Notices
Results 1 to 43 of 43
Like Tree22Likes
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By someguy1
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 3 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Guitarist
  • 1 Post By MagiMaster
  • 1 Post By Daecon
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By someguy1
  • 2 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By KJW

Thread: Mathematics: the fifth operation

  1. #1 Mathematics: the fifth operation 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    10
    Mathematics: the fifth operation

    It was known that our calculations in the mathematics are four (Combine, subtraction, multiplication, division), but we discovered the fifth and process that combines two two at the same time.
    I want to help in this matter.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by zouaoui messaoud View Post
    It was known that our calculations in the mathematics are four (Combine, subtraction, multiplication, division), but we discovered the fifth and process that combines two two at the same time.
    Are you going to tell us what it is? Or is it a secret?

    I want to help in this matter.
    I think we all agree that you need help.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You left three operations off your list: exponentiation and its two inverses, log and root. Then there's the precursor to addition, the successor operation, and the not-very-well-defined next step past exponentiation, tetration. BTW, 2+2 = 2*2 = 2^2 = 2^^2 = 4.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    131
    The four branches of arithmetic are ambition, distraction, uglification, and derision.

    Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision: Summary of Chapter Nine (2 of 2) | "An-Alice-Is" In Wonderland
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Addition and subtraction are combination and intersection respectively, multiplication and devision are the same only non linear,as is epotentiation. I am not for sure about inverse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Quickie, one thing I know for sure in aritmetic is that fractions are division problems, they are not numbers. That is what makes fractions so hard. The line should be a divide by sign, and it probably started out that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    It did probably start that way, but that doesn't mean fractions aren't numbers. 1/4, whether you think of that as 1 divided by 4, one quarter, 0.25, 25% or whatever else still represents a specific real value (a rational value actually, but a number either way).

    I should also point out that addition and subtraction can't be directly mapped to union and intersection without at least some extra details. After all, {a, b, c} U {b, c, d} is {a, b, c, d} which can't be arrived at by any form of addition. If you assume the sets are disjoint ({a, b} U {c, d} for example) then you can equate union and addition, but then subtraction doesn't work and the intersection of two disjoint sets is always empty. (It's possible to make arithmetic work on special sets, but then addition and subtraction aren't mapped to union or intersection.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Quickie, one thing I know for sure in aritmetic is that fractions are division problems, they are not numbers. That is what makes fractions so hard. The line should be a divide by sign, and it probably started out that way.
    Nonsense. Fractions are numbers representing a value just like any other number. It just depends how finely you divide the number line for your year 6 class.

    All numbers can be represented as the result of calculations, including fraction representations. One way I present the concept to algebra students is to talk about all the invisible fraction and exponent notations (and times tables and number families) just waiting for you to make them visible when they're needed.

    2 may be just a number with a recognised value. It's also 21, but we only write it that way when the occasion arises. (It's also 2*1 and 2+0 and half of 4 and 10% of 20 ... and ... an infinity of other calculations and representations.)

    Fraction is also a more general word and it's used in arithmetic in different ways. Though most of them are really about ensuring that you're using the same units rather than anything about fractions themselves as numbers. You can't subtract 1/4 of an hour from half a pineapple. Nor can you add half a potato to half a mile to come up with one whole anything meaningful.
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Let me clarify with an example. Hold out your two hands. Here are two rulers. Combine them and the numbers add. The opposite intersection also holds true and is subtraction. This system works for a sliderule. And by the way, not only fractions, but also algebra too was also hard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    291
    When I was really little (like eight or nine), the idea of a fifth operator fascinated me. I came up with many of my own, but none really kept, and I don't think I remember what any of them were. Nowadays, extra operators are nothing. Any mapping from f(x,y) --> z works. If I had to add one to the list with +, -, *, and /, it would probably be exponentiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Let me clarify with an example. Hold out your two hands. Here are two rulers. Combine them and the numbers add. The opposite intersection also holds true and is subtraction. This system works for a sliderule. And by the way, not only fractions, but also algebra too was also hard.
    That's not union and intersection under the normal mathematical definition of those words, but yes, you can do almost any operation with a properly constructed slide rule (or a nomogram).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by zouaoui messaoud View Post
    It was known that our calculations in the mathematics are four (Combine, subtraction, multiplication, division)
    These are just the basic algebraic operators; there are many more operators to be found in mathematics, perhaps have a look here :

    Mathematical symbols list (+,-,x,,=,<,>,...)
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Quickie, one thing I know for sure in aritmetic is that fractions are division problems, they are not numbers.
    They are numbers.

    The line should be a divide by sign, and it probably started out that way.
    The other way round: the division symbol is an abbreviation of a fraction (something over something).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    The line should be a divide by sign, and it probably started out that way.
    The line has a name. It's called a vinculum.

    It has other uses as well. Vinculum (symbol) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Good read, nice history. As for the vinculum symbol itself, whatever makes the most sense, considering you are going to teach it to a new generation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,620
    You guys are trivializing a rather deep issue, namely that, in talking about operations on a space, you really should specify

    a) what space you are talking about and

    b) whether you require your operations to be closed or not.

    Anyway, it seems the space space you are all referring to is , the space of Real numbers. This is a field, which means by definition it admits of 2 closed binary operations and each with its own inverse. That is and . Notice that only 2 operations are required in this case

    Step "back" to the integers. This is a ring not a field (there isno multiplicative inverse), although addition and multiplication are still defined, so it makes sense to define another operation called "division" if and only if we don't require this operation to be closed i.e. we don't require the result to be an integer.

    Step further back to the natural numbers . This is apparently controversial; most mathematicians, I think, would say it is not a ring or a field, merely a set without any algebraic structure other than a natural order. (The Wiki disagrees, btw)

    One can recover some algebraic structure here by defining the natural numbers as the set of all strictly positive integers which is of course a sub-ring of the ring of all integers.

    Disagree if you want
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    That was sort of fancy. I'm not as good. I have some disagreement. I think you can define addition in a space, fine. When your addition is along a slope, its called multiplication, but it is still simple addition, only along a slope. Now you can add the set of integers into your space and apply the simple algebra you have so far. Now another difference is that subtraction and division have already been defined as an inverse. As to Wiki, I think it is wrong in this case, and should be traced to its source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If you're talking about fields, rings and such things, then no, multiplication is not defined in terms of addition in any way. Take the field Z2 for example. There are just two elements, 0 and 1. Addition is defined as 0+0 = 1+1 = 0 and 0+1 = 1+0 = 1. Multiplication is the usual multiplication on those two numbers. I'm pretty sure you can't duplicate multiplication with addition at all here.

    If you're talking about slide rules, those slopes (curves actually) require you to already understand multiplication (and in particular the equation ) before you can build the slide rule, so those are not fundamental and not the definition of multiplication.
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Perhaps you should get five operations?
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    I read threads like this and I really wish the "5th" operation was logic.
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    New and innovative concepts? Sagnation? Why does everybody want learning arithmetic to be hard? Maybe it was just meant to be hard to get people to think harder so they can be smarter. Combining, grouping of numbers, representative intigers, displacment in a space, what ever you want to call it can occur linearly OR on a slope, makes no difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    It's only hard if you want it to be.

    But it is important that everyone agree on what terms mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    New and innovative concepts? Sagnation? Why does everybody want learning arithmetic to be hard? Maybe it was just meant to be hard to get people to think harder so they can be smarter. Combining, grouping of numbers, representative intigers, displacment in a space, what ever you want to call it can occur linearly OR on a slope, makes no difference.
    To me, mathematics is nothing else but a language, the language of the universe itself - and like any language, when you first try to learn it, it is hard. But the more you practice and use it, the more "natural" it becomes.
    Daecon and Hill Billy Holmes like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Mathmatics is good to know and is mostly fun. As a language? It can be thought of as that, such as thinking in it and being fluent in it. But, languages were made by man, and in the cases of mathmatics, early man. So its a language like latin . It is hard to learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Dominos nabiskos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    But, languages were made by man, and in the cases of mathmatics, early man. So its a language like latin . It is hard to learn.
    testiculis completum

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Latin for complete bollocks if my rusty language skills are correct
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster View Post
    If you're talking about slide rules, those slopes (curves actually) require you to already understand multiplication (and in particular the equation ) before you can build the slide rule, so those are not fundamental and not the definition of multiplication.
    Slide rules are of course based on logarithms. Logarithms were developed by John Napier.

    Napier also invented a calculating device called Napier's bones.

    Using the multiplication tables embedded in the rods, multiplication can be reduced to addition operations and division to subtractions. More advanced use of the rods can even extract square roots.

    Napier's bones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Interesting, how much history gets lost as we make scientific progress.
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To me, mathematics is nothing else but a language, the language of the universe itself
    I don't fully agree with this view. Sure, the notation of mathematics is a language, but that notation describes a logical notion that is beyond the language and is not arbitrary. I should remark that I adopt the formalist view of mathematics that regards it as symbol manipulation. But nevertheless, even symbol manipulation has an underlying logic. As for regarding mathematics as the language of the universe, I quite strongly disagree. The universe isn't mathematical at all. Scientists (especially physicists) impose mathematical structure onto the universe. The laws of physics are the result of the mathematical properties of this imposed mathematical structure. The constraints imposed by the universe are real enough, but the descriptions of those constraints are in terms of the imposed mathematical structure.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Mathematics has syntax, grammar and a lexicon. I'd say that would probably be sufficient to classify it as a language.

    I've used this analogy before, but if Physics is the "operating system" of the Universe, then Mathematics is the programming language it's written in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I don't fully agree with this view. Sure, the notation of mathematics is a language, but that notation describes a logical notion that is beyond the language and is not arbitrary. I should remark that I adopt the formalist view of mathematics that regards it as symbol manipulation. But nevertheless, even symbol manipulation has an underlying logic. As for regarding mathematics as the language of the universe, I quite strongly disagree. The universe isn't mathematical at all. Scientists (especially physicists) impose mathematical structure onto the universe. The laws of physics are the result of the mathematical properties of this imposed mathematical structure. The constraints imposed by the universe are real enough, but the descriptions of those constraints are in terms of the imposed mathematical structure.
    Hm, I admit that you are raising some interesting points. I should not have stated "mathematics is the language of the universe", but rather "mathematics is the language that we use to describe the universe". It would have been closer to the point...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by zouaoui messaoud View Post
    I want to help in this matter.[/FONT]
    If you want help (or you want to help) then it would be a good idea to engage in the conversation. Have you nothing to say?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Eureika, got it now , math doesn't have 5 operations. It has either 0, 2 or a dimentionaly definable infinity. If you are pill science stop reading at this point because I made it up myself. Because I make it up myself doesn't make wrong. Math runs a logical slope from its origin. Its limitations keeping it from infinity are physical dimentions. The slope interacting with 3 or if you prefer spacetime 4 are the alowable logic operations. From source 0 everything equalls nothing. When it hits 2 it starts multiplying 2*first dim,2*2nd and so on so there are really 2^3 or fourth operations the rest is geometry boolien.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Eureika, got it now , math doesn't have 5 operations. It has either 0, 2 or a dimentionaly definable infinity. If you are pill science stop reading at this point because I made it up myself. Because I make it up myself doesn't make wrong. Math runs a logical slope from its origin. Its limitations keeping it from infinity are physical dimentions. The slope interacting with 3 or if you prefer spacetime 4 are the alowable logic operations. From source 0 everything equalls nothing. When it hits 2 it starts multiplying 2*first dim,2*2nd and so on so there are really 2^3 or fourth operations the rest is geometry boolien.
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Because I make it up myself doesn't make wrong.
    Are you quite sure about that?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I should not have stated "mathematics is the language of the universe", but rather "mathematics is the language that we use to describe the universe".
    I don't consider this to be a minor distinction. I think it gets to the heart of the way reality should be viewed, in particular, why the laws of physics are the way they are. Do we consider the laws of physics to be imposed from "above" as if by design, or do we consider the laws of physics to be based on logical reasons that would allow us to deduce them? It also gets to the heart of the scientific method. We expect our physical theories to be falsifiable and accept that they are never proven to be true, but mathematics is based on provable theorems. Therefore, physics and mathematics are at odds with each other with regards to the notion of "truth", exacerbated by the heavy reliance on mathematics by physics. Because of this, we need to closely examine the relationship between mathematics and physics. For example, if physics provide a mathematical description of physical reality obtained by measurement, and mathematics provides proof about the mathematical properties of mathematical descriptions, then where can our physical theory actually fail? Of course, I'm not suggesting that physical theories can't fail, but rather that the question of how it could fail, rather than simply asking whether it does fail, is an important question.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Of course, I'm not suggesting that physical theories can't fail, but rather that the question of how it could fail, rather than simply asking whether it does fail, is an important question.
    I think to answer that we need to ask ourselves whether the axioms of logic as we apply them to the universe and to our mathematical proofs are really the correct and suitable ones to describe the world around us, or whether they are merely a - potentially faulty, but seemingly fitting - construct of our own limited consciousness. Ultimately it boils down to this - what is the relationship between our logic and perception, and physical reality ? What does "physical reality" even mean ? Is it an absolute term, or is it something that is relative and observer dependent in itself ?

    To illustrate this, consider a scenario where humans never develop eyes in the course of their evolution. Would the physical models we come up with to describe the universe around us be the same as the ones we have now ? Or how about a race of intelligent viruses, without any of the senses we have, and on much smaller scales - what kind of maths and physics would they develop ?
    RobinM likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Because I make it up myself doesn't make wrong.
    The credo of cranks and ignoramuses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Hey credo ,you have been following me around I think you must like me. The same thing when diptwats say Einstein( science JC ) is wrong or stupid those are the same ones that DIDN"T come up with relativity themselves. Credo, you would be hard pressed to come up with the 5th operation yourself ,or the 4th for that matter. 'jumpngehosefats' credo
    Last edited by Hill Billy Holmes; November 22nd, 2013 at 06:31 AM. Reason: typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Hey creod ,you have been folloeing me around I think you must like me. The same thing when diptwats say Einstein( science JC ) is wrong or stupid those are the same ones that DIDN"T come up with relativity themselves. Credo, you would be hard pressed to come up with the 5th operation yourself .or the 4th for that matter. jumpngehosefats credo
    Would you like to try that again in English.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    227
    Thanks Mr. Strange it was a typo bad keyboard or buffer or something
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I think to answer that we need to ask ourselves whether the axioms of logic as we apply them to the universe and to our mathematical proofs are really the correct and suitable ones to describe the world around us, or whether they are merely a - potentially faulty, but seemingly fitting - construct of our own limited consciousness. Ultimately it boils down to this - what is the relationship between our logic and perception, and physical reality ? What does "physical reality" even mean ? Is it an absolute term, or is it something that is relative and observer dependent in itself ?
    Because I'm a formalist, I don't see mathematics as the product of the human mind (except in a trivial sense). Rather, I see mathematics as something that can be done by machine. Indeed, I don't regard mathematics as rigorous unless it can be done by machine. As such, I don't see our logic as potentially faulty because the logic is what it is. For example, if and , then not because of some vague notion of what "equality" is, but because transitivity is built into the definition of .

    Because I see the laws of physics as based on logical reasons rather than imposed from "above", questions such as "what does 'physical reality' even mean?" actually have a fairly simple answer... reality is what it is measured to be... nothing more. And given that a measurement is a relationship between physical objects, it is the relationship that is important and not the objects themselves. If one performs some experiment, applying measurements to the physical system, what are the possible outcomes, disregarding the laws of physics? If the actual outcome is not among this set of possible outcomes, that means our space of possible outcomes is too small and need to be enlarged. If the space is large enough, then what happens when we consider particular outcomes to be the same as other particular outcomes due to being described only from a different frame of reference? The space of distinct possible outcomes becomes much smaller than the original space of outcomes, implying the existence of constraints. But these constraints did not arise through means other than the symmetry of the space of descriptions. Mathematically, we see that connections are arbitrary, gauge transformations relate equivalent connections, curvature represents the distinct connections, and the Bianchi identity is the constraint on the curvature.
    Hill Billy Holmes likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Mathematically, we see that connections are arbitrary, gauge transformations relate equivalent connections, curvature represents the distinct connections, and the Bianchi identity is the constraint on the curvature.
    True enough, I see your point
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Hill Billy Holmes View Post
    Hey credo ,you have been following me around I think you must like me. The same thing when diptwats say Einstein( science JC ) is wrong or stupid those are the same ones that DIDN"T come up with relativity themselves. Credo, you would be hard pressed to come up with the 5th operation yourself ,or the 4th for that matter. 'jumpngehosefats' credo
    That's probably because it's nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. What boolean operation will suit this need in C++?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 8th, 2013, 08:31 AM
  2. Reducing the operation by using the modulo
    By amit28it in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 16th, 2011, 09:04 AM
  3. Operation Systems Concept help
    By Shadowsundying in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2010, 01:24 AM
  4. Anti-curl operation
    By talanum1 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 28th, 2009, 04:57 AM
  5. Please tell me this is an Islamic black flag operation again
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 13th, 2009, 04:45 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •