Jump to content
Ser

Attitude to unit. Let's imagine figuratively. Where's the mistake?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Where's the mistake?

Not sure but maybe:

1: Having two "Fig. 2" in the post making it harder to understand?
2: Not clearly stating what you wish to discuss, is it a blog post or a question?
3: Opening a new thread on a subject when told not to?

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ser said:

Thank you. The topic touches on a lot. 

!

Moderator Note

Get to it already.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Not sure but maybe:

1: Having two "Fig. 2" in the post making it harder to understand?
2: Not clearly stating what you wish to discuss, is it a blog post or a question?
3: Opening a new thread on a subject when told not to?

4. Seeing significance and meaning where there is none: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser said:

The measurement of each, of everything in the world, can be taken as one.

Monism?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monism

This doesn’t seem to have any connection to your pretty pictures. 

And how is cybernetics connected to this?

2 hours ago, Ser said:

The whole point comes down to a mathematical unit. 

What does this mean? And what evidence do you have to support this claim?

As this is a mathematical claim, you should be able to provide a mathematical proof. Can you do that? (Unexplained and apparently meaningless geometric constructions do not count. At least, not without some explanation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quote your original post but you say two contradictory this there:

You say that [math]\frac a c = \frac c b[/math]

But then [math]\frac a c = \frac {\sqrt 2}{2}[/math] and [math]\frac c b = \sqrt 2[/math]

So, therefore, your first statement is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Strange said:

Monism?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monism

This doesn’t seem to have any connection to your pretty pictures. 

And how is cybernetics connected to this?

What does this mean? And what evidence do you have to support this claim?

As this is a mathematical claim, you should be able to provide a mathematical proof. Can you do that? (Unexplained and apparently meaningless geometric constructions do not count. At least, not without some explanation.)

There will be difficulties with translation.

We'll take any topic on this forum. We accept it as a full understanding of one.
Every person has their own one unit of understanding of this topic. There's nothing equal to that unit. Through comparison. We can see each person's relationship to this one...

We only measure our attitude to everything

What's the first thing? Math or geometry. There are facts     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements
Mathematics, described by an image of geometry.

the evidence will always depend on consciousness.  Circles without explanation, not understood. With a description, it becomes clearer.  Attitudes towards this topic have changed for each of us.

Mathematical proof is the existence of this proportion:  a/c = c/b

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I can't quote your original post but you say two contradictory this there:

You say that ac=cb

But then ac=22 and cb=2

So, therefore, your first statement is not true.

That's right. I was wrong in the first post.  It's become clearer with different colors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

ser1.thumb.jpg.b8ddb8fbd1d6adfb8a4398e3a4613afe.jpg

 

Although it may be bureaucratically desirable to masure the size of everything via a ratio to a standard,   it seems to me thare are severeral (mathematical) problems associated with this approach.

1) Surely you don't mean the mathematical unit but the algebraic unit, for is not Geometry also part of mathematics ?

2) In terms of algebraic difficulties what happens when a = b = c = 0 ; in total accord with your stated algebraic conditions ?

3) In terms of you geometric version, how do you compare the sizes of two spheres?  By radius? by surface area ? by volume ? Each will yield a different numeric answer.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ser said:

The measurement of each, of everything in the world, can be taken as one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics

The whole point comes down to a mathematical unit. 

And what would be the point of doing that? Cybernetics "is the scientific study of how humans, animals and machines control and communicate with each other." and people normalizing to different units is the opposite of good communication.

2 hours ago, Ser said:

There will be difficulties with translation.

We'll take any topic on this forum. We accept it as a full understanding of one.
Every person has their own one unit of understanding of this topic. There's nothing equal to that unit. Through comparison. We can see each person's relationship to this one...

We only measure our attitude to everything

What's the first thing? Math or geometry. There are facts     https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements
Mathematics, described by an image of geometry.

the evidence will always depend on consciousness.  Circles without explanation, not understood. With a description, it becomes clearer.  Attitudes towards this topic have changed for each of us.

Mathematical proof is the existence of this proportion:  a/c = c/b

That's right. I was wrong in the first post.  It's become clearer with different colors.  

!

Moderator Note

Attitude and consciousness are not math. When I said "get to it already" I meant for you to lay out your idea. Not in bits and pieces, bringing in new topics as you go.

If it's that big, give us an abstract/summary/outline. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser said:

We accept it as a full understanding of one.

Then why do We need We?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ser said:

That's right. I was wrong in the first post.  

I think you are wrong in every post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ser said:

That's right. I was wrong in the first post.  It's become clearer with different colors.

Maybe I miss something?

[math]a= \frac{\sqrt{2} }{2}, c=1, b= \sqrt{2}[/math]

[math]
\frac{c}{b} =  \frac{1}{ \sqrt{2}}= \frac{\sqrt{2}}{ \sqrt{2} \sqrt{2}  }  = \frac{\sqrt{2} }{2}=\frac{a}{c}[/math]

Is that what was intended?

 

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colleagues, thank you for what you are.  I wish you every happiness.

While I was thinking about how to answer your questions, I understood. That I'm not well educated for such topics.
That algebra is part of math, I never thought about it.
It's just that all images are geometry to me. And numbers, numbers, proportions are math.

If c=0, it's just nothing, no.

The mistake in the first post was... That it was wrong to write, which shows a blue, red circle. It is more correct to draw conclusions about the black circle. I mean, what is part and what is quantity. That was right, but not right.

Unit of weight
unit of time
Unit of joy
Unit of sensation
The unit of thought now
A unit of thought. In a second.
These are infinitely different units.
Each unit, infinitely filled with proportions...Fig.3

The interaction of the ones, occurs through the choice of a relationship.
They can't be equal.
In real life, we are social. So we simplify and round it up. We find the same things.
Same things can only be in math, geometry. I think that's the language of "god."

There's a good example. Choosing the relationship to time. 

First, we choose the time to which we will refer. Of all eternity.

Let's say we choose three days. Yesterday, today, tomorrow.
Now let's treat these three days. As you zoom in. The passage of time in the present.
The time goes on in real time.
As we approach, the markup and speed change. Attention. And our relationship to time.

1t_(1).gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ser said:

Let's say we choose three days. Yesterday, today, tomorrow.
Now let's treat these three days. As you zoom in. The passage of time in the present.
The time goes on in real time.
As we approach, the markup and speed change. Attention. And our relationship to time.

So are you saying monkeys with prehensile tails at a dinner party would have to face away from the table to reach the tureen of soup?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ser said:

Colleagues, thank you for what you are.  I wish you every happiness.

While I was thinking about how to answer your questions, I understood. That I'm not well educated for such topics.
That algebra is part of math, I never thought about it.
It's just that all images are geometry to me. And numbers, numbers, proportions are math.

If c=0, it's just nothing, no.............................................

 

Thank you for your reply to my comments.

I understand that your thought processes run along different paths than those of most scientists so their output presents differently.

There is nothing wrong with this, indeed it can sometimes be productive.

You have certainly been polite and acknowledged the points of others so I am going to add +1 to cancel the downvote I can't see any justification for.

Some things you need to know about Geometry are:

 

Geometry can use, but does not require, measurement or scaling. Scaling is an additional property of images due to specific physical circumstances.

~~So for instance every equilateral triangle  is similar to every other one, regardless of size.
But there is only one equilateral triangle with any particular size. Any other equilateral triangle of the same size is just a copy of the first one. We call this congruence.

Thus we can separate the properties of shape (eg equilateral triangles) and scale or size.
This has  consequences.

In the 1960s size independent shapes were discovered when fractals began to be developed. Fractals have the property of being the same shape at any scaling.

Mathematicians are happy to have just numbers on graph plots, or even no numbers at all.
But graphical presentation of data can easily be distorted by inappropriate scaling.
I'm sorry I used to have a book with lots of good examples, but I can't find it at the moment.
So you have to be careful when presenting data.
 

If that presented data represents something physical, with its own physical units then a further factor comes into play.
People often get confused when the physical quantities represented on a graphical plot are different for different axes or coordinates.
This is especially true of Scientific dataplots. And Science makes a lot of use of these plots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

OK, then. 

Ignore moderators at your own risk. Closed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.