Cartesian Quasic Contiguity (Beyond the New Physics) L. Otto June 6, 2011
I am considering this morning posting a new form of my quasic grid that combines the ordering of the Cartesian grid by itself inadequate to describe space as the other such forms of these (plane) spaces by themselves are also inadequate to describe the space. The difference roughly the holographic view and the fractal view of things, or fundamentally, as Newton defined continuity, the three things it requires 1-that continuous, 2-that contiguous, 3-that consecutive. In the sense that geometry is touch and sight, in a deeper sense than even that, contiguity is the concept of touch which applies to the depth and span of worlds and particles. It is the part of the definition where we exist to encounter things. It is central between the two physics which each can claim its form of the continuous or discontinuous as privileged. But the tightrope and pivot between them can be most unstable as to lead to a fall of which it is not clear there is some sort of net to catch these high flying trapeze artists.
This is a question of what is or is not to be considered linear also or symmetrical, and it does relate to the group numerology involved as say the field and the particle measure, where they touch or where they become what is seen or unseen.
The architecture has computer or computational applications and of course parallels to some of the logical methods used to connect various virtual matrices at least to the 256^3 power just a little further in our futures. For those who can understand or have explored my art it involves the concepts of epsilon-delta honeycombs and the usual virial ordering of "quasic" and other such logical spaces. (otherwise I leave this comment for a self reference or for the archeologists of the internet.) Perhaps this idea, near it all along but not said in explicit terms, came forth as I tried to answer my own question as to the group of the associahedron- for from that perspective of parallel ideas even radically disguised so, the numbers seem to be that of relationship forthright to other known lattices and generations of space plus a small binary contribution to which we count the least part of the mass of things.
* * *
Oh, the illustration. Well, you see I have had a beard for a couple of months and the weather was record heat. Even on the street I stayed clean shaven and washed my close out by hand if needed for it was a general thought it meant civilized. But of course it is a tradition from the first world war so that the gas masks would not let the gas in thru the beard.
To that end these damn multiblade razors, 5 or 6 thin blades now, do not have a chance to work for a clean shave after even deeply trimming the beard. So there is FatBoy (the Gillette razor of 64 or so with two safety blades- they make the blades I see but where are the razors?) I don't think Fatboy was named after the bomb!
The problem is two fold. The two blade or trac two seems to cut me more than the others but I understand the company's having to pursue it with so much investment in it at the time. Well, I found a rather "thin boy" but it had advantages in the rummage sale antique shop downtown. The other problem is that when pieces of beard gets caught between the blade they act dull and are impossible to clean or wash out so it takes a lot of these plastic throw away razors.
So I was able with the thin boy to remove the blade holder even shaving a fierce beard, clean it so that the single blade felt rather sharp again. Not only did it work, and I imagine I could control the proverbial shadow or masculine sheen, I did not nick myself once with this double blade razor. I felt I had a good shave like 19 again and no razor burn nor sticky oil to make the throw away hydra headed plastic scented leave a slimy smoothness that hides the crew cut tickle if in the groggy morning you missed a spot or unbalanced your sideburns.
Strings, blades, shaving with the grain or not, branes and planes and grids and honeycombs... a little time travel when we are timeless, a little expiration of patents and photos and the realization in theory one could make a useful tool again, well it may not be natural but there is a certain timelessness and clarity in the landscape of my face. Sometimes the braids become tangled, and the planes become dull and lose their music fading into rust.
* * *
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-5468/2006/11/P11014/fulltext
Zvi Bern type correspondence- It seems to me that our inclusion of names, from the past or in the present, presents as much difficulty as formuli in the reading and understanding of a theory- however, in the search for what this is about I came across this most interesting text- in the matrices where there are integral numbers I am amazed how many of these I recognize as significant in my discrete counting and feel, although there is a strong possibility I have missed some important notion or method, that this is the right approach to frame things in a simpler and more fundamental manner- the fault not the languages or notions put into symbolical names as much as the use of mathematical tools that work but are not comprehensive enough so as to limit the compass of those presenting notions, long winded at that. Yet in the pondering of these general theories they can only be as good beyond the styles of symbol systems as the foundations on which they are built- what in fact may be beyond the zeta functions for example or say the special study of phase angles and so on when the question of touch, contiguity itself in things like multiplicity where we keep separate the specialization as to particle or field centered, as surface of volume ordered and so on is naturally separate as we see these differences and complexities in the world- but not where these form a more comprehensive and unified view of something as yet hinted of in the transcendentals and our toying with what if's in a deeper sense and wider span of a simple plane?
It is however useful to assert some limitation and even expect it at some level or depth of our experimental explorations (my third category of theoreticians might have been better called theoreticians in exploration). But we should keep in mind there may be more than in our present endowment of wisdom and imagination before we can claim certainty of some limitation.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/aps-vi081709.php
Well, this clearly stays on the search topic... but is the combination of such theories in the closing statement as to the best of strings or points and perturbation but a hopeful promise? Expand the ways to compute with loops and Feynman diagrams? Or expand in these infinities as a problem the Multi depths of certain spaces with boundaries or not by an open computation of Fourier methods?
In that world caught between the macro and micro where we see things as points or strings- is not my long standing concept of iotas as that in between, that dynamic pixel contiguity based on the one simple equation of the omnium? Is it any wonder that with such a long time view even in simpler times that I might have a little to say about what is just unfolding now? From such a view one way or the other way I look I can map the dreams of others and see where those dreams are sound, and where they in a different expression share parallel notions. Why would any theoretician want to hide any possible and shared truths from themselves?
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment