## Monday, June 27, 2011

### Hypernumbers, Branes, TGD

Hypernumbers, Branes, TGD

Comment to Pikanens blog (and I am not sure the K is the same thing in the notations as Coxeter used for the K-circuit so forgive the mix up of symbols if they are distinct:

So, Matti,

I understand why hypernumbers have no special role in the TGD framework. But I am not sure what your excellent post and links like on the D 9 brane string like ideas have to do with it either.

Other than the 3D extension I think your question on the Mandelbrot fractal a good one (branes in a sense seem to answer it, at least suggest a vision of it. But such compactions of space for me is too limited in the first place, a dead end if the only view.

I am also amazed at the analogy that Branes can be considered charged, or is that a higher metaphor- do they radiate.

In numbers the square and cubed things together do raise the question of something like 6 space and so on... but that deeper than branes that always are n-dimensional in fact in the first place.

I think hamed asked this question because there are 9 such hypernumbers which are based on the idea of a root of unity which is not necessarily positive one.

And quite simply space does seem to be filled cube-wise and sphere-wise at whatever they think happens at nine dimensions.

But with all left over interpretations of just a QM theory as a method- such hypernumbers were (in the 70s) thought intimate in the description of consciousness.

The PeSla

* * * *

In a sense, reading the link on Matti's post today I have the sense that Branes are sort of treated as generalized waves and particles. But how would we know if they decayed by the obvious loss of discrete electric charges if in fact the mirror forms by complex numbers are also contained in the dimensions of a brane?

I should add this small bit of numerology. In talks with my new computer partner yesterday on the developing of new forms (she also has a program beyond maple or mathematica and it will be interesting seeing if it can handle some things of my concepts the others cannot perhaps as a matter of programming- I thought about the slicing for a three space matrix for a coordinate system as she suggested but found it rather wasteful of the desired methods of notation.

Basically, the rather difficult chessgames that can be played in two space even if n-dimensional (I plan a program for this and my chess buddy and I play it on line but I still expect he to be the first 4D chess master. We talk a lot of theory on the nature and its history in the game. It too has a depth of focus and even a special relation like the use of time (see the link in mattis post on tachyons).

So the 2^2 game can be planed in 4^3 of 64 cells. Now in the consideration of these higher space structures I note that: 16^3 = 64^2 and 64^3 = 512^2 both of which came up in playing with the integral numbers last night and seem to me hardly a trivial observation or even some accident of binary or nimber considerations.

* * *

The Following is posted from sketch of last year in correspondence with Rowlands, as our differences, his the 20 codons from the more complex and quantum way to see things. Here for easy reference in discussions with my new computer friend for the domain projects:

* * *

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

## Post a Comment