flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Lunar Calendar--Solar Calendar conflict

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
--------------------------------------
exact analogy:
in electronics and in mechanics, the laws are the same, but it works on differents units and phenomenon.
_______________________________
P=R*I² <=> E=MC²

Power = Resistance * Intensity ²
Energy = Mass * celerity ²
_______________________________
and others about frequency theorems

F(t) = Vs/Ve signals

F(t) = Ds/De movements
_______________________________

you can find many others analogies lilke this in any physical domain.
like chemistry, astronautics, politic science, etc...

why? because all is based on the same thing, like computers are based on 0 and 1.

----------------------------------

big bang and creation.

in our vast universe, there is a begining, but this begining is not the begining of the container. there is a container, but our universe is all we can imagine. with a big bang.
###analogy###
before middle age, we was thinking that world was flat... and then, we saw the fact there was other peoples.

not a fiction, but a spirit apperture.

then big bang is only a little explosion in all the vast everything.
-------------------------------------

the particle, that was originally our universe, was everything, let see how the life is magic, why is it magic? because there is a loop, the + infinite becomes - infinite.

it is pure theory, and i am very sure it is not fully bullshit. but i'm not an official graduate scientist, then, it's hard for me to explain this... but it is full of logic.

--------------------------------------

how many nothing in something? sure, an infinity... this infinity because if you say:
i put zero apples in my bag, how many 0 apples can i put in my bag?

an infinity.

how many time i need to put this infinity of 0 apples in my bag?
an infinite time.

this theory is a mutant theory of chaos, because it focus on the fact that all is illusion, nothing exists really. because always something is bigger or smaller.

---------------------------------------

nothing is 0 as something is 1

nothing and nothing = still nothing.

something and something = 2 times something.

this theory focus on the fact that illusion is a spiritual conception
-----------------------------------
big bang is ou absolute beginning

but as time is infinite, there is always a time before, and a time after...

but the time never goes forward, in our reality.
time is a sensation, and universe is a representation of something we don't understand...
we can understand the movments of the planets, galaxies, galaxies clouds, etc... but there is a limit, what is over?
over all these things?
then, we invented the big bang and interpret it as the absolute beginning, exactlly as catholics inteprets the start of universe as a creation of god, but who created god?

then, there is a loop, the far future becoming the far past.
the human life and destiny is not considered in this theorem, as life is so ephemere, and we are so little, we are the random of the universe, as a noise.

each time universe restart, like a PC reboot, globally, it is the same, but in details, it is different.

-------------------------------------

PS:
not a drug delirium, but it need some clean up and more precisions in ideas...to explain it more, and better, i shall study at least 30 years on this... like newton or pascal studies on all his works...
Post 03 Mar 2008, 20:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
but as time is infinite, there is always a time before, and a time after...

carefully with these assumptions. it's not sure that time is infinite. it can be very well finite.

Quote:
how many time i need to put this infinity of 0 apples in my bag?
an infinite time.

but still you will have zero apples in bag, not one. this is example that infinite zeroes doesn't make one, infinite zeroes is still zero (this can be easily proven mathematically too, with induction)

Anyway, doing lot of study to support you ideas will surely be very helpful to you. Study how Newton and Pascal tested and proved their ideas, and try to do same with yours
Post 03 Mar 2008, 21:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
no, the time cannot stop, the real one...
not the time refered to the rotation of electrons around a kernel...
but more the time. like a constant, stable, y=1, there, it is one dimention. adding the 3 others, you will obtain a big strange thing. with an infinity of solutions.

imagine, just to speak about an other thing, with fun... brain cooling.

a 320 * 200 * 8 bitmap.
it is an image, but can be an unique value.
65536*8bits number.
how many possibilities?
2^524288
consider the palette... there, you enter in an other dimention...
because one image can have color variations, but limited to 256 colors.
and colors in the palette will decide of the rendered image, if all colors are the black, then, the image are all blacks, and then, all the same.

the goal is to calculate the number of possibles images with the mode 13h. 320*200*8bits.

very high resolution for a number.

then ones you have generated all the possibilities...

i'm sure there is a period by doing this, it will take a lot of time to genrerate all the possibilities, but it will end... and reloop.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 22:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
edfed: time is NOT linear, that's already known, tested, and proven. See "time diletation".

Maybe you referer to something other than time, but in that case you are misusing proper term for something else what you would like the term to mean. That's not a good idea. Instead, you should describe you "custom idea", not assign some existing term to it, and create ambiguity.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 23:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
i know, the time on the clock, the time in the universe bubble. it is not linear. but it is always here, if you make a pause in execution, the time exists. if you switch off the clock, the machine stops to see the time, and see it as variable, but it is a sensation depending on physic laws. the latency of chimic reactions, or the acceleration due to gravity...this will influence not the base time, or "big time" but will modify the space time envelloppe.

some years ago, they tryed some things, with high speed planes " avions supersoniques".
the atomic clock in the plane had it's time biased.

but it don't mean you can travel in time.

if the space time was not linear, with holes and mountains, then, it will mean that if you go to a space time hole, and then, cross a black hole, see your time clock reversing, and then, return to earth in 1900.
Post 03 Mar 2008, 23:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
time is the fourth dimension..
btw what's the point of this topic ? to re-invent the wheel ? to show how much we know maths ? i will end by saying something that Socrates had said a long time ago.. "the beginning of the wisdom is to admit that you don't know anything".
Post 04 Mar 2008, 00:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I give up, I can't seem to explain it well enough, but I'll try a different approach.

vid wrote:
sorry, i missed it. Thing which you seemingly didn't realize, is that there is nothing like "smallest possible real number above 0".
Confused

what do you mean? there MUST be such a number -- just like pi, a number that we can't 'write down' because it's precision is infinite.

In other words, a 'number' is defined how you want it to be. Surely, there must be a "smallest positive number ever", just like infinity is "the value greater than any other value".

Therefore, I define:

Code:
number: +0 (or 0+)

symbol: +0

value: "the positive value, smaller than any other positive value in the real number system".    


This is enough for a definition of a number -- just like Pi is the number defined as follows:

Code:
symbol: Pi

value: "the ratio of the circumference of the circle to it's diameter"    


This defines Pi, the irrational number that we will never know 100%, but it is defined nonetheless!

What's wrong with the definition of +0? It seems really close to the definition of infinity (although infinity is not a number, but only a 'value', one that is greater than all others).

vid wrote:
For every real number, there is some smaller number. It is similar to asking about name and value of highest possible integer - that's nonsense, just like assigning some symbol to this nonexistent value.
By the very definition of +0, it isn't.

And perhaps I'm talking about the hyperreal number system instead?

Quote:
I hope i don't need to prove that for every real number above 0, there is some smaller number (x/2).
Never ask anything to 'prove'. A definition is a definition. Doesn't need any 'proof'.

For example (and please take a look at this):

How do you call the following value (i.e give me the symbol):

0.000(infinitely many zeroes)...1

??

It is "+0" defined above with a 'symbol' and a 'value'.

I hope it's more clear this time.
Post 05 Mar 2008, 15:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
then, +0 = 1*10^-oo ??


Last edited by edfed on 05 Mar 2008, 15:50; edited 1 time in total
Post 05 Mar 2008, 15:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
0.000(infinitely many zeroes)...1
I think that in maths you are not supposed to be able to put anything after an infinite number of something. There is no "the next after infinity", that it not sensible.
Post 05 Mar 2008, 15:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
edfed wrote:
then, +0 = 1*10^oo ??
Gosh, really it is something 'like' that, but it should be -oo Wink

revolution wrote:
I think that in maths you are not supposed to be able to put anything after an infinite number of something. There is no "the next after infinity", that it not sensible.
Uhm, that's for the large value of infinity -- I talked about 'common sense' idea of infinity (i.e an infinite number of decimals), works on any base.
Post 05 Mar 2008, 15:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
Uhm, that's for the large value of infinity -- I talked about 'common sense' idea of infinity (i.e an infinite number of decimals), works on any base.
You are not allowed to go claiming that now different rules apply to your "special" infinity! If you want to make a "special infinity as defined by The_Grey_Beast" then you can't actually call it infinity, too much confusion.
Post 05 Mar 2008, 15:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
What I meant was that I didn't use the infinity (i.e oo) in mathematics. I only said "an infinite number of decimals" (or rather "infinitely many zeroes").

And that is not a 'mathematical' representation but a more intuitive one, I only posted in to be understandable rather than 'mathematically proven'.

It wasn't talking about the oo in math Wink and I didn't 'define' such infinity.


but then perhaps my intuitive explanations (at least how I thought they were) are not really good Sad will try to be more 'technical' from now on
Post 05 Mar 2008, 16:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Image
Post 05 Mar 2008, 17:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Yep, exactly:

0.000000....1

is positive (wheras)

-0.000000....1

is negative

Therefore, it is called +0 and -0 for a reason of their 'sign' Smile (since '0' is supposedly without sign!)
Post 05 Mar 2008, 17:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7724
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
Do not judge The_Grey_Beast too quickly. Even though it's true there isn't such thing like a smallest positive real number, the definition of "the positive value, smaller than any other positive value in the real number system" is a good definition that doesn't really lead to any contradiction.

I recommend reading this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

wikipedia wrote:
In 1936 Maltsev proved the compactness theorem. This theorem is fundamental for the existence of infinitesimals as it proves that it is possible to formalise them. A consequence of this theorem is that if there is a number system in which it is true that for any positive integer n there is a positive number x such that 0 < x < 1/n, then there exists an extension of that number system in which it is true that there exists a positive number x such that for any positive integer n we have 0 < x < 1/n.

wikipedia wrote:
An infinitesimal number is a nonstandard number whose modulus is less than any nonzero positive standard number.


Last edited by Tomasz Grysztar on 05 Mar 2008, 23:25; edited 1 time in total
Post 05 Mar 2008, 23:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7724
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
0.000(infinitely many zeroes)...1
I think that in maths you are not supposed to be able to put anything after an infinite number of something. There is no "the next after infinity", that it not sensible.

This also is not quite true. Well, it's true that you cannot define a real number this way, however it is quite possible to define various series of transfinite orders where you put new elements after already infinite number of elements. There is even such a thing as a transfinite induction.

Recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

Wink
Post 05 Mar 2008, 23:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.