studiot

I said others knew more about this than I do. +1 to @MigL

Indeed I haven't but then I didn't set out to prove this. There definitely was a time when human custom and practice was more like that of other animals. I am just trying to consider the differences, bearing in mind the adaptability of humans has led to them doing different things at differnt times in different places and different circumstances.

I have no idea of the answer to this or even if anyone can answer it. However I think it is a really well thought out question, worthy of a good answer so well done. +1

Hello again @Bcook Since I see you are back I thought perhaps you might like an answer to this question. The pictures @joigus drew for you show the lines around a steady unidirectional current (D C) The actual lines around an ac source are too complicated for a still diagram, since the currenet polarity (or direction) is always changing as it build up to a maximum, then declined to zero and then builds up to a maximum the other way, then declines to zero again, repetitively. As a consequence the arcs traced out will be circular but not complete circles, depending upon the frequency and distance from the current wire. To complicate matters further such a change constitutes a disturbance that propagates at the speed of light outwardly from the wire so if you go far enough the effect of the current change will not have had time to reach that larger circle path. The animation, due to NASA give the idea Of course at the distance involved with your equipment we don't need to worry about this.

If I take as my base set the set of all hydrocarbon molecules but restict it to three subsets I can show all I need to show/deduce. For this I do not need a coordinate system Nor do I need a metric Nevertheless using (relational) geometry without these I can deduce two different relations for these subsets, rather as you say you can do for GR and your proposal. So yes I agree there is more than one approach and that it is especially pleasing when they end up with the same result. So considering my three subsets as the alkanes, the alkenes and tha alkynes I observe that The alkanes have a formula CnH2n+2 The alkenes have a formula CnH2n The alkynes have a formula CnH2n-2 This is one relation deducible from geometry Another relation is deducible from the Chemistry. The alkanes have a only single bonds The alkenes have a double bond The alkynes have a triple bond Various relational diagrams may be drawn to show these facts. Now I said I don't need a metric for this. This is actually slightly disingenuous since I really should say there is a metric but I am not using it. It is in fact quite difficult to create a structure without a metric, whether you use that metric or not. In this case there exists (in the mathematical sense of that statement) a metric that may be described as a modified Hamming metric on the set of hydrocarbons in general and my subsets in particular. What's more you can even draw circles and define radii with this metric. It is a very simple metric the modulus of the difference of the number of carbon atoms between two molecules in a subset. This simple formula | Ca - Cb | where C is the number of carbon atoms and a, b are molecules in the set, satisfy the three metric axioms. This is exactly what I think you are trying to do when you post a diagram with a coordinate grid and circles. By doing this you have acknowledged that your schema (I use that word since you have something against sets) contains an implied metric.

Thank you for noticing my typo. Try as I might they always seem to creep in. As to 3 meals or any other number. The explanatory text did say (or was meant to say) simply 'regular meals' without specifying a number of meals. The 3 was just a common expression. I am also aware that some people also have deliberate fast days. But the point I was trying to make is 'regular' As opposed to 3 meals Monday, 2 Tuesday, 3 Wednesday, 1 Thursday and so on. Many also have only 2 on a Sunday on account of a large Sunday Lunch. But the Daily and Weekly pattern repeats.

Hello and welcome. Can I suggest to private message a moderator and see if this would be better in the engineering section. Anyway, wherever it is it is a good topic. To partially answer your question about efficiency, You cannot divorce cost from efficiency. But there are engineering considerations. Analysis of waste both from the point of view of resources, materials etc required to successfully produce an item to the fraction of failures in the production of that item. Also look at the number of operations needed to produce a component and the distance it has to travel from one operation to another. For example a potter making various pots, firing them, letting them cool, opening and unloading the kiln with minimal breakages. Look at the question of resources standing idle whilst something else is happening. What is the 'opportunity cost' of this ? Example a builder has scaffolding erected and ready before he has lined up (scheduled) the materials to place on the scaffold for erection. Then there are the company wide considerations such as the location of the plant in relation to the market for transport, distance and so on. Hope these pointers are a helpful start.

No, since I as I have already discovered we are working from different definitions. No. what would I use it for ? Just as you have ignored my repeated exhortations to start at the beginning not in the middle. So I will make a start, in good faith, and see where it leads us. Let us start with the simplest most general concept, a non empty set. Call it M. The only relation possessed by members of such a set is that they belong to the set. It is worth noting that this relation is an equivalence relation since if m,n , p ∈ M then m ~ m (reflexive) m ~ n ⇢ n ~ m (symmetric) m ~ n and n ~ p ⇢ m ~ p (transitive) I asked you and you didn't answer, what you think a relation is. Mathematically a relation is defined as a set of pairs of elements. So another way of defining the euqivalence realtion is to specify (list ) ll possible pairs and put them into another set (the realtion set). Although this does not get us very far it does display that there is often more than one way of approaching/defining/specifying. It also demonstrates the idea of a collection of sets, each with its own special purpose. Such a collection put together in another set leads to the idea of a space (including spacetime). Our simple set of course is too simple to be a 'space'. A space is a set containing a set of elements, a set of rules and posasibly a set of supporting objects. Alternatively we are imposing some rules on our simple set which give it a required 'structure. For example a vector space comprise a set of vectors, a set of rules for manipulating these and a set of coefficients (usually forming a Field). Each of these sets will be more complicated than our basic simple set and bring with them some structure of their own, implicit in their definitions. For example the Field set reminds us that a Field in mathematics is a very different object from a field in Physics. So you want to study relativity from the point of view of relational geometry. So I propose to do exactly that, starting at the beginning, for a much simpler example in Chemistry. The example will demonstrate what is necessary to make a proper fist of the job and bring out the 'wrinkles' that need to be ironed out.

Obviously it does since various patterns pertain throught the globe. But please, we should accept the premise that it is possible for humans to have various eating patterns and discuss the op questions about how that affects our evolution and development - both the positive and the negative.

ÎÎ

Perhaps that's what POTUS needs ? 😄

We can't all live in paradise. Conditions were particularly harsh for the first leavers of Africa , especially during an ice age. Even early man built 'cities'. But cities are not self sustaining by themselves. they require substantial agricultural infrastructure, and social specialisation We are still continuing this process today.

Well, as I see it, it allowed us time to do other things than scrabble for food. It also must have played a part in the development of a stratified society

So far as I know Man is the only animal that goes in forregular 'meals'. Other species eat opportunistically or more or less continuously. Whilst some store food, they do not 'plan' regular meals ahead, human style. So what is the evolution and development of this trait and what is the relationship with our overall evolution and development ? Has it helped or hindered us ?

Simulpost. Apt since we're into simulations here. 😄 My encounter with feedforward concerned high quality hifi amps years ago. Here is a more modern net paper on them. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269101733_TOWARDS_A_GENERALISATION_OF_ERROR_CORRECTION_AMPLIFIERS

I'm glad this has stimulated some unexpected thinking and I look forward to learning the results in your next post.

Thanks iNow. So why does this option not appear in the Edit Profile option that you first get ?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your maths. I do however, hope that you are not denying the standard mathematical trigonometric parametrisation of a circle in terms of the radius and an angle. That was correct. Since you mention ontology several times and ontological relationships more recently, I have been looking into them. Wikipedia is particularly interesting and suprising in this respect, as I have learned, is that there are more schools of thought of ontology and ontological relationships than there are 'interpretations' of quantum mechanics. So it seems that there really is a language barrier involved, but not between English and other languages, but between mathematics and philosophy. I hold that whenever you wish to do mathematics you should employ the definitions of mathematics, not of philosophy or any other discipline. I note that you and KJW are working towards the analysis that I offered several times, particularly to start at the beginning with set theory. I now see that this is even more important because of the fundamental difference between the precise mathematical definition of a relation (or relationship) and the philosophical one. I will also thank you to discontinue the inappropriate personal comments. You have no way of knowing what goes on inside another's head.

To whom it may concern, please look into both these quations. I was asked by another member how to change their avatar. As I have never done this, I looked through the settings and other facilities available by clicking on studiot at the top right of the home page. However I could not find the option in 'edit profile' or any of the other options. I did note though that members profiles still contain the option for a Skype address. But of course Skype no longer exists so can I suggest that option be updated ?

This diagram shows entirely unsuitable support conditions at both supports. A good deal more information is required before a more accurate structural analysis can be performed. You didn't respond to my last answer to yourself either, back in May.

Why only one support ? The OP had at least 2 I'm sorry what's the difference ?

Well this is really somewhat out of my field, but I am aware of recent medical developments in man/machine interfacing including involving repurposing nerve connections and special purpose computer chip implants to regain lost motor control. Perhaps these are the people to pitch your thinking to ? +1 to swansont for a good question/point

Did you have a question or point for discussion ?

But you are addressing my OP with this statement. That's discussion for you.

In feedback techniques the sampling is done at the output, and returned to the input so the correction always lags the output. In feedforwrd techniques the sampling is done at input and fedforward through a separate path to coincide with the output in a corrective polarity. Feed Forward Techniques Electronics Today International April 1976 page 68