If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

FQXi FORUM

February 25, 2018

This may seem too simplistic but the minimum path issue, could we use the bread crumb principle. Spread virtual bread crumbs and just sort out the paths by counting the least crumbs?

I am not a scientist or mathematician so feel free to ignore me.

Use a graph to sort out the numbers and as you get more data calculated you would (my guess) be able to eliminate the ones that probably will fall outside your goal.

my email is eightbitme@gmaail.com

or no1athomedotgov@outlook.com

or even sdc15485863@yahoo.com

(say that number looks familiar what is that number)

Hint it is a prime # but what one?

report post as inappropriate

I am not a scientist or mathematician so feel free to ignore me.

Use a graph to sort out the numbers and as you get more data calculated you would (my guess) be able to eliminate the ones that probably will fall outside your goal.

my email is eightbitme@gmaail.com

or no1athomedotgov@outlook.com

or even sdc15485863@yahoo.com

(say that number looks familiar what is that number)

Hint it is a prime # but what one?

report post as inappropriate

Still the thought nags.

Is not Occum's Razor--be it Kolmogorov complexity/(Chaitin's) algorithmic information--merely the approximation of a rapidly decaying tail of an infinite distribution of possibilities.

In the greater scheme of things, will assuming such a decaying tail still prove valid?

report post as inappropriate

Is not Occum's Razor--be it Kolmogorov complexity/(Chaitin's) algorithmic information--merely the approximation of a rapidly decaying tail of an infinite distribution of possibilities.

In the greater scheme of things, will assuming such a decaying tail still prove valid?

report post as inappropriate

"whether questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure."

The question how large is the sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... can be quickly and plausibly answered by means of common sense but definitely not by direct procedure.

While Kolgomorov's idea is convincing to me, I did not yet grasp its promised application.

Let me reiterate a seemingly quite different statement of mine: Addition of redundancy, in particular with complex valued Fourier transformation (FT) instead of equivalent real-valued cosine transformation (CT), can effectively be considered as causing incompleteness if the original mathematical model pf concern resides in R* instead of R. In terms of physics: Future data cannot be measured in advance.

CT is then not just simpler than FT but also basic to it. Can you imagine a physics that needs ict and ih_bar merely for the sake of convenience and tradition?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

The question how large is the sum 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... can be quickly and plausibly answered by means of common sense but definitely not by direct procedure.

While Kolgomorov's idea is convincing to me, I did not yet grasp its promised application.

Let me reiterate a seemingly quite different statement of mine: Addition of redundancy, in particular with complex valued Fourier transformation (FT) instead of equivalent real-valued cosine transformation (CT), can effectively be considered as causing incompleteness if the original mathematical model pf concern resides in R* instead of R. In terms of physics: Future data cannot be measured in advance.

CT is then not just simpler than FT but also basic to it. Can you imagine a physics that needs ict and ih_bar merely for the sake of convenience and tradition?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

First, Occam's Razor is very likely a kind of least energy principle. That is, it suggests the least energy solution to a problem, viz., that the best solution to a problem creates the fewest new terms, hypotheses, etc., in explaining a phenomenon. In this case, it's thermodynamically efficient when compared to the other hypotheses which purport to explain a phenomenon. It's a process comparing...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.