studiot

The for all is a problem, the for all physical even more so. Can two physical things occupy exactly the same space ? Is orientation important important ? Say I have two allegedly identical mirrors and I stand them side by side, one with the mirror face towards me the other with its back to me. If I shine a torch on them I will observe two totally different responses to my light.

This must surely depend upon your definition of identical ? I suggest the best way to approach this situation is a pragmatic one, like the definition of a point particle. "Identical for my specified purposes"

Yes I understand you can indeed light farts. There was also that Frenchman who could fart in tune. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%C3%A9tomane

I agree with those currents, but here's the thing. The lead to a voltage at the junction of the 3 resistors of just over 6.8 volts. I am not sure if you are studying maths or electrical engineering ? But why would anyone connect up two batteries as your 'model' has shown ? What do you know about your model ? I am not at all convinced that your 'lazy' objective function correctly identifes the minimum heat dissipation in the three resistors. The actual values of the three currents varies with the voltage at the triple junction. I have prepared an Excel spreadsheet of the currents for each of the possible voltages 1 through 9 and plotted the result to find a minimum total power at just over 8 volts (not 6,8 as you have). These were calculated using the correct power formulae without fiddle factors.

I don't understand why this question is being set in a recreational thread ? This has led to repeated requests for clarification. It is just too vague The actual answer will depend upon your formulation since some axioms/definitions/properties may be inherited. If it is really about the Peano system, which is first order logic, then peano arithmetic with only addition is Godel decidable; peano arithmetic with both addition and multiplication is undecidable. Peano axioms also refer to axioms for the construction of the natural numbers, as opposed to their arithmetic. Good discussion of these mathematical matters can be found in Computability and Logic Boolos and Jeffrey Cambridge University Press Readings in the Philosophy of Science Feigl and Brodbeck Appleton-Century-Crofts New York

Whilst I agree that energy considerations will produce solvable solutions via the shakedown theorem, I don't agree with your energy loss formula. Energy is not 1/2 resistance times current squared. Power is resistance times current squared , not one half of that, Energy is power times time.

Don't let mine get together with yours then.

OK so since 1990. But note the Gogle AI then contradicts itself with the second sentence about the UK. Looking quickly in post 1990 textbooks Edexel in 2000 (High School advanced Level) had the ph spelling MCQs in Pharmaceutical Calculation (pharmacists professional exam) had ph for sulphur but the f spelling for sulfathiazole. Most post 200 pharmacy books prefer the f spelling. So I expect the amercanisation of English to continue, considering the great resource imbalance. Mine is a 1966 reprint.

Glad to be of service.

To quote from the preface of the book Many of the important calculations in applied maths (engineering and physics) use functional analysis because engineers and scientists want numbers and statistics. Functionals are maps from diverse domains to some field, usually the real numbers. A good example is the definite integral, another is the time integral of the lagrangian (also called the action or the action integral). There are also many examples of everyday functionals in statistics, typically the mean and variance of a distribution is a functional. There is also the 'energy functional'. Indeed you can find functionals pretty well anywhere and everywhere you apply mathematics.

From much much battered copy of Spice (my second copy. ( It was so good I had the first one stolen from me). Sulphur is UK spelling, Sulfur is US. The americans have simplified quite few technical words. I'm sorry we didn't 'learn the table' , as some schools. Cambridge board never set any exam questions about the table itself in my day, only about the information it contained. The point being that you have to know a lot of the information for the table to assume real significance. The standard channel shaped long table was developed by about the 1920s. After this a single 'hanging' lanthanide line was introduced, followed by the double line in 1940. There are lots more in-between tables for those interested.

You mean this one ? Yes Professor K has written some excellent applied maths books, I remember preferring his book to the course set book at first year university, back in the 1960s.

It is a common misconception that there is one 'periodic table' that can be presented in several different forms. But in fact the situation is more complicated than this Yes indeed it does depend upon 'which table' you look at, so let us look at how this situation has arisen. So what is the periodic table and what is a period ? Early chemists discovered that the 'indivisible elements' could be listed in small groups with similar properies. The main distinguishing property they could measure back then was atomic weight, so they listed the elements by AW. Mendeleyev was the first to notice that it was more than just collections, he noticed a regularity in the occurence in the more interesting (to the chemists) regularity in those lists, even though there were some anomalies in place on the list. This is the table he published in 1869. The' periods' go across the table, left to right. And the groups (Gruppe) are tabulated vertically. You can see he was a bit mixed up about group 4. But the real question was and still is "Which properties to you use to generate the categories ?" The problem being that different categories will include or exclude different elements, although listing in order of atomic number moved several misplaced elements into a more coherent pattern. This straightforward listing led to the form you are probably thinking of known as the 'long form' This form has the advantage that atomic number indexes every element and can be presented in a reasonably compact form. But Chemistry is about a whole lot more than atomic weight and atomic number - that is really for physicists. Chemistry is about acids and alkalies, metals and non metals, chemical reactions and most particularly electrons and their role. Considering electrons we arrive at 4 groups and 7 periods, which tells us where all the electrons are This information can also be displayed in other ways and I am guessing that you have looked at one of these. Finally a very modern version of the long table showing a few extra properties eg metal/non metal.

Since it is too difficult for idiots like me to understand why a missing electron is a wave of any sort I would be grateful if geniuses like yourself would explain in simple words that I can understand.

Thank you for your reply and the negative point. Since I am guessing that English is not your first language I can see why you have failed to understand my opening post and subsequent replies. Yes I agree that if you are correct that there is no duality (in reality) none of my examples represent duality. But then you failed to understand that they were all examples for discussion, to stimulate the idea that there may be more than one type of duality. You also failed to take into account that I said it depends upon circumstance. So it is true that concrete is very very weak in tension, but very very strong in compression. So it is weak in some circumstances, but strong in others. That is why we use reinforced concrete. You would certainly fail a chemistry exam if you claim that aluminium cannot act as either an alkali or an acid depending upon circumstance (ph in this case) That is how you can get the substances aluminium sulphate and calcium aluminate. That is reality, but is it duality ? I find your statement that a hole (in electronics) is a wave quite interesting. Especially as a hole is the absence of something, because something is missing. So what is this wave made of ? No duality in reality ? Children in school use a pair of compasses to plot or draw a circle as a trajectory of points a fixed distance from a centre. But in some schools they also construct a circle by 'curve stitching'. That is they plot those points by stretching threads along tangents to that same circle. In fact they are laying the groundwork to one day understand dual spaces in mathematics.

Thank you for your reply, but I really don't see what it has to do with duality. Membrane potentials occur in Biology yes, but no dualism is involved. Two state ( on or off) systems occur widely, but this is entirely different from dualism. A good example would be binary logic, the two states are 1 and zero. In electronics a common implementation would be +5volts representating 1 and 0volts representing zero. This is called positive logic. But it is possible to do it the other way round, with the 5 volts representing zero and 0volts representing 1 This is called negative logic. Such a situation is indeed dualism. There are many such in Mathematics. As a matter of interest membrane potentials are really part of Chemisty, not Physics. A good treatment of their calculation is given in Physical Chemistry for Biochemists Price et al Oxford University Press

Thank you for your interest. Would you explain further, perhaps with some examples ?

Point taken, thanks. Spacetime it is. +1

I suppose this can be cast as a linear programming model, though I am used to a more direct physical solution as the parallel operation of dissimilar power sources is an important real world situation Is this homework/coursework ? Assuming this is homework, a hint for (a) Any linear programming problem requires the introduction of a constraint equation to bound the region where the constituent equations hold as there are not enough constituent equations by themselves (more unknowns than equations).

The OP states that this is about algebra, relational geometry and some other concepts are introduced. So let us take stock of the consequences this implies. algebra, geomtery and relations fall within the province of Mathematics. A relation is defined as a set of members each comprised of two elements, one element from each of two sets. The two sets may be actual copies of the same set so the relation is then between elements of one set. This is the case for geometric relations (relational geometry), where the elements are points of a geometric manifold. the process of creating/defining sets can be carrier further by taking the pairing set and another set to establish further relations. a metric is such a relation. But the OP has disbarred the use of such a relation so we are left with simpler geometry to work with. Less onerous geometric relations are still possible but we must look to other physical justification to provide the necessary rules. I'm sorry but the expression energy = space just will not cut it. However I do wonder if some process akin to the derivation of the Madelung Constant might suffice. Such a relation could yied a non metric, yet numeric (ie algebraic), statement of the relation between any two points of the geometric manifold. But no meaning can be attached to the statements "The distance between point a and point b is" or "point c is further from point a than point b is", since there is no metric.

You picked up my first point pretty well, that communications diffuculties impedes accurate assessment of abilities. I would like to add to this that different folks, both non autistic and presumably autistic can think in different ways. In particular some people can think in the abstract, others find this difficult to do. Some think in pictures, some in words and some in ideas or concepts.

I believe that one complicating factor is that most if not all autistic people experience difficulty in communicating with others, both autistic and non autistic. This difficulty affects both directions of communication.

You are not addressing my concerns. It doesn't matter how long or short your wires are, or what their cross sectional area is. Nor does it matter how long it takes to pass a given number of units of charge . All that matters is that each unit liberates one ion with one unit of charge. so counting the number of ions liberated equals the number of unit charges passing. That gives the total charge. No forces, vacuums, permeabilities, permitivities, etc are involved. Counting over a particular time period connects this as a curent to an existing dimensions (time) Avogadro's number connects it to another existing dimension (mass) Connection to length appears if you change from current to current density. But you cannot derive a basic unit of charge from these connections.

So how do you regard the status of the Faraday constant, F ? F = NAe = 96485 coulombs / mol where NA is Avogardo's number and e is the charge on the electron

Well I have a problem with this definition of the coulomb, which is surely independent of mass. Faraday showed that the amount (ie number) of ions liberated in an electrolysis is proportional to the strength of current flowing and the time for whixh it flows. From this we may draw the connclusion that the number of ions liberated is proportional to the amount od electricity which has passed throught the elecrrolyte since the current is the rate of flow of charge. But each different ion has a different mass hence the proportionality is independent of the mass liberated. Nowadays we use current density as easier to tie in with EM theory as the base electric unit, but you cannot do without one. Here are some comparison tables and definitions from older systems and Si. Not this was SI before 'count' or number was admitted as a valid dimension.