welurk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lara-croft-romb-raider-infographic.jpg) and physically they aren't triangles. As I wrote above, he's obfuscating what is really there and in many ways making it worse.

[ajb]

simplify3: Can we please see a simple application of "leaky triangles" worked out carefully? That way we will all have a better idea of what this thread is about. What simple systems can be modeled in this way? Right now it seems to lack any real science. If you cannot present some simple examples then I cannot see this thread staying open for much longer.

[simplify3]

I'll respond specifically to you guys in a little while - just wanted to say I found a valid quantum mechanical theory I can work with. Coulson–Fischer can describe the unstable triple point, which helps bring the quantum world into the 'real world' better than molecular orbitals, which I wouldn't abandon but I need something practical when I get down to that zoom level. I have to learn a few terms (I'm not a math guy but I'm good at visualizing concepts spatially once I understand what each of the math symbols represent in reality)

Professor John Platt describes the spirit of the direction I'm shooting for with this introduction to a text book on Valence from the 60s.

"We should not ridicule the ancients for supposing that atoms could be rough or smooth or could have hooks connecting them to each other. The facts of fluidity and rigidity and the characteristic crystal forms of different substances, which require to be explained by some such suppositions, are still the same. These facts were then and are now as obvious to the curious layman or philosopher as to the laboratory scientist. If by “hooks” we mean a small integral number of potentially strong and reproducible linkages around an atom, pointing in particular characteristic directions and resistant to disruption, we are close to the expression in common language of the idea of directed valence or the chemical bond. If by a “smooth” atom—without hooks—we mean one that can be gripped only by weak and non-directional forces, we are close to the idea of a rare-gas atom or any stable uncharged closed-shell electronic configuration."

I just came across this a few minutes ago and I hope this helps you understand my goals here.

I'll respond to your comments soon - I just wanted to share this with a group who has the best chance of understanding what the heck I'm talking about.

-Ken

[simplify3]

I still have some catching up to do; haven't had the time; but I did discover something I was doing wrong:

I was mistaking science and engineering.

Engineering - the actual "HOW" can I make this work in reality is more what I am describing and less than the predicting of science.

I'm not looking to predict anything, just to describe what already is. That's the land of engineering, CAD, etc.

My mistake all of these years (not entirely my fault beause Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics are lumped together - BUT THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

I only use MATH when I have to. I use Science when I have to. I use Technology when I have to.

But I'm always trying to be absolutely as precise as I *need* to be without going further, taking into account restraints of Time, who I'm doing something for, what tools I have to work with at that time. That's a hacker/engineer personality. Scientists get the glory, but engineers have to make something WORK - over.. and over... and over again consistantly - often without any scientific theory behind them. They don't have the time.

I never have the time.

Definite revelation to me and apologies to engineers and scientists alike for my misunderstanding.

[Bignose]

I was mistaking science and engineering.

 

Engineering - the actual "HOW" can I make this work in reality is more what I am describing and less than the predicting of science.

 

I'm not looking to predict anything, just to describe what already is. That's the land of engineering, CAD, etc.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That engineers don't make predictions?!?

 

And that your description of triangles is what is already there?

 

Because both of these are way, way, way wrong.

 

I'm sorry, but unless you can demonstrate some evidence of your triangles and demonstrate their usefulness to make calculations, your idea isn't science, engineering, technology, or anything at all related to these. It is fiction. It is story telling.

 

Engineering may be more practical and application based than pure science, but it doesn't divorce itself from reality and defend things with no evidence. No engineer is going to want to learn about a system of triangles if that isn't what is really happening.

 

I'm sorry to be so blunt, and I appreciate the idea and the effort you've put into this. But I'm sorry, I just don't see how it can be useful to use this idea for any kind of training, science, or engineering. It just obfuscates what we know is actually really going on.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Bignose

[Strange]

What he said.

 

I am an engineer who has studied science and math, and been involved in training people. I see no practical use for this idea. Yes, I have used tesselation of surfaces into triangles for 3D graphics. But I have also implemented 3D graphics which produces much better effects without that crude approximation. So if it is a choice between "triangles" and "no triangles", practically I will go for "no triangles".

 

Unless you can give one real example where it simplifies the description of something. Anything.

[ajb]

This just sounds like you are backing out of your claims. This maybe a good thing...

 

If you are unable to apply your leaky triangles to any simple system, and we will accept a lot of simplifications and approximations here, then how can your triangles be of any use to anyone?

[Ophiolite]

then how can your triangles be of any use to anyone?

The fundamental problem here is that the triangles are of immense use to one person: simplify3. Triangles help him better envisage all kinds of scientific, engineering and social topics/issues. What he is unable to understand is that they are of no value for anyone else.

[simplify3]

I'll answer everybody soon. I discovered I was in the wrong place though. It's the engineering people I need to hang out with more than the physics people. Materials engineering. Their view of the Universe is aligned with my way of thinking; http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2121/2495 description of lattice structures, the history of humanity as a continuum of working with different materials has a few graphs that give a sense of the direction I'm thinking of.

Barriers imposed by limits of nature seen as just things you have to work around in order to accomplish things. They are also more heavily into heuristics, which physics tends not to be. To engineering, doubt is a normal part of the whole approach and attitude.

After shutting off the net for three days to concentrate, I read "Why Things Break" and "The Essentials Engineer" (the only TWO books in my library on Engineering philosophy - everything else in the area was science theory)

My apologize for wasting the time of science when I belonged in a forum for engineering. Recognizing and embracing imperfection and working around it, recognizing the limitations of our species at our present point in history and seeing human history not as a series of leaps but rather a continuum of discovery of "How can I" vs "Why is it" - this is my way of thinking completely.

If nothing else, it should help you understand better our miscommunication. I was ignorant to my audience's needs, and I apologize. You have been a tremendous help. I'll answer each when I get a few free minutes (my real life leaks into my Internet life constantly; running several businesses, having a pesky mother and 9 yr old nephew who always wants me to play with him - and in-laws all around plus dealing with customers and the people online wanting me to fix their problems (with their stuff or their boredom or their emotional turmoil or their misunderstandings) makes it hard to give each the attention it deserves. But I'll give you each the attention you deserve as you have put a lot of careful thought to your questions and answers.

[Strange]

 

my real life leaks into my Internet life constantly

 

Man, that must be a real pain.

[Bignose]

I discovered I was in the wrong place though. It's the engineering people I need to hang out with more than the physics people.

I hope you find what you are looking for. However, again, I wouldn't think of these as being such separate entities. This place may be called 'science forums', but we have plenty of engineers who log on too. Science and engineering really aren't very different from one another.

 

I'll just repeat: Engineering may be a tinge more focused on application, but it is still a very tight partner with science. It is not going to be interested in triangles that aren't there. Or poor analogies of the physics forced into a particular scheme. Engineering still follows the same idea of science of being able to make the most accurate predictions possible. You will still need to demonstrate the usefulness of your idea via accurate predictions to any engineer, too.

[ajb]

I'll answer everybody soon. I discovered I was in the wrong place though. It's the engineering people I need to hang out with more than the physics people. Materials engineering. Their view of the Universe is aligned with my way of thinking; http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2121/2495 description of lattice structures, the history of humanity as a continuum of working with different materials has a few graphs that give a sense of the direction I'm thinking of.

I think most of us would be happy with an engineering application. Just sketch an application for now if that is all you can really do.

 

As already stated buy others, I am sure that any engineers would also want you to do the mathematics of your ideas. They won't want some general hand-waving ideas, they want numbers to see "if the bridge will fall down or not".

[Strange]

I'll answer everybody soon. I discovered I was in the wrong place though. It's the engineering people I need to hang out with more than the physics people.

 

 

Hellooo! Engineer here. *waves* (Still not seeing any value...)

 

Are you, perhaps, thinking of something like a geodesic dome

 

However, this fullerene molecule would be a lot less simple, and a lot harder to understand if the faces were split into triangles:

Although it does have sort-of "anti-triangles"; three edges at each vertex.

[Mordred]

my engineering knowledge is in Industrial controls systems probably not as applicable to leaky triangles,

[simplify3]

Still haven't had time to go through everybody's amazing responses yet but today, I was walking through the library and saw one of my leaky triangles on the front cover of a book.

Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science".

 

I flipped through it - page after page of the stuff that's been in my head that I couldn't explain properly.

While I may end up taking issue with randomness - nonetheless what I've seen so far about Cellular Automata will certainly fit the bill for a lot of the more difficult things I want to explain.

I was a little disappointed at first to see "woah someone saw what I saw before me" -

but then excited because he did a lot of the legwork I was afraid I'd have to do. He's done the math. He's drawn the pictures. He gives me a scientific framework to explain things, even if it is unorthodox. And he is an authority.

Now I just have to wade through 1200 pages of this book to see what matches my thinking and what doesn't.

But maybe it'll give you *some* idea of what I was thinking of.

And maybe after I go through it, I'll be able to answer all of your questions in a framework that you might find more acceptable than my ramblings

[Bignose]

but then excited because he did a lot of the legwork I was afraid I'd have to do. He's done the math. He's drawn the pictures. He gives me a scientific framework to explain things, even if it is unorthodox. And he is an authority.

And Wolfram is a consummate salesman and he did a good job getting a lot of people excited about his work by promising a great deal of things -- and most experts in the fields agree he hasn't delivered.

 

Cellular automata do lead to some interesting patterns. But they have been known for quite some time; they weren't really new in 2002.

 

Wolfram is a very smart man. His Mathematica is an incredibly useful tool. But I caution you not to put too much emphasis on one person like this, especially when as I wrote above, he really hasn't delivered on the promises he's made. (You don't have to take my word for it, just browse some of the many reviews his book has gotten on Amazon.)

 

Furthermore, given what you've described your triangles as -- I guess I also fail to see how cellular automata fall into that. Therefore, I also caution you to be careful not to oversell your idea. Especially as objective evidence and demonstrations of your idea have to date been extremely sparse. Don't fall into the same category as Wolfram.

[simplify3]

You're right. Bignose.

I'm 69 pages into the book and one video presentation given by him...

and I realized that these are knitting patterns. Nice, amazing - and probably lots of great information will be found through cellular automata (which I remembered studying in '91 playing with Conway's Game of Life in the computer lab)...

... but yeah. I'll finish reading the 1200 pages just to be thorough... (I'm always thorough in my research - I just have trouble with describing in this case) - but yeah, this isn't the "it". Believe me, I don't want to work on this project at all - I just wanted to figure out why it is so difficult to figure out "What is my next best action?" when faced with multiple seemingly equally weighted choices and not having the luxury to use standard methods of scheduling.

In other words, figuring out the "now". (I did figure out it's about 6-20 seconds long and not a lot of computational space to work with... that forgetting things and re-remembering while going from room to room had to do with our place memory and that it's possible to 'leave' ideas in a room to pick them up later).....

that part of stuff was easy. Psychology and sociology was always easy for me to learn, grasp and reteach.

But this stuff, where there is just pictures in my mind and being unable to draw or even articulate or explain logically... it's quite frustrating.

*sigh* this reminds me of when I was looking into holography and ecological systems for inspiration. I'd start going "yes yes good I can stop research - they've got it..." and then I'd find the killer flaws. I'd take what was good and move on.

69 pages and one video and yeah... don't worry. His knitting patterns aren't what I was looking for.

Somehow, I ended up here.

It's sparse. All I've got is leaky triangles, double-loop for processes, a general process for problem solving (make triangles out of the space, make a home line, start with highest dimensional features and work down to lowest dimension features), some clustering of similars and some notions of time and our how to resolve our problems with it... but that's it really. Thanks for the response - it was well timed. And I should really look at what you guys have been saying here before continuing too much further.