Search FQXi


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.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

corciovei silviu: on 2/11/18 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. "retired logician", are you retired? Nice expression of what is...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/5/18 at 18:32pm UTC, wrote Thank you very much, Richard! My highest score is your ideas and...

Richard Linsley Hood: on 2/5/18 at 14:32pm UTC, wrote There are actually 3 values to logic: 1. True 2. False 3....

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/5/18 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Richard, You give very important ideas, eidosis and conclusion. Is...

Richard Linsley Hood: on 2/2/18 at 18:12pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, That was all thrown together in a bit of a rush really and it...

Peter Jackson: on 2/2/18 at 17:56pm UTC, wrote p.s. I forgot to raise the space between 0 an 1. I've identified that the...

Peter Jackson: on 2/2/18 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Richard, That was beautiful in it's simplicity, geometrical connectivity...

Joe Fisher: on 1/27/18 at 21:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Richard Linsley Hood, Reliable evidence exists that proves that the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: "A simple teaching guide to maths and science" #equations by Richard Linsley Hood [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Richard Linsley Hood wrote on Dec. 20, 2017 @ 21:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

Demonstrating the fundamental relationship of Archimedes' constant (π), Euler's number (e), Pythagoras' constant (√2), The imaginary unit (i), along with why we exist at 1,1,1,dt not 0,0,0,t

Author Bio

Richard is a retired logician with too much time on this hands

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 00:01 GMT
Hi Richard, I'm not sure your piece really qualifies as an essay. I see that it is succinct and I expect you hope entirely self explanatory. However I would have liked just a little guidance on how to fully appreciate the presentation. I'm not sure in what way, or rather what it means that there is a relationship between the constants that can be put on a graph. You mention a set representation but that's not what you show, I like the, (probably paraphrasing) 'it's not where you are but how you came in that is important. As that seems to tie in with momentum, and things like wave motion.I can't help feeling that'simple teaching guide to maths and science' is not an accurate description -or I just don't get it, sorry, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 00:08 GMT
Apologies, I didn't complete my chain of thought. I'm not sure in what way the relationship between the constants that can be put on a graph is itself fundamental. Is an aggregate of fundamental constants itself fundamental or just an arrangement? In other words I don't understand the fundamental significance of there being a relationship between the constants that can be put on a graph. Kind regards, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Richard Linsley Hood wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 08:30 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I a sorry that I have been les than clear and I do realise that I will need to expand what I have written. Much of the thought processes that got to where I am now need to be explained better so that others may follow the logic

Bookmark and Share



Author Richard Linsley Hood wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 08:41 GMT
Oops, Pressed return my mistake

The basic premise comes from the core root of all maths and science - 0 and 1 and what they actually mean and represent

The number line created by adding together as a set the natural number and the harmonic numbers, that is 1,2,3.... and 1/2,1/3.... is determined by the x * y = 1

of the equivalent x = f(x)

This line does not, except by the exception rules around times and dived by 0 does not contain 0, only the diagonal line drawn by the add/subtract line goes though 0.

So we have all multiply/divide numbers on the curve and can also represent all number but adding in the 0 as well of the add/subtract line.

This is what the diagrams display. They also explain that because sign (i.e. direction) is a choice not a fact as singed numbers and magnitude and also sign, the two pieces need to be dealt with separately and, therefore, sqrt(-1) is not an illegal operation.

This and much more comes from the above. I am certain that I can put it much better but I needed to get a marker/pace holder out there

I am sorry if this has led to confusion

Bookmark and Share


Author Richard Linsley Hood replied on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 08:52 GMT
As to the constants referred to, that then comes from looking at solely the space between 0 and 1. All equations can have an x and a 1/x alternative in display

So all my work is done inside the 1/x space and that is inside the square/circle quadrant in the diagrams.

I think that the rest then follows as detailed explanations from there.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 17:50 GMT
Richard,

That was beautiful in it's simplicity, geometrical connectivity and indeed importance, as I'm certain there is more to find. How's your physics?

Closely related; I found a direct link between Pythogoras' theorem and a classical derivation of QM (yes, 'impossible' I know). If you're interested see my essay last year. fqXi 2016

And the resultant completed ontology for classic QM and unification with Special Relativity this year (I hope you find some value or connections and agree it's worth a max!) As a mathematician you may also like the matching code and plot in Declan Trail's essay.

If you have any mathematicians observations on either they'd be welcome.

Well done for yours. It may have got a max from me if you'd turned it into an 'essay' with some background, explanation and discussion on possible implications, yet I think it's far to important and elegant to languish near the bottom so I think a Len Goodman (seven) is in order. I think you should also try a short journal paper as unfortunately it'll just get buried and lost here.

Well done and very best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 17:56 GMT
p.s.

I forgot to raise the space between 0 an 1. I've identified that the 'excluded middle' is the reason all logical systems end in paradox, and proposed a new 'Law of the REDUCING MIDDLE' which is a sine/cos curve or Gaussian / Bayesian distribution, equivalent to QM.

Any thoughts?

P

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Richard Linsley Hood replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi Peter,

That was all thrown together in a bit of a rush really and it could well do with a much better presentation.

The problems that it uncovers are much more basic - I have begun to describe them as 'unary maths'.

The below 2 diagrams may make this clearer/more confusing.

There is a range from 0 to Infinity in that diagram - just not in the way you would expect to see.

The various set groupings are now ordered correctly I believe.

That has significant ramifications as I am sure you will see.

Richard

attachments: Number-systems.svg.png, Number-systems_reordered.gif

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Richard,

You give very important ideas, eidosis and conclusion. Is the truth (the structure of the "beginning") to be drawn?

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Richard Linsley Hood wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:32 GMT
There are actually 3 values to logic:

1. True

2. False

3. Illogical/Impossible/Powered off/Error

Bookmark and Share



corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Mr. "retired logician", are you retired?

Nice expression of what is obvious.

The "obvious" is not worthy of any applause.

For the originality of interpreting what is obvious, "chapeau!"

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.