studiot

So you can put numbers into that formula, take a tape measure or whatever, and walk out onto the hill and point to a spot ? How ?

From the numbers and positions of the diodes I guess that the solar cells are grouped and the diodes are set to protect a group rather than individual cells. Are they bypass diodes or are they set to prevent fully illuminated cells form trying to pass current through shaded (and therefore lower voltage output) cells. Some better circuit diagrams would help.

I really don't know what that long thread is about because you seem to be preaching not just listening and discussing. In particular here is a real world engineering problem that does not satisfy your specification. You are to dig out part of a steeply sloping hillside and build a heavy reinforced concrfete box reservoir in the space. In order to support the new weight several lines of prebored piles are to be installed raking at 1 : 4 along the front or outer floor of the reservoir. Regardless of where each borehole starts on the hillside, the pilecap has to end up in the right place just at the underside of the reservoir floor to correctly distribute the load to the floor reinforcement. What closed formula can your AI pal offer to locate the drill point for each pile ?

There you are a much better coherent post and folks are already starting to off help and explanations. +1 to KJW. Thank you too for that post +1 also for encouragement. I think I now have a pretty good idea of where you are coming from. Now please don't misunderstand this next bit it is not a personal criticism, nor is it a criticism at all. It is an acknowledgement that folks are different and think differently,. I think perhaps that when you come across something that interests you, your mind suggests all sorts of loosly associated matters and that you started here by listing a great many of them for help. Now that I realise that this thread could become really productive. So well done for looking into i j k and finding the Miller indices. We can use this to look at the idea of indices as labels next post and start to work through your worries (hopefully others will chip in more and more) including you difficulties with infinity and electrical calculations with imaginary numbers.

Let me add to what swansont and markus have said, by asking Do you know what a functional is ? Why do you say that T is the kinetic energy density, not the kinetic energy ? never mind what "would be behind the tear or break" what does your system 'strain' into or what is behind that strain in your words ? In simple terms do you know what strain is ?

Thank you for your response. Actually there is a whole lot more to i, j k than this, which has dfinite solid connection to things like crystals and mineralogy and other applications. I wonder if you are hankering after this sort of approach, that used to be called practical mathematics. Here is a page from such a book an I wonder if you would post your reaction to it because if I am correct in my guess then you would enjoy this approach. What do you think ? The book is a british book published by Odhams called Mathematics in Theory and Practice

I should check your facts with the natives before posting next time. The relevant current body is Natural England and the relevant term is ancient woodland. It is however true, as exchemist says, that human occupation of the British Isles has led to a steady deforestation over thousands of years. Requirements for building, wars, farming clearance, sightlines (the Romans did a lot of this) and more have all played their part. These have been only partly offset by deliberate (re)planting, which has occurred only sporadically, for example the New Forest, by order of King Henry VIII.

Interesting use of emergent. Thank you. +1

Dare I use that phrase "with you there bro" again without starting another forum war ? +1 😄

Was all this meant to be a response to my request ? After all you did ask for responses. Which perhaps is why you have started with a most unfortunate title in maths. The use of the word 'Real' has very very special meaning in maths so I highly recommend you change your title as you clearly mean something different. Since you seem to have difficulty with infinity I suggest you look at the branch of mathematics called Concrete Mathematics. This has proved to be a very useful concept in modern everyday applied maths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Mathematics

One step at a time please. No one want to respond to a wall of text. So pick one on the points where your system is different from conventional maths and we can discuss it.

+1 to joigus for doing the unpaid work of technical checking and proofreading a technical document that contained material that had no business to be there, free and gratis.

Wow, not respectful ? from someone who has clearly not read the rules he or she signed up to. I asked very respectfully for a summary instead of a link offsite (which are prohibited in the format you have provided on this site ) What I asked for would at least put you on the right side of the rules here. As I do not know what an electromagnetic vacuum is, conventional or otherwise I asked specifically as I do not wish to guess or discuss at cross purposes. If you are going to be that touchy you will not fare well when the mods read this thread. Good night.

And what would the electromagnetic vacuum be please. Can you summarise what the conventional features are and how your proposal differs.

Yes I did read it it but No I did not understand it. I would say from the responses of other members many are in the same boat. Not understanding is the reason I asked for a slowdown and agreement on basic definitions so thank you for referring me to that rather deficient Wiki article about solids. But at least I know where you are coming from on that now. And since this is your show we can use that definition of solid as opposed to any other, That is all I was initially asking for. Can we discuss the meaning of the term model without all that histrionics ? You didn't answer my query about observables v observations so I still don't know if you understand the term observable. You are also clearly incorrect in your use of the term data. Data is a wider term than observations (or observables) all of which have their particular place in the scheme of things.

It did also bring to mind the problems that came with the post war Orlit and Airey houses buit with prefabricated pos and panel construction. 640 × 481 I know the panels or planks were set hardened concrete, but after decades joints leaked, letting in the water and wind. The panel construction allowed diferential movement. I don't know if the layers of printed concrete will suffer the same in time

The programme was on 8pm to 9pm this evening on BBC. The section of video was a few minutes about half way through. Being in England you should be able to get it on iplayer.

Just seen an interesting bit of 3D printing on the TV programme about the current Chelsea Flower Show. They were using fine concrete as the print material, and the print machine was 2 - 3 times the size of a human. The result was a hollow cellular wall.

I do wonder if Engish is not your first language or the first language of your AI, because your use of words is so unusual I'm not at all sure you are using the same meanings as other members. That is why I asked you , for starters, what you mean by SOLID. I wonder if you mean material or something akin to the french phrase 'fond acier inoxidable' (english = solid stainless steel) rather than what any physicist would think of when someone says solid to her. Or perhaps you mean material. So please tell us what you mean. Then we can have a sensible discussion as to what the scientist means when he says the word model. Once again stracnge scientific English. I wonder if you actually mean what we call 'observables' ?

I haven't read your paper yet, but I feel that if you are simple defining out of existence awkward statements that is bit of a cop out. Surely if we can't address the difficult stuff then there is no point in logic or philosophy ? Where would we be if we still insisted that the square roots of negative numbers should be defined out of existence ?

Yes there are far too many possible answers and we have far too little information to make a realistic speculation

Not sure why this is in Applied Mathematics, nor why you need to post a link, which is against the rules of this discussion site. However the subject appears interesting and does highlight a good point that there is much more to 'logic' than simple first order binary logic. In my experience I don't know of any paradoxes that can be resolved by the simple observation that the paradox is contained in a compound or complex statement that tries to combine two (or more) incompatible simple statements.

Great comment @joigus No you don't define observations in any form of Physics, new or old. +1 (Mis)defining observations was the cardinal (pun intended) sin that led popes in the late 16th and early 17 century to burn people at the stake (eg Bruno), following the original mistake in that direction by Plato and Aristotle. Observations are the most important thing in Physics so it is the other way around. You use observations to define Physics If they don't match the observation is correct and you are wrong.

What is this doing in mdern and theoretical physics ? Did you not read our rules when you joined ? If yes then why did you not abide by them an place this in speculations, where it belongs ? If no then why do you expect us to read your rules ? Since you have titled your wanderings 'Solid Physics' I suggest you start by carefully defining what you mean by solid, since that characteristic has special meaning in mainstream physics and chemistry.

Why should the received 'signal' be the last broadcast ? Just a suggestion folks but isn't is just as likely that a far off Trump has cut funding and sacked all the staff after the first broadcast centre of the source planet? You all have a good night now.