blue89

1)Well, lots of scientists will not cite such a paper unless they are working on something similar.

 

 

2)You have made the great mistake of trying to compare impact factor across different disciplines. You clearly cannot do this, and so your request is just meaningless. ✓

1) this may not be truth at medicine I think. because for instance while some diseases are caused by viruses , most of them are caused by bacterias. but bacterias & viruses are difinitely difefrent descriptions.

for instance , AIDS is caused by a type of virus. but tetanus is caused by a type of bacteria. both of these two catastrophic ilness have no actual solution after infection.

but I am sure ,when any medical dotor invent the treatment for any of these , with extreme probability this will not be valid for the scond one.

2) I don't mean the IF may define the prominence. but it seems that it might define popularity.

also we are often interested in phase dynamics and so we need momentum.

but we may use also phase out of mechanics ,for instance ,waves have phase. probably we will be able to accept that some waves approxiamtely have no mass in compasion to other ones.

heyy ajb , really it is pleasure to take warning from such a careful scientist like you. I have never felt nervous/negative up to now.

what a relief personality belonginy you!

congratulations :-)

*** ONE TYPE OF ACTUAL ELEGANCE / WISDOM ***

Phase spaces in classical mechanics (assuming autonomous) are 6 dimensional - 3 positions and 3 momenta. So classical mechanics and control theory applied to engineering often uses spaces (usually smooth manifolds) of dimension greater than 3.

the question was this one, could you write some clear and succint instructions which may persuade us that >3D is actively used.

for instance if we would use a 1D ,we may choose a tool (V and m is not important there)

if we would like to use 2D dimension ,we may choose a circle as in electric field to use.

but if we would like to use 3D ,it would be better to use calender

there are only simple analogy that might be acepted as to picture.

but what about >3D to give as eaxmple?

What are you talking about?

 

Many good journals publish works in the areas I have stated here.

I thought that great journals would also care the benefits of literatures.

for instance , if we explore / invent a treatment of one well known catastrpphic disease or a piece of it , that great journal and regularly almost all people will care it.

but thin please , I don't believe that honest mathematicians were not hardworking. in contrary this , they are generally study hard.

but think also the reason why they are living troubles just like me and other ones , although believe that they study hard ,they have economic matters. this is quite unethic.

but I am not complaining so much , this was my own abuse to choose so theoritic department. I should have chosen engineering in order not to live economic matters.

, anyway I believe this is UNIVERSAL truths ,so I request someones not to feel negative my this last sentence if they feel.

I will ask a question. now in order not to miss the goal of thread

Many good journals publish works in the areas I have stated here.

note: I have no clear idea about this point. this might be true ,too. could you show me any journal which publishes mathematical paper and its IF > 20 ?

wait plase for around 5-10 minute, I am checkind some keywords.

we regularly deal with spaces of dimension greater than three in classical mechanics ✔, statistical physics✘ , thermodynamics ✔ and so on. All areas of physics that have found direct applications in engineering ✔ and so on.

actually ,I think all these will provide the logical reason for why such qualified journals are not publishing heavily theoritic materials/papers. and they seem right on this issue. otherwise of course this will not be correct to refuse the necessity or worth of theoritic studies. these are different.

we know that in this century engineering studies are more lucrative. my interests about physics (to use at creation for engineering product would be : magnetism , electric fields , optics (lens - eyes (usage) some new methods or approaches) - radioactivity. waves. ...etc.

but I meant I don't have enough ability for mechanism. I may learn or create something. by I observedd that it takes much more times in comparişson to the interest subjects given above.

and as an example ,some new methods will/might be related with the usage of fundamental riemann's integral theories..

(integral forms)

one moderator implys that it was a rule of forum that we should quote/announce our another thread's link or other members' link which are opened / commented interior this forum. he said that we are allowed to quote the original that comment instead this.

at first I would ask a reason for this rules?

and secondly , isn't it more difficult to find that comment and QUOTE comment?

because it's longer way.

so I suggest to change this rule.

it doesn't seem useful.

The best thing is to pick up a book on classical mechanics - or just read wikipedia for now.

 

Look up Lagrangian, momentum and phase space.

unortunately I don't believe me to achieve such bright things at mechanics.

but I have strong belief at electricity & optics and/or related these contexts.

to succeed/reach bright results.

1)Phase spaces in classical mechanics (assuming autonomous) are 6 dimensional - 3 positions and 3 momenta. So classical mechanics and control theory applied to engineering often uses spaces (usually smooth manifolds) of dimension greater than 3.

 

2)In physics 4 dimensional manifolds are to be found in relativity theory.

 

 

ok. could you specify please the first one .

no necessity for the second one. really I do not think that my knowledge would be enough for physics on this stage to allege so advanced expressions which are all quite interdisciplinary.

my methods will not be traditional already.

I am using quite different methods or try to use it. but probably it would be enough logical to think the possibility of such different methods.

You can usually treat the collection of all possible values of the parameters that describe a rigid body or a collection of bodies or particles as coordinates on a smooth manifold.

the second phrases please ,that one and the following phrases' (the second ones') meaning is alrady obvious in its first meaning.

I did not ask the first meaning I thought that he might tell something seems like a secret

this are well known in all languages as a method of also cryptology

I asked just this one whether it existed.

anyway ,if there is not any else maning ,ok it has already been understood.

is there any else meaning

Degrees of freedom

about this sentence?

/phrase?

 

"

 

Generalised Coordinates

Degrees of freedom

"

 

what is the actual meaning of this two sentences/phrases?

You state that you welcome criticism ( though you earlier rejected mine as hurtful).

You ask that any criticism provide evidence to support it.

My best way of addressing this is to rewrite your post in proper English. you can compare the two versions and identify where and how you have gone wrong.

 

hi,

sorry for the late reply!

I request your kind understanding because I am very involved, at present, in difficult academic research. Also, please remember that I am trying to do this research under very difficult life conditions. So, once again I request your kind understanding.¹

 

Of course I accept that my English is not advanced. Certainly, I do not believe that it would be advanced because of its "pronunciation".² But I don't accept that it was as bad as the level that some have claimed.

 

I do not doubt that some members have good qualifications ,especially : Arete, CharonY , ajb , Strange ,Studiot ,Imatfaal , hallsofivy ...etc. All of these are already known.³ (Note that I also appreciate hallsofivy ,ajb & studiot, ajb for being polite or elegant, while hallsof ivy is wise.⁴)

 

according to the expressions which are above, presumably it has been understood incorrectly (I have told incorrect! , ok ,this is my own incorrectness and of course I apologise)⁵

 

 

^{1. Requesting someone's "kind understanding" is very old fashioned English. It would have been appropriate one hundred years ago. Not today. Also, you have already apologised in the first sentence. By "laying it on thick", asking to be forgiven then repeating the request makes you look desperate.}

 

^{2. This sentence is unclear. Do you mean that your spoken English is heavily accented? If so, that is irrelevant. The criticisms of your English are of your written words. If you meant something else you have not made that clear. Placing commas in the sentence can help clarify its meaning. Perhaps that is what you were missing.}

 

^{3. Did you mean to say "I already know they have good qualifications", or "I have already said that they have good qualifications", or something else entirely. The quality of your language is judged here by how clearly you communicate your meaning. Too often you fail to do so. If you persist in believing it is better than it is you will find it difficult to improve.}

 

^{4. This item is akin to a disaster. Why are you repeating the names of persons you have already named? Which attributes ( elegance, politeness) are you attributing to which people? Your readers should not have to read a sentence three or four times to get to an approximate meaning of what you are trying to say.}

 

^{5. I give up. There is just too much ambiguity. If you would even be courteous enough to do a spell check, use capitals at the start of sentences and stop apologising every five seconds then it might be possible to disentangle meaning from your posts without such effort. And while we are at it, please stop with the bold and coloured fonts. Such devices should be used sparingly, for effect, not as an all out assault on the senses of your readers.}

Ophiolite :)

Pictures? Not really, but you can find textbooks and papers that use these notions.

Dear ajb , we already know in mathematics there is numerous theories related this context.

but I could not see the picture / apperance which might prove it realistic.

Let remember/see what respective scientist :Stephen hawking says at my this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98054-a-query/

THANKS for your reply!

could you provide pictures of usage. it should be effective.direct usage defines just this meaning at real.

for instance , Euclid space's 3D can be shown. (both formulization and picturing)

 

Then you should learn to edit yourself better. There is absolutely no reason for you to respond to a thread in the Lounge about explaining something in the English language. Know your limitations! 1)You can't be good at everything, 2)and your English needs a LOT of improvement. Spend your valuable time where it's most meaningful. 3)You are NOT an English teacher.

1) sure!

anyone cannot be good at everything

2) improvement?? , I know and may provide you some references that such ones have no obstacle to write paper. however , if you are implying using this language in ELITE version. sorry ,I do not think the possibility for this at least for 8 years. look what I experienced ; my native language is not turkish. but I am speaking highly better than turkishes . intimately it is ELITE. but the actual reason for this was learning their culture well. (not only linguistic ,-usage of language-this is not difficult.)

we need to learn any language's culture before to allege that it was ELITE. so ,it does not seem at least for 8 years to happen (I mean that living england or US will be required) and also this will not be enough ,reading englishes' own culture & philosophical books will also be required (I know almost all of these for turkishes). this (requirement) is not my own idea at real, I recomemend that you check Ernest Gellner's some papers to confirm such contexts on this subject

3) I don't remember that I alleged this.

 

Then you should learn to edit yourself better ✔

and your English needs improvement. ✔

yes I agree to this idea. there is no contrast between my two last comment.

thanks for your idea/suggestion.

in pure mathematics we commonly use >3D spaces. there will be many many types which are formulated. but I do not know whether we use any of them as an actual usage in life of science.

I see at this document https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space hilbert spaces are being used at physics discipline and/or electric electronic engineering.

I request anyone to provide any sample of direct usage of >3D space(s) as evidence if there exists or how its usage is.

(note only formulizations are not acceptable, usage is required.)

Dear Imatfaal ;

May I ask , what is your current & official interest?

are you academician at law faculty?

hi ;

sorry to be late for reply!

I request your kind understandings because of traffic among difficult academic rseraches. and remember please I am trying to research under very difficult life conditions. so ,once again I request your kind understandings

of course I accept that my English language is not advanced. and surely I do not believe that it would be advanced because of its "pronounciation".

But I don't accept that it was so bad like the level had/has been told by someone.

I do not doubt that some members have good qualifications ,especailly : "Arete, CharonY , ajb , Strange ,Studiot ,Imatfaal , hallsofivy ...etc" all these are already known (note I also appreciate : hallsofivy ,ajb & studiot,ajb is quite polite and/or elegant,hallsof ivy is wise)

according to the expressions which are above, presumably it has been understood incorrectly (I have told incorrect! , ok ,this is my own incorrectness and of course I apologise)

it was more relevant to educational systems and design of brain system ...

for further and more correct understandings ,I rquest you to check the references below. that idea was not belonging me , was only belonging an idea which was abstract of educational reseraches. sorry for every discussion if there exists eny type of unethic expression in case of me.

1) onassen D H., K. L Peck and B G. Wilson. Learning With Technology: A. Constructivisit Perspective New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1999.

2) Lin X et al”lnstractional Desingn and Development of Learning Communities.

3) Marlowe, B and M. L Page. Creating and Sustaining the Constructivist Classrom, USA, Corwin Press 1998.

4) Selley, Nıck. The Art of Constructivist Teaching in The Primary School, London, David Fulton Publishers, 1999.

5) Wilson, Brent G Reflections on Constructivism and lnstructional Design, Denver, Englewood Cliiffs NJ. Educational Technology Publications, 1997.

6) Perkins David N “The Many Faces of Constructivısm.” Educational Leadership, Novenber199:6-11

7) Marlowe, B and M. L Page. Creating and Sustaining the Constructivist Classrom, USA, Corwin Press 1998.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97886-help-a-non-native-speaker-of-english-understand-this/

8) About Teaching and Learning: A Constructivist Perspective”, American Journal of Education 100, no. 3,1993, ss. 354-95; Tapio Puolimatka, “Constructivism, Knowledge,and Manipulation”, Journal of Philoso

9) 0Erickson,Postmodernizing the Faith: Evangelical Responses tothe Challenge of Postmodernism, GrandRapids. Baker, 1998, .18.

10) Richard Tarnas,The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that have Shaped OurWorldview, New York: Ballantine, 1991, .396-397

11) apio Puolimatka, “Constructivism, Knowledge, and Manipulation”, Journal of Philosophy ofEducation,1999, http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/1999/puolimatka.asp

********************************************

please do not hesitate to ask any question or to criticize , I request you to provide/state at least one evidence for your critique. actually you will everytime be free to criticize ,why this is the manner of science as I know. but unfortunately the time is very difficult problem now for me , my life is under bad conditions. (in my opinion this cannot mean the weakness which is belonging my personality, and as it expresed repeatedly I generally would not prefer to tell the difficulties of my life or private life according to general ethical contexts and my experiences.)

Thanks for your politeness.

Dear Editor , probably there will exist off topic conversations in my this last comment. please determine it whether it is forbidden to share such explanations and I cannot reach the forum's rules now.

apologies for any type of incorrectness

(A NOTATION : I have experience in education (official) for ~3 year. (I had studied as a math teacher. )

blue

Never give up.

+1

this comment folded so as not to be of topic & has been sent to Tampitump in private mod.

blue 89

I thought that this text was not suitable to be shown under this thread, it has been folded & sent to ajb by private message

...

blue

hi ;

Really I think time parameter might have various qualifications. when I read a piece of a paper of stephen hawking , I realised that he uses some words that makes us almost sure/confident that still we have no obvious useful information about both time characater and >3D dimension.

for instance he uses a sentence like this

"We predict that >3D would be...."

the red coloured words proves this us.

the thing that I am sure is the difficulty of finding such implied properties or new things about this issue.

but at the same time ,I think this is clear that we are able to find something very interesting and useful via using different methods.

Note please : I am sometimes using cryptologies (and all of my studies are new types (not traditional))

Edit

Doing this with the wave equation is the beginnings of quantum theory by the way.

this reminiscents me somethings are GREAT!

Standard multiplication and addition of real or complex numbers; Group multiplication; vector addition; matrix multiplication... all these are associative.

 

Non-associative examples include multiplication of octonians and Lie brackets.

 

Associativity means that you can make sense of a*b*c without having to put in the parenthesis -- that is a*(b*c) = (a*b)*c

isn't this a bit basic? or ..what its importance?

for instance if there exists any discussion about such sets ,I don't know the reason why we learnt thems. look ,

M ≠ Ø < M , o > provides qualifications below.

1) every a,b ϵ M aob ϵ M (closed)

2) every a,b ϵ M (aob)oc = ao(boc) (associative)

3) e unit element , every a ϵ M eoa = aoe = a

-----

although there exist many many many subjects & titles at algebra , I do not remember we used such sets commonly.

I see you are using "Lie Algebra" in your papers

what is the usage of this definition : this is "Monoid",but has it importance? )

this set does not provide the last requirement to be group!

last requirement :

4)every a,b ϵ M one x must exist such that aox=b ˅

,4* A) e ϵ M any a ϵ M , aoe = eoa ˄ B) for any a ϵ M , a* ϵ M such that aoa* = e

4 and 4* requirements are equivalent.

and was the binary oparetaion there "o"?

correctance: e is not unit element ,it should be available only. but not element of M as I know.

As long as the domain and range are compatible one can make sense of associativity - so partial binary operations can be associative. For example, when dealing with groupoids where we have a partial multiplication.

ok. thanks although I have forgotten to give some particular instructions ,I see you have not missing such details (like red coloured)

could you gice an example clearly please.

For instance if < G,* > and < H,ß > be each group :

F : G → H and if F provide the requirements below this will be homomorphism or isomorphism

for every a , b ϵ G

F ( a*b) = F (a) ß F(b) ⟹ F is homomorphism

When F provides 1-1 and onto characters at the same time , then F is isomorphism.

of course there will be very many variety of groups (I know up to nilpotent groups but there exists many other types too)

Could you give an example for binary operation?

(I could not find the best terminology ,so definition (!) )

mmm ,I may say that all critiques are constructive under this thread.

in this case ,may I ask a point and this is important for me ;

we know that some artistic studies are related to science. so ,what do you think about aspect of ART study.

really I think the picture above is not good. but Assume please when we succeed the professional types ,will not it be worth?

if it be valuable (that I think so) ,we must continue this activity?

please feel free to express your any idea under this thread.

Thanks

is it the same defiition with homomorphism / isomorphism (1-1 ,onto) ?

already, I could not understand anything clearly.

Now ,I think that it should be compulsory to write ORIGINAL AND FULL TEXT of QUESTION.

:-)

but it would be good to say

there is nothing which is DIFFICULT in mathematics.

all existences are things what require studying hard and more carefully

I have to leave ....the time is 00.36 ,in turkey

Unless I sleep ,it will be worse for my eyes.

good nights.

sincerely

blue

mmm , really there was already a strange appearance in writing ;

f ( f(a,b) ,c) ,because this is not original notation for implicit functions , it should have been F(a,b,f(a,b))as I did.

mm furthermore ,presumably I have been a bit myopic

I could not realise the second writing of f letter well.

What was implied with "multiplication"

this one

(fog)(x) = f(g(x)) ?