Mathematics based on science?

[Mordred]

Your arguing a fallacy based on a fallacy argument.

 

Do you even understand the relation between

 

0+-5 and 0-5 is? When you add a negative it's the same as subtracting that number.

 

When you multiply a negative number your multiplying the amount of subtraction.

 

This is Mathematics not philosophy.

 

Of course I will argue pure Mathematics in regards to science.

 

Science is the language of mathematical relations.

 

You ask me to use your false Mathematics? To explain relations from condition A to condition B.

 

Not going to happen.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Coordinate systems too. However, every sliding scale you use is based off of positive numbers and negative numbers.

These kinds of things are torsors. They have an affine structure as the 'starting place' can be shifted. There if of course no big deal here.

 

 

Relativity as far as I know has never been able to stand up as the one unarguably true theory amongst all the theories out there.

I have no idea what you mean by 'unarguably true theory' nor do I have any idea what you mean by 'theories out there'.

 

Anyway, special and general relativity have been shown directly and indirectly to be a very good basis for constructing physical theories. General relativity has been tested to the same kind of accuracy as the standard model of particle physics (which itself relies of special relativity). So Einsteinian relativity does stand up to any other mathematical framework for developing physical theories that has even been presented.

 

 

My conjecture is that our universe follows mathematical rules (or at least mathematics can be used to describe elements of our universe.)

This is a huge philosophical question that I fear has no clear answer. For sure, by using mathematics we get at a deeper understanding of the Universe via our models and theories. But does this actually mean that nature exploits mathematics? If not, can we understand why mathematics has been so useful in the physical sciences?

 

What if the rules that our universe follows (or seems to follow) are different than the rules we follow for pure mathematics?

This is a fantastic philosophical question and of course linked to your earlier question. Again, I have no idea how one would really answer this.

 

If a theory was shown not to describe nature well then we amend the theory: as a mathematical model we use mathematics to amend the model. We even discover new mathematics in order to do this. What we would need is some model that uses 'other mathematics that is not our mathematics', but this is meaningless.

[Mordred]

Grr I know I never heard the the term torsor before. Thanks for that lol.

 

No worries I can find the needed material myself lol.

 

Ps surprised I hadn't seen the term in my lie algebra studies lol most likely missed it though lol

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Ps surprised I hadn't seen the term in my lie algebra studies lol

You should think of the difference between a vector space and an affine space. Once you have chosen '0' your affine space becomes a vector space. But usually, there is no canonical choice of '0'. Torsors are usually behind our choices of units in physics.

 

Something that does not have a torsor behind it is the Kelvin scale. We have an absolute zero that everyone agrees. We have a canonical choice of 'where to start' as far as temperature is concerned.

[Mordred]

I agree, just never heard the term atm I'm looking at the The term for a homogeneous space G and the stabilizer subgroup.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsor_(algebraic_geometry)

 

quite detailed it will take a bit lol

[ajb]

I wrote about torsors here as a set with an action of a group upon it: essentially a torsor is a group that has forgotten its identity.

Edited March 28, 2016 by ajb

[Mordred]

Ah I gotcha, the article you wrote provided some good clarity. Well written. Follows what I've been stating this thread but in far greater mathematical detail

This particular line is an excellent example.

 

"A good example of the use of a torsor is the potential difference in electromagnetism. When you measure a voltage, you in fact measure the difference of some voltage relative to some other fixed voltage. In practice one takes the ground to be zero, but this is a choice"

 

 

I just never heard the term before in regards to bundles and lie algebra groups.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

I just never heard the term before in regards to bundles and lie algebra groups.

Picking frames and bases can be thought of in terms of torsors. You do not usually have a canonical choice of a 'starting frame' to relate all others to.

[Mordred]

Yeah I understand. Thanks for the detailed terminology on the the principle. Makes sense to me though most will miss the details. I can see hundreds of applications involving torsors

Though I have studied lie algebra in some detail. Just never connected this particular dot lol

There is a G torsor are there any other torsor groups?

Edit there is also an R torsor group

 

Edit Edit lol never mind the last question there are numerous torsor groups.

This link provided a good explanation along with your article.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/torsors.html

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

I can see hundreds of applications involving torsors

Torsors do indeed appear all over the place, and people are using them without knowing it!

 

 

There is a G torsor are there any other torsor groups?

A group is part of the definition. In practice a common group is (R,+), but other groups can be found in the literature. For example GL(n,R) torsors are found behind picking a bases of a vector space.

 

You can also study torsors other categories rather than just sets. I have not looked into this properly... maybe supertorsors are something to look at ;-)

[Mordred]

Yeah its rather an unheard of principle I truly thank you for the info. Lie algebra being part of my studies this particular set of relations is incredibly handy.

 

In a more diligent level it can apply to most field theories. A good example is the Lorentz SO(1.3) group

Lol I think we might be getting beyond the OP's understanding

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[studiot]

Gosh, guys this high falutin stuff is interesting but we do not need to fly high to discuss the OP.

 

@noonespecial would you be prepared to listen if any electrical engineer gave you a practical example of negative that we use every day?

 

The electrical power wave supplied by your socket on the wall has positive sections and negative sections that exactly balance out.

 

This is because the average power is exactly zero

 

This is why we (have to) use what are known as root mean square values for current, voltage power etc.

Edited March 28, 2016 by studiot

[Mordred]

Gosh, guys this high falutin stuff is interesting but we do not need to fly high to discuss the OP.

 

Point well taken lol. And an excellent example Edited March 28, 2016 by Mordred

[EdEarl]

Is the OP convinced or trolling? Rhetorical.

Edited March 28, 2016 by EdEarl

[Strange]

Mordred, when you set zero at a baseline you are not dealing with absolute zero.

 

Most things in the real world do not have an absolute zero point. Almost everything we deal with is relative.

Relativity as far as I know has never been able to stand up as the one unarguably true theory amongst all the theories out there

 

Theories are never "true".

[studiot]

 

 

Strange

 

noonespecial, on 28 Mar 2016 - 02:29 AM, said:

Mordred, when you set zero at a baseline you are not dealing with absolute zero.

 

Most things in the real world do not have an absolute zero point. Almost everything we deal with is relative.

 

 

The example in my post 37 has an absolute zero.

[Strange]

 

The example in my post 37 has an absolute zero.

 

What is the point of saying that?

[noonespecial]

Studiot, the example you gave is actually using the rules for pure mathematics. I already know that pure mathematics is different from the mathematics I have shown here. Is there a way to calculate voltage of an alternating current system using the mathematical rules I have presented here? I honestly don't know. You tell me. I realize that pure mathematics can give answers. Pure mathematics is mathematical after all.

 

I am very intrigued by your answer though and am glad that you shared it. When you say that an outlet has zero power I assume you are referring to the fact that when you try to average the voltage in an alternating current over time the answer is zero (according to the way the math was devised using pure mathematics.) Due to the average being calculated as zero a different method (RMS) had to be devised that would give the correct value of the voltage? Doesn't that mean that an outlet really doesn't have zero power? Otherwise why would RMS even be necessary?

 

Also, the negative numbers you mentioned are in connection to the sin wave? The values on a sin wave denote distances from an origin point (represented as a line.) This is covered by addition and subtraction as it does not entail multiplication or division. There is not a physical component of the power that is actually less than zero power. The negative numbers are there because an inverse relationship exists and only pure mathematics was available at the time the math was being devised (not that i'm saying it is wrong or doesn't produce a correct value.) Pure mathematics (as far as I am aware) only uses positive and negative numbers when dealing with inverse functions.

 

Let's also look at a different example involving electricity as it applies to multiplication and division using the math I presented instead of pure mathematics. For showing the rules of multiplication and division I used the physical division of an object. I showed that two properties of the object were inversely changed when an object is physically divided and that zero was an invalid number for multiplication and division. The same can be done with electric current.

 

Imagine a circuit where one watt goes in and one watt comes out. In the circuit there is a transformer. Our current has a voltage of one and an amperage of one. If the transformer doubles the voltage then the amperage is halved. If the transformer triples the volts then the amperage is cut to one third. This follows the rules for multiplication and division perfectly. What would happen if the transformer cut the voltage to zero? Remember that one watt of power flows constantly through the circuit. A transformer that reduces the voltage to zero is a faulty transformer and breaks the flow of electricity. When you have a current that flows, neither the voltage nor the amperage can be equal to zero. This follows the rules presented.

Those of you who like relativity, I previously stated that I like relativity too but don't know much about it. The theory of relativity has at least one problem though. There is a YouTube video called "The Collapse of Physics as We Know it" that describes this problem. The portion of the video containing this problem starts at 3:20 and lasts until 7:23.

 

The problem with relativity comes in when the equation is divided by zero. I understand that this is how it's done with pure mathematics. With pure mathematics you can assume that mass can be contained in an area of zero height, width, and depth. The mathematics I have shown says that you cannot divide down to zero. With this mathematics you can assume that mass cannot be contained in an area of zero height, width, depth. Why not try the equations with the mathematical rules presented here and see what happens? The origin for the rules of this math is one.

 

Also, I am sure that many if not all of you are familiar with the laws of decreasing by inverse square. Take a look at the multiplication and division table from my first entry on this post and see if you can't see a representation of decreasing by inverse square presented in a fundamental way.

 

I'm not saying my way is correct. This mathematics is so far largely untested. Most people seem to want to argue pure mathematics instead.

[studiot]

Studiot, the example you gave is actually using the rules for pure mathematics. I already know that pure mathematics is different from the mathematics I have shown here. Is there a way to calculate voltage of an alternating current system using the mathematical rules I have presented here? I honestly don't know. You tell me. I realize that pure mathematics can give answers. Pure mathematics is mathematical after all.

 

I am very intrigued by your answer though and am glad that you shared it. When you say that an outlet has zero power I assume you are referring to the fact that when you try to average the voltage in an alternating current over time the answer is zero (according to the way the math was devised using pure mathematics.) Due to the average being calculated as zero a different method (RMS) had to be devised that would give the correct value of the voltage? Doesn't that mean that an outlet really doesn't have zero power? Otherwise why would RMS even be necessary?

 

Also, the negative numbers you mentioned are in connection to the sin wave? The values on a sin wave denote distances from an origin point (represented as a line.) This is covered by addition and subtraction as it does not entail multiplication or division. There is not a physical component of the power that is actually less than zero power. The negative numbers are there because an inverse relationship exists and only pure mathematics was available at the time the math was being devised (not that i'm saying it is wrong or doesn't produce a correct value.) Pure mathematics (as far as I am aware) only uses positive and negative numbers when dealing with inverse functions.

 

Let's also look at a different example involving electricity as it applies to multiplication and division using the math I presented instead of pure mathematics. For showing the rules of multiplication and division I used the physical division of an object. I showed that two properties of the object were inversely changed when an object is physically divided and that zero was an invalid number for multiplication and division. The same can be done with electric current.

 

Imagine a circuit where one watt goes in and one watt comes out. In the circuit there is a transformer. Our current has a voltage of one and an amperage of one. If the transformer doubles the voltage then the amperage is halved. If the transformer triples the volts then the amperage is cut to one third. This follows the rules for multiplication and division perfectly. What would happen if the transformer cut the voltage to zero? Remember that one watt of power flows constantly through the circuit. A transformer that reduces the voltage to zero is a faulty transformer and breaks the flow of electricity. When you have a current that flows, neither the voltage nor the amperage can be equal to zero. This follows the rules presented.

Those of you who like relativity, I previously stated that I like relativity too but don't know much about it. The theory of relativity has at least one problem though. There is a YouTube video called "The Collapse of Physics as We Know it" that describes this problem. The portion of the video containing this problem starts at 3:20 and lasts until 7:23.

 

The problem with relativity comes in when the equation is divided by zero. I understand that this is how it's done with pure mathematics. With pure mathematics you can assume that mass can be contained in an area of zero height, width, and depth. The mathematics I have shown says that you cannot divide down to zero. With this mathematics you can assume that mass cannot be contained in an area of zero height, width, depth. Why not try the equations with the mathematical rules presented here and see what happens? The origin for the rules of this math is one.

 

Also, I am sure that many if not all of you are familiar with the laws of decreasing by inverse square. Take a look at the multiplication and division table from my first entry on this post and see if you can't see a representation of decreasing by inverse square presented in a fundamental way.

 

I'm not saying my way is correct. This mathematics is so far largely untested. Most people seem to want to argue pure mathematics instead.

 

I'm glad you have taken the time to answer.

 

However you seem to be under some misapprehensions, this is nothing to do with pure maths, all you need is a voltmeter and sufficient knowledge of electrical engineering.

The maths models the engineering, not the other way round.

 

Power is the product of two sine or other waves and a phase shift. (did a multiplication creep in there ?)

 

You carefully avoided the part where I said that some parts of the wave are positive and some negative.

Do you know what this means in electrical engineering terms?

[noonespecial]

Studiot, I looked briefly into RMS. Let me look again and see what I can see. I hope you are right. I might have some questions though. I'm not an electrical engineer and I don't like leaving things to chance. This might take a while. Thanks for the reply.

[ajb]

The problem with relativity comes in when the equation is divided by zero. I understand that this is how it's done with pure mathematics.

If you are talking about standard real or complex numbers, then you simply cannot divide by zero.

 

With pure mathematics you can assume that mass can be contained in an area of zero height, width, and depth.

I guess you are really thinking about a limit here.

 

 

The mathematics I have shown says that you cannot divide down to zero.

Which we all knew anyway.

 

 

With this mathematics you can assume that mass cannot be contained in an area of zero height, width, depth. Why not try the equations with the mathematical rules presented here and see what happens? The origin for the rules of this math is one.

You are free to try this...

 

Anyway, people do think about modifying space-time so that the infinities of general relativity are regulated. There is a whole branch of mathematics that span-off from this... look up noncommutative geometry.

[noonespecial]

Ajb, thanks, I will. And I will respond to you soon.

Studiot, wow, ac current is very cool! I have evaluated the process for determining the root mean square that you have suggested. If you see any mistakes or do not agree with my assessment please let me know.

 

1. Sample the current.

This is just taking readings. In alternating current the flow of electric charge periodically changes directions. If the flow is moving away from you it has the opposite charge as when the the flow is moving toward you. So the direction of the flow determines whether the voltage is positive or negative.

This follows the rules for addition and subtraction where there are two locations. Electrons flow from (subtraction) one location to (addition) another. By selecting one end of a circuit you can use positive (addition) numbers for voltages moving in one direction and negative (subtraction) numbers for voltages moving in the opposite direction.

 

2. Square the values.

This is taking each value and multiplying it by itself. All of the values are positive.

With addition and subtraction it does not matter to the object whether you call it an addition or a subtraction. The object remains an object. With a flow of electrons the flow does not care if you call it positive or negative. It still remains a flow of electrons regardless of the polarity (which represents a property not a quantity) of the electrons that constitute the flow.

RMS is designed to average the voltages of an alternating current. When calculating the average, the flow direction is not important. Only the voltages themselves actually count. The rules of pure mathematics say that the product of a square is always positive. With the mathematics presented in this post there are no negative quantities to begin with.

 

3. Add the squared values. The values for this addition are the same for both pure mathematics and the mathematics presented here.

 

4. Divide squared values by number of samples. This division does not include either zero or negative numbers.

 

5. Find square root of total. This step does not include either a value of zero or negative numbers.

 

Sine wave: The sine wave uses a single addition and subtraction axis and has a second axis to describe time. The graph does not go against the rules of the mathematics presented here as there are no multiplication or division elements involved. The numbers on the sine wave graph represent values of a current as they occur over time.

 

Assessment: The math involved does not refute the conjecture presented in this post. Since the process of finding the root mean square of the values of an alternating current do not describe a physical alteration of energy or matter the process is not a good test of the rules of the conjecture. While the rules of the mathematics presented in this conjecture have not been broken here, this example cannot be considered as any kind of evidence supporting the conjecture.

[noonespecial]

..............

 

Abj, thank you for your patience. When I was in high school learning about math and science I was amazed at how well the two worked together. I have always had questions that occupy my mind. "Who am I?" "What is this place?" "Why am I here?" These are not easy questions and it is probable that I will never know the answers. When I was a kid, I believed the most likely paths to answering those questions were science or religion.

 

There were things about the fundamentals of mathematics that I could not accept as being able to answer my questions. Since science was (in my mind) tied to mathematics, I discarded the idea that science could help me. I turned to religion instead. That path turned into a dead end for me quickly.

 

I started studying the world around me instead. Everywhere I looked I found evidence of mathematics. Logic, philosophy, science, art, music, the physical world itself. So I returned my attention to the fundamental rules of mathematics. The problems I had with math were the concepts of negative quantities,the lack of physical examples of multiplication, and the undefined functions involving division of or by zero.

 

I spent many years with pads of graph paper trying to understand why I couldn't make sense of what should be the most fundamental parts of mathematics. I had reasoned that if math could describe so many aspects of this world then it might be possible that math is (at least part of) the fundamental laws of how everything in our universe works.

 

I spent twenty years trying to make sense of it before I gave up. I figured twenty years was enough. I never found anything in this world that would actually represent a negative quantity. I also never found a single example of physical multiplication. To me, if mathematics was indeed one of the physical pillars of the laws of nature then it wouldn't have components that aren't physically observable.

 

It wasn't long after that I was at it again. One day I picked up a stick and was playing with it while pondering math. It occurred to me that every time I moved the stick I was subtracting it from one location and adding it to another. I had the thought that it would be nice if multiplication and division worked like that too. It made me so upset that I broke the stick. I was staring at the pieces in disgust wondering how I could make one object become two when it dawned on me that I just had. I laughed at myself and told myself I was being stupid.

 

A few days later I was back to the graph paper. I was exploring the possibilities of what I discovered that day. To my surprise I found a system of mathematics. I didn't understand it at first. I don't fully understand it still but I have yet to disprove it. That's why I am here. I've never been a social person and I don't speak often. I am not a scientist, a mathematician, or a philosopher. I study the human condition with the hope that I can find the truth about myself. In finding this new rules set for a different set of mathematics than I was taught in school, I feel obligated to share it. I don't know if it truly is a set of rules that our universe adheres to. What I do know is that I don't want to be the guy who takes the information to his grave if it happens to be just that.

[studiot]

 

The problems I had with math were the concepts of negative quantities,the lack of physical examples of multiplication, and the undefined functions involving division of or by zero.

 

 

Thus far I have only addressed then first of these.

 

Just because you could not or did not find examples does not prove they do not exist.

 

Which is why I find it all the more suprising when I offer you something real that does display exactly this and you respond by a 24 hour course in a discipline that takes folks 5 years + to learn, and then dismissing my offer in your ignorance.

I would have expected the response of a truly open and enquiring mind to be "Oh really, please explain further.?"

 

I actually also offered the same subject as an example of multiplication, which you actually need to understand the true picture.

 

For your infomation the point about electrical power is that during part of a cycle power is delivered from the generator to the circuit and during other parts of the cycle power is returned by the circuit to the generator. The former is positive power, the latter negative. Absolute zero power occurs when the two are equal.

[noonespecial]

Studiot, I did not mean for my reply to offed you. If I have given offense then I apologize. I have been quite excited in fact since you decided to join the conversation. The fact that you are an experienced electrical engineer seems valuable to my interests here. The broader the range of professional experience that can contribute to this investigation the better.

 

You are correct when you say that not finding examples doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

Please read the opening statement I wrote to you in my assessment again. I welcome your comments and opinions.

 

I do not pretend to have mastered electricity in the short time I have had to assess your example. I studied one single mathematical process.

 

The example of multiplication did not break the rules of the conjecture. The multiplication provided is also involved in taking an average. Since taking an average is not a physical action, there is no equal and opposite reaction to observe. The conjecture needs evidence of physical multiplication and division of energy or matter. Averaging values simply does not qualify to show sufficient proof needed.

 

For your last point, I covered this under step 1 and included more information under step 2. Also reread the original post again where the rules for addition and subtraction are written.

 

The only thing I did not cover was absolute zero power. What exactly does absolute zero power mean? What is happening in the circuit when this occurs?