Walker's Equation - By Thomas Walker - Definition and Proof !

[Commander]

Please view the attached file :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I give the following equation, as the reason for calling the value of 1 {Quantity one} as the

mother and Sum of all possible Rational Numbers.

http://www.wincowalker.com/

An Equation created and proved from basics by me [ Thomas Walker ] in 1998.

The greatness of this relationship is the fact that it shows that number 'one'1is the sum of sums of all possible inverse powers of all possible positive integers that come after 1. That is, from ‘2’ to ‘ infinity’.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Commander

[Ophiolite]

I have some questions for you.

 

1. What does this have to do with quantum theory?

 

2. In what way does your proof about the number 1 relate to the theories of the universe on pages 3 and 4 of your pdf?

 

3. You do realise that Einstein's theories (SR and GR) are not not "hotly contested" as you claim?

 

4. Do you not think that colour preference may relate more to cultural and familial upbringing?

[Commander]

Hi,

 

After my well thought and well written reply GOT LOST while I was trying to preview it before posting because the Server did not respond I NEED TO REPLY TO IT again.

 

Pl bear with me

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Hi,

 

I am replying once again, but can not exactly retrieve my earlier reply which got lost. I include the gist of it here.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Yes, I understand your points.

 

Being a FIRST TIME POSTER IN THIS SITE, I did make use of the Opportunity to REVEAL THE VARIOUS ASPECTS of my RESEARCH TOPICS and Ideas.

 

I can recast the INFO INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES if suggested.

 

PLEASE GIVE ME ADEQUATE TIME AS I AM A RETIRED SOFTWARE ENGINEER PROFESSIONAL who is trying to make a BREAK INTO THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AREA !

 

Thank you

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

PS :

 

What is this Lepton Title I see which has no connection with me or my info - I am trying to change it

Edited December 10, 2014 by Commander

[studiot]

1) You should be more careful with your wording since this is not quite true

 

 

'one'1is the sum

of sums of all possible inverse powers of all possible positive integers that come after 1.

 

The infinite series

[math]\frac{1}{{{2^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{3^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{4^1}}}....................................[/math]

 

is divergent, although it conforms strictly to your above wording., which therefore needs to be changed to exclude exceptions.

 

2) Since there is speculation in this post I expect it will be moved to the speculations forum where it belongs.

 

3) Like Ophiolite I am confused as to what aspect of your paper you want to discuss. If you want to connect it to quantum theory then say so, but be aware that your late countryman and genius (Ramanujan) did this many years ago.

 

4) There is considerable evidence that all creatures except one use the same chemical reactions and colour receptors to detect colours so only those with a neurological abnormality will see red as green or blue.

Edited December 10, 2014 by studiot

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

1. Moved to Speculations - in its very nature a new idea or equation is speculative. Please take a few moments to read the Rules of the Speculations Forum and the Guide to Posting in Speculations.

 

2. Please provide an abstract or summary on this site - we insist that members should be able to follow a discussion without going off-site

 

3. The member title - yours is currently Lepton - is a quick indication of the number of posts and progresses from the very small to the large and complex as you post more and more. Staff and truly ancient members have unique titles - mine is "lazy do-nothing mudslinger"; I am a lawyer so I take compliments like that where-ever I can find them.

 

[Commander]

1) You should be more careful with your wording since this is not quite true

 

 

The infinite series

[math]\frac{1}{{{2^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{3^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{4^1}}}....................................[/math]

 

is divergent, although it conforms strictly to your above wording., which therefore needs to be changed to exclude exceptions.

 

2) Since there is speculation in this post I expect it will be moved to the speculations forum where it belongs.

 

3) Like Ophiolite I am confused as to what aspect of your paper you want to discuss. If you want to connect it to quantum theory then say so, but be aware that your late countryman and genius (Ramanujan) did this many years ago.

 

4) There is considerable evidence that all creatures except one use the same chemical reactions and colour receptors to detect colours so only those with a neurological abnormality will see red as green or blue.

 

 

Hi,

 

Please note the next line

 

That is, from ‘2’ to ‘ infinity’.

 

Please read the attached file

1) You should be more careful with your wording since this is not quite true

 

 

The infinite series

[math]\frac{1}{{{2^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{3^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{4^1}}}....................................[/math]

 

is divergent, although it conforms strictly to your above wording., which therefore needs to be changed to exclude exceptions.

 

2) Since there is speculation in this post I expect it will be moved to the speculations forum where it belongs.

 

3) Like Ophiolite I am confused as to what aspect of your paper you want to discuss. If you want to connect it to quantum theory then say so, but be aware that your late countryman and genius (Ramanujan) did this many years ago.

 

4) There is considerable evidence that all creatures except one use the same chemical reactions and colour receptors to detect colours so only those with a neurological abnormality will see red as green or blue.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

1. Moved to Speculations - in its very nature a new idea or equation is speculative. Please take a few moments to read the Rules of the Speculations Forum and the Guide to Posting in Speculations.

 

2. Please provide an abstract or summary on this site - we insist that members should be able to follow a discussion without going off-site

 

3. The member title - yours is currently Lepton - is a quick indication of the number of posts and progresses from the very small to the large and complex as you post more and more. Staff and truly ancient members have unique titles - mine is "lazy do-nothing mudslinger"; I am a lawyer so I take compliments like that where-ever I can find them.

 

 

 

Hi,

 

Thanks for explaining Lepton.

 

I have added a file which gives the PROOF

 

THERE IS NO SPECULATION

Edited December 10, 2014 by Commander

[ajb]

Well, if your analysis is correct then you have some infinite series that converges to one. I have no idea if this series is already know, I don't find such things interesting, but now and again they may be useful.

 

But what the heck has this got to do with your 'theories'?

[studiot]

 

Please note the next line

 

That is, from ‘2’ to ‘ infinity’.

 

I did read the next line, as well as the document, and decided that, as written, it was at best ambiguous, but strictly referred to only to the second part of the sentence I quoted and not the first.

 

That is it only referred to "all possible integers that come after 1"

 

as demonstrated in your document.

 

So strictly your statement "all possible powers" includes 1 and so I respectfully suggested you amend it.

Note I have not argued for or against your thesis, like Ophiolite, only asked what you want us to disuss about it.

Edited December 10, 2014 by studiot

[Commander]

1) You should be more careful with your wording since this is not quite true

 

 

The infinite series

[math]\frac{1}{{{2^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{3^1}}} + \frac{1}{{{4^1}}}....................................[/math]

 

is divergent, although it conforms strictly to your above wording., which therefore needs to be changed to exclude exceptions.

 

2) Since there is speculation in this post I expect it will be moved to the speculations forum where it belongs.

 

3) Like Ophiolite I am confused as to what aspect of your paper you want to discuss. If you want to connect it to quantum theory then say so, but be aware that your late countryman and genius (Ramanujan) did this many years ago.

 

4) There is considerable evidence that all creatures except one use the same chemical reactions and colour receptors to detect colours so only those with a neurological abnormality will see red as green or blue.

Hi,

 

Further, I have indicated that it is not divergent and It is a prooved and accepted finding [by many experts including Jim Loy] since 1998.

 

I thought I am posting under Physics and did not note that the Sub-Topic is Quantum Theory and this is an Error. It can be under a suitable Physics Category like General.

 

Also about the Color it has not been understood correctly. It does not matter if Chemical Content makes the Perception look differently.

 

What I said is even though I see RED with the same Feeling and Emotional Perception as another sees GREEN Both of us would have been pointed to that particular object with that color and tutored that this is RED and that is GREEN etc and therefore between us there won't be any Contradiction !

 

Just pointing out a Possibility and creating a REASON why some EYES are FOND of SOME COLORS and there People differ in their Choice !!

Well, if your analysis is correct then you have some infinite series that converges to one. I have no idea if this series is already know, I don't find such things interesting, but now and again they may be useful.

 

But what the heck has this got to do with your 'theories'?

 

Thank you !

 

I know there could be Applications of this in Signal Processing and Matrix Signature of any Rational Number !!

 

I did read the next line, as well as the document, and decided that, as written, it was at best ambiguous, but strictly referred to only to the second part of the sentence I quoted and not the first.

 

That is it only referred to "all possible integers that come after 1"

 

as demonstrated in your document.

 

So strictly your statement "all possible powers" includes 1 and so I respectfully suggested you amend it.

Note I have not argued for or against your thesis, like Ophiolite, only asked what you want us to disuss about it.

 

OK TY

[Ophiolite]

Commander, if I may offer you a couple of tips for progressing your ideas on the forum.

 

1. Don't argue with the moderator/admin team. Your proposal is a speculation because you have not yet satisfied the members that your proof is valid. Any new idea, which steps beyond orthodox science is automatically placed in Speculations or New Hypotheses.

2. Don't use such large font. Typically large font is used by cranks. You don't want to be associated with them.

3. Do expect to receive a great deal of criticism. That is the nature of science. Members will, rightly, be attacking your idea, not you. If you feel you are being personally attacked report this to a moderator.

4. It would be best to focus on only a single one of your ideas at a time.

 

 

Thank you for addressing most of my points from post 2, but I would still welcome an answer to my third question.

[ajb]

I know there could be Applications of this in Signal Processing ...

That sounds like an application closer to your area of knowledge than what you wrote in your pdf.

[Commander]

Commander, if I may offer you a couple of tips for progressing your ideas on the forum.

 

1. Don't argue with the moderator/admin team. Your proposal is a speculation because you have not yet satisfied the members that your proof is valid. Any new idea, which steps beyond orthodox science is automatically placed in Speculations or New Hypotheses.

2. Don't use such large font. Typically large font is used by cranks. You don't want to be associated with them.

3. Do expect to receive a great deal of criticism. That is the nature of science. Members will, rightly, be attacking your idea, not you. If you feel you are being personally attacked report this to a moderator.

4. It would be best to focus on only a single one of your ideas at a time.

 

 

Thank you for addressing most of my points from post 2, but I would still welcome an answer to my third

 

Dear Ophiolite [Moderator],

 

Thank you for all the Support and I am very happy for so much of interactions in a short time.

 

I did not really anticipate this due to my interaction with other Forums and Groups in other Sites.

 

If I have looked arguing in any aspect I submit that it is not my intention.

 

I tried [somewhere else - url deleted by mod] too but their reaction time is slow.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

About :

 

3. You do realise that Einstein's theories (SR and GR) are not not "hotly contested" as you claim?

 

I used to interact with many Scientists and free thinkers in various Blog Sites , Usenet Forums [News Servers] and other Scientific Journals and there are dedicated attempts to promote ideas such as "Einstein Hoax" etc and even there are Ether Theories and proponents of ideas against Einstein's SR & GR and particularly his proposal of Universal Constant. In fact I hold Newton and Einstein [still] with very high regards and therefore this opposition to Einstein Ideas were shocking to me.

 

While I am still studying [and therefore the ideas are currently only Speculative] them I firmly believe that EMPTINESS HAS NO LIMIT and SPACE IS BOUNDLESS and there are UNIVERSES and UNIVERSES each one limited with MATTER THAT A BIG BANG CAN CONTAIN - GRAVITATIONAL FORCE LIMIT.

 

Then what is BEYOND ? AS THERE CAN BE NO LIMIT/END TO EXTENDING AN EUCLIDEAN LINE IN SPACE [if there is a bound then what is beyond ?]

 

This thought explains the reason for the THEORIES PROPOSED though the PROOF I NEED TO STILL DERIVE

 

There is NO GOING BACK IN TIME - TIME TRAVEL - too which Einstein had proposed.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Once again THANKS

[ajb]

... and there are dedicated attempts to promote ideas such as "Einstein Hoax" etc and even there are Ether Theories and proponents of ideas against Einstein's SR & GR and particularly his proposal of Universal Constant.

 

Okay, however there are not many mainstream reputable scientists who really know the subject and object to Einsteinian relativity. For sure you will find lots of rubbish online and in crank journals.

[Ophiolite]

Just to clarify a point Commander, I am not a moderator. I am designated as a forum expert, which proves that one can fool some of the people some of the time.

[studiot]

 

 

Further, I have indicated that it is not divergent and It is a prooved and accepted finding [by many experts including Jim Loy] since 1998.

 

Just to clarify a point.

 

You are presenting part of the real zeta function, which is upper schoolboy/entry university stuff.

 

eg Mathematical Analysis : Quadling : Oxford University Press.

 

The series

 

[math]\sum {\frac{1}{{{r^k}}}} [/math]

Where is is a positive integer not equal to zero.

is convergent for all

[math]k > 1[/math]

and divergent for all

[math]k \le 1[/math]

 

 

[Commander]

Thank you ophilia and ajb

 

Just to clarify a point.

 

You are presenting part of the real zeta function, which is upper schoolboy/entry university stuff.

 

eg Mathematical Analysis : Quadling : Oxford University Press.

 

The series

 

[math]\sum {\frac{1}{{{r^k}}}} [/math]

Where is is a positive integer not equal to zero.

is convergent for all
[math]k > 1[/math]
and divergent for all
[math]k \le 1[/math]

 

I did not invent NUMBER 1

 

It was already there

 

I only found this beautiful relationship by my OWN DERIVATION

 

First read my PROOF GIVEN IN MY FILE

 

NOWHERE HAVE I BORROWED ZETA FUNCTION OR ANYTHING ELSE

 

Also read what Jim Loy said in his Email to me.

[studiot]

No one is accusing you of 'borrowing' anything.

 

You would not be the first to independently discover something already known elsewhere so all credit for that.

 

However I am suprised that since you put that effort into this subject you seem uninterested and defensive when someone else points to what others have also found in the same subject.

 

[Commander]

No one is accusing you of 'borrowing' anything.

 

You would not be the first to independently discover something already known elsewhere so all credit for that.

 

However I am suprised that since you put that effort into this subject you seem uninterested and defensive when someone else points to what others have also found in the same subject.

 

 

Hi,

 

I do appreciate the amount of quick grasp you have shown to read and understand all that info I could post and also pointing out about the same which can be derived from the Zeta Function Expansion.

 

I thank you for the Effort and interaction.

 

But someone else during my Usenet Discussions had already indicated this Zeta Function and therefore it was not a new input.

 

Still I thank you from my heart !

 

[ajb]

But someone else during my Usenet Discussions had already indicated this Zeta Function and therefore it was not a new input.

 

But we do not know who has said what to you before. Thus, you will have to expect some repetition here.

[Commander]

But we do not know who has said what to you before. Thus, you will have to expect some repetition here.

 

Yes, I agree !

[xyzt]

 

Please view the attached file :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I give the following equation, as the reason for calling the value of 1 {Quantity one} as the

mother and Sum of all possible Rational Numbers.

http://www.wincowalker.com/

WgCdrThomasWalkersTheories4.pdf

An Equation created and proved from basics by me [ Thomas Walker ] in 1998.

The greatness of this relationship is the fact that it shows that number 'one'1is the sum of sums of all possible inverse powers of all possible positive integers that come after 1. That is, from ‘2’ to ‘ infinity’.

WalkerEqn Jim Loy.doc

ACuriousConnection.pdf

 

So, your math is wrong (shoddy) and the connections that you are trying to establish with physics (quantum mechanics, relativity) are non-existent. You call yourself a "professor". What do you "teach"?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's keep the discussion focused on the issues directly related to science and/or math

[ajb]

Loy's proof is good an easy to follow. It is a nice exercise in geometric series and splitting a fraction. Still I don't think there is anything deep in this. I doubt many professional mathematicians would be interested, unless maybe you could make some strong connections with number theory or combinatorics or something.

 

Why did you consider this double sum in the first place?

[Commander]

Loy's proof is good an easy to follow. It is a nice exercise in geometric series and splitting a fraction. Still I don't think there is anything deep in this. I doubt many professional mathematicians would be interested, unless maybe you could make some strong connections with number theory or combinatorics or something.

 

Why did you consider this double sum in the first place?

 

Well I was in fact trying to create a puzzle for our local Research Lab Magazine and wanted to give it as

 

Prove 1 = 2² + 2³ + 2^{4 .........} + 2ⁿ................. + 2∞

3² + 3³ + 3^{4 .........} + 3ⁿ................. + 3∞

4² + 4³ + 2^{4 .........} + 4ⁿ................. + 4∞

etc upto infinity downwards

after I derived this as stated in my file.

 

Then, many appreciated the beauty of the relation and I am in the process of finding whether anywhere this can be used !

[ajb]

Well I was in fact trying to create a puzzle for our local Research Lab Magazine and wanted to give it as

...

 

Then, many appreciated the beauty of the relation and I am in the process of finding whether anywhere this can be used !

That is cool.

 

It is a nice result and one that is not hard to prove. However, simply being correct is not enough for it to be interesting. Good luck with finding applications.