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.

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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

**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

**amy jones**: "Google Pay provides its customers with a wide range of Google Pay Customer..."
*in* Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Re. ant behaviour: More ants are attracted by the chemical trails left by..."
*in* Measuring Free Will: Ian...

**Georgina Woodward**: "To wipe away dead ants or not was an oversimplification. It depends on..."
*in* Measuring Free Will: Ian...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Newton's space and time permit grandfather type paradox and time reversal...."
*in* Bonus Koan: Distant...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Robert McEachern**: "The Tegmark Paradox: "Tegmark asks whether physicists posses skills that..."
*in* Building an AI physicist:...

**Georgina Woodward**: "The filled space is not space-time as that's the space 'inhabited' by..."
*in* Bonus Koan: Distant...

**Eckard Blumschein**: "Notions like bottom and top belong to particular models. Ellis is certainly..."
*in* Downward causation:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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.

FQXi FORUM

August 22, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: "A simple teaching guide to maths and science" #equations by Richard Linsley Hood [refresh]

TOPIC: "A simple teaching guide to maths and science" #equations by Richard Linsley Hood [refresh]

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

Dear Richard,

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

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

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

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Nice expression of what is obvious.

The "obvious" is not worthy of any applause.

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

Silviu

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.