Super Polymath Posted July 27, 2018 Report Share Posted July 27, 2018 (edited) Polymath, Dubbel is right you have no idea what you are talking about it is definitely not a E8, E8 would have 248 root systems, I would imagine that your model has far less than 248 root systems thus cannot be called a E8 math equation unlike mine which has at-least 248 root systems to take into account. Here is about E8 math (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)) and lesser mathematical models cannot compose them they are nearly perfect and take in the full complexity of the universe, you are missing a few dimensions of complexity, There is far more to the universe then what you have composed in your model. Also, is your model isomorphic I doubt seriously that it is can it be placed on any point of space and fully detail all interaction of the system, I highly doubt you are close to that level of perfect modeling. No offense but the truth hurts you need to literally detail every interaction of the universe that is known or unknown in your model to be called E8 it has to work in every occasion. How many dimensions does your model have? it is probably a simple lie group or with a complexity of F4 or E6 max. Read about symmetric space, if you want to actually compose a E8 and Reimannian Algebra along with differential Geometry. All that comes from plotting it, if it hasn't even been plotted yet how can you say it lacks anything??? Of course it's isomorphic as with any of the cellular automata. This has a complexity way above your model, so it requires a lot more than 4 or 6. 33 dimensions to be precise, & far more than 248 root systems. Edited July 29, 2018 by Super Polymath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 27, 2018 Report Share Posted July 27, 2018 If 006 can just get to the second compactification he'll have enough data to use a superconducting flux diabtic quantum annealing magnet to employ tachyons to calculate the next 31 compactments and any elements that those 99 particles could potentially constitute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 Do you evn know what compactification means Poly ? It is a specific type of math examination Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 Do you evn know what compactification means Poly ? It is a specific type of math examinationit's were the Scotchman put his dagger in the big bang / conservation of energy thread as an adjoint operator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 No, it is the mathematical methodolgy of determing the set of finite quantities in infinite qauntities. Every infinite set is comprised of a finite set. compact spaces is one example.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space the close and bounded is finite. hence compact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) the dagger [math]A^\dagger[/math] is the adjoint operator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian_adjoint see link for the bounded operators in context of the adjoint relations Edited July 28, 2018 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 (edited) NoYes. The vacuum is infinite, as per ESP a pair of adjacent & inverted positively charged photons will fold together in an infinite sea of redshift photons, a finite condensate, this is that adjoint operator Edited July 28, 2018 by Super Polymath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 28, 2018 Report Share Posted July 28, 2018 Since all his posts are essentially word-salad, i'd say not. He just strings words together not realising any of it not making any sense. You're lucky I'm lazy and don't care who takes credit for calling out the snakes in the grass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 29, 2018 Report Share Posted July 29, 2018 Yes. The vacuum is infinite, as per ESP a pair of adjacent & inverted positively charged photons will fold together in an infinite sea of redshift photons, a finite condensate, this is that adjoint operator006, you can confirm this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) Actually the Adjoint operator is an infinite matrix with multiple dimensions but it could be applied to infinite amount of any object or space. Summation form of infinite adjoints in photonic 3-D space, if the universe where purely photons at a time slice. E(x,y,z) = Σ(z→∞)Σ(y→∞)Σ(x→∞)hf Edited July 30, 2018 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) Absolutely not.I missguessed the meaning of the dagger. Whatever, doesn't matter. You do have enough information to plot this E seven to eight point something now, do you not? Edited July 30, 2018 by Super Polymath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) No, it is the mathematical methodolgy of determing the set of finite quantities in infinite qauntities. Every infinite set is comprised of a finite set. compact spaces is one example.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space the close and bounded is finite. hence compact.That's NOT a "photon compactment", when I say photon compactment I mean a particle condensate 006 is already describing some of what I've fathomed. You'd mathematica to code it construct an evolving plot of illustrating the negative to positive photon charge bounce & Gareth has the calc. vocab to code it I don't know that Newtonian shambolic language of xyz equations Edited July 30, 2018 by Super Polymath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 30, 2018 Report Share Posted July 30, 2018 To lazy to learn unfortunately that's what all the graphing programs recognize Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) Actually the Adjoint operator is an infinite matrix with multiple dimensions but it could be applied to infinite amount of any object or space. Summation form of infinite adjoints in photonic 3-D space, if the universe where purely photons at a time slice. E(x,y,z) = Σ(z→∞)Σ(y→∞)Σ(x→∞)hf No that is not what an adjoint operator is the wiki definition is accurate as far as it goes. I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian_adjoint there is numerous types of adjoints but they specify specific math operations. an adjoint operator is not an infinite matrix....an operator isn't a matrix to begin with. It is the transpose of a matrix in which each element is replaced by a cofactor see here for first minors in regards to cofactors of a matrix.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(linear_algebra) Edited July 31, 2018 by Shustaire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) No that is not what an adjoint operator is the wiki definition is accurate as far as it goes. I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian_adjoint there is numerous types of adjoints but they specify specific math operations. an adjoint operator is not an infinite matrix....an operator isn't a matrix to begin with. It is the transpose of a matrix in which each element is replaced by a cofactor see here for first minors in regards to cofactors of a matrix.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(linear_algebra) ooops your right, i wrote the cofactor matrix and not the determinate. The Adjoint of that matrix would be (x,y,z) Edited July 31, 2018 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 31, 2018 Report Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) Actually, I put forward a very bad example it is technically a tensor field I wrote down with a (x,y,z) Adjoint do Adjoints apply to tensor fields, I don't think so LOL. I suppose it is correct format just for a 3-D system and not a 2-D one, well, they do have a determinate tensors, I suppose it could apply to an array of any number of dimensions. I guess I am just used to writing Adjoints for higher dimensional systems, it has been a long time since using the standard 2-D one. as a math person maybe you could clarify Shustaire. Edited July 31, 2018 by VictorMedvil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.