Surquasic Teleoscoping ( Symmetry, Space, and Primes)

Surquasic Teleoscoping ( Symmetry, Space, and Primes) Leonard Edgar Otto July 22, 23, 2011

This page, a little messy with minor errors, was to take a more general look at the various quasic planes in terms of properties of numbers. If one looks and understands this method, ( teleoscoping- what preceded by what can be followed by what ) one may see a variety of principles as asserted by others- and with a little clearer understanding perhaps by the quasic plane picture. In particular I see links between say Kea's methods, My Methods, and Pitkanen's (to mention those bloggers which certainly link to many others- but I cannot tell if it is a vast thing even when I know the facts that I do not comprehend- that is I am aware for the most part of my own edifice of development although as I remarked to Ulla I may be above my own head here. I see the plane now as a literal thing, a wider idea of a matrix- perhaps a Jordan matrix or such within such. But clearly the symmetry involved from the factors of the plane is distinctly different in the alpha and beta or X and Y directions. So, Kea and Pitkanen meet in the quasic grid number system background... and that to me is the pattern many are looking for of which they may not quite comprehend. Not to say there are all the answers here.

But really this was a number theory cool and need way to picture things of which I did not expect to find this when I was trying to clear up binary teleoscoping a little better.

We can see the plane as symmetric from two ways, but what is that save a sieve of sorts squared- it really does not tell us much of directed asymmetric processes?

Of course a great deal of this explains a lot of particle physics for those who may want to look into it.

* * *


This Morning:

*Our comprehension and our knowledge, education of methods and facts. do not always correspond. Nor our evaluation of either aspect as fact or comprehension - even with insights and building of self-projects.

*The symmetries of bilateral organisms in the Surquasic plane is a choice of what in factors and multiplication is a distinction or not of the symmetric and directed asymmetric and these modes can each be seen as depth or span in the quasic planes.

*As a matter of notation perhaps, brute methods in isolation (linearly) of number crunching or polytopal extensions cannot decide if at some infinite or partially so power of two as a continuum to remote limits it is a prime or greater than primes.

*Finite quasic dimensions and 4^n powers may reflect this general paradox in structures of space (part of the quasic field or other matrices) as quasi-finite recursions (ie way to so define and map infinity).

*In the viewed arrangements of stacks of such parts or levels, and as such levels in levels we may limit physical descriptions to finite's in infinite's in group corresponding levels on many levels, to a few primes.

*In teleoscoping we can conceive, where two (duality) has no precursor, that what preceded by p can be followed by q in the case of primes we can imagine p one advancement only, and uniquely followed by q if preceded by o in a successive progression thus primes which at least ultimately not to loop.

One might ask questions like if there are pairs of primes like 11-13 in number and compute various numbers of primes in the various regions of the surquasic plane.

We should certainly understand the role of 2 as the even prime, and of 1/2 as the value of Riemann (here real) and the scaless aspect of unity as a not prime.

We should understand the idea of a prime being its own power or multiple composite.

That the checks in the graph form the odd composites but that these errode the distinction of what is odd and even, as well the possibility of what is addition and multipliction. We can see the patterns moreover to double any 4 or 8 based space, that is 2 8 32 128 512 of ideas along Pitkanen's p-adic considerations. The Y direction of quasic graphs is not the same as the X direction for number properties.

Again, these factors of binaries and the grid of binaries are structured such that the introduction of distinct combinations (say for u s b quarks) is understood in the representation to allow the wider freedom of the next higher dimension which without all these aspects of approaching quasicity (and we should include the random methods for we in doing so do find we can find certainty as well in viewing such graphs as well as relative views albeit limited) also the resonances are implied where we do not lose information but expand it in the teleoscoping.

* * *

Comment to Matti on this:

Matti,

It is a victory for the human faculty of mind and yes we all have a certain vertigo at the foundations. And yes there is great joy after work of such discovery.

In fact I tend to see from our several approaches that combination of topology and numbers a link between my viewpoint, yours and Kea's. Yes, and Motl on the random aspects.

I tried to put this into a graph or matrix realizing that themes do not have to loop.

I hope this can be of use for clarity as we could further develop these methods so Please see it at www.pesla.blogspot.com under the post Surquasic Teleoscoping- in partial answer to how to find the integration of the factored roots of (ultimately binary numbers).

And you are so right once we get the implications of such theories, that the sitting on and the loss of these ideas is for science a great tragedy.

The PeSla

* * *



PS. I am not sure that Kea would welcome a notification of this unification of things but I must say the paper on motives read recently was a great part of these insights...