Points in a box, Schroeder's cat in a boxDead centre - dead cat
As my recently dead mate used to say
DNDK - Don't Know Don't Care
Is this real maths or somebody winding me up?
- Thread starter amber
- Start date
Points in a box, Schroeder's cat in a boxDead centre - dead cat
As my recently dead mate used to say
DNDK - Don't Know Don't Care
What science is your interest?
Dead centre - dead cat
As my recently dead mate used to say
DNDK - Don't Know Don't Care
Time is the main one
Physics
Evolution
At the moment I am trying to get through a book Concessness Explained
However I am not a fan of the author's writing style so it's a hard slog
Time is one of the easiest subjects to learn and understand. To understand Physics , there is a need to know what the math's means at times. For example in this thread I am trying to learn to accurately describe something. In my termsTime is the main one
Physics
Evolution
At the moment I am trying to get through a book Concessness Explained
However I am not a fan of the author's writing style so it's a hard slog
Δ<[]> = Δu = c ~ 1/a
<[]> =empty matrix span
u= internal energy
c ~ 1/a = inversely proportionally when c
Words alone don't explain something. I am trying to explain with this , '' gone in a flash ''. However this is probably meaningless , so I need to learn the correct math to explain it better. Maths just explains physical process.
Last edited:
I am also trying to explain that u.v = a[0,0,0]+b[0,0,0,]=<a.b>=1
a ⇒ b
What is true for a is also true for b.
This means the dot product of simultaneous actions of Δ<[]> = Δu = c ~ 1/a, at the exact same point and time in space, result in nothing becoming one. So I need to learn more math to explain better.
In added example ; (A) , if we define (A) to be a 3*3*3 mono-pole matrix, all positional points of the matrix will be in a state of expansion and transpose .
Using a Cartesian coordinate system of course.
added- and of course u.u=m
a ⇒ b
What is true for a is also true for b.
This means the dot product of simultaneous actions of Δ<[]> = Δu = c ~ 1/a, at the exact same point and time in space, result in nothing becoming one. So I need to learn more math to explain better.
In added example ; (A) , if we define (A) to be a 3*3*3 mono-pole matrix, all positional points of the matrix will be in a state of expansion and transpose .
Using a Cartesian coordinate system of course.
added- and of course u.u=m
Last edited:
OK
I'll go first
Be aware I have a 3 Ping rule. I'll give you 3 Pings. If I feel response not good enough most go on iggy (don't ask work it out)
If not iggy I dummy spit
OK let the fun games begin
First Ping
TIME does not exist
Tell / explain / convince me it does
You are in the deep end. Are you going to sink or swim?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Schroeder? Who he?
Dead centre - dead cat
As my recently dead mate used to say
DNDK - Don't Know Don't Care
Time is a word we give to something, how can it not exist if we are defining the word for the existence of something?OK
I'll go first
Be aware I have a 3 Ping rule. I'll give you 3 Pings. If I feel response not good enough most go on iggy (don't ask work it out)
If not iggy I dummy spit
OK let the fun games begin
First Ping
TIME does not exist
Tell / explain / convince me it does
You are in the deep end. Are you going to sink or swim?
Schrödinger's cat (but I guess you knew who I ment)
Since my spelling is attrochous - atrocious I tend to rely on spell check. It came up with Schroeder - I took it
Don't pick on this poor dyslexic speller 
And I guess you recognise this Schroeder
Cheers
You waisted one Ping - ie I required a explanation of its existence, not a question about why it couldn't
Second Ping
TIME is a CONCEPT
Concepts do not have physicality
ie they don't exist
Again (you said it was easy)
Tell / explain / convince me it does
You waisted one Ping - ie I required a explanation of its existence, not a question about why it couldn't
It's existence is a word we use to explain and quantify change. It is not something magical.
What is this in reference to?
It makes no difference if the box is in motion, the motion of the box will have no effect on the calculation of the location of points in the box.
Cartesian coordinate systems
Can we use -11 for example, or would that be off the scale?
There is no upper limit unless you specify one.
All the words were gibberish, and the paragraph reads as intentionally comic. Some of the symbolic equation stuff was close to being sensible with a couple of tweaks, as arfa provided, if you ignore the words.
You are setting yourself a tough goal, if you intend to learn not only new and difficult subject material but new and difficult material embedded in reams of gibberish and parody.
I think I already understanding the basics , I do know it is rather technical and there is extensive learning, more than basics.
I do not observe any gibberish apart from maybe my own gibberish.
I will keep learning , in saying that does <[]> show an empty matrix span?
Does , <{{0,0,0}{1,1,1}}> show an expansion ?
And spell check didn't scream about "Concessness"? You need a new spell check.Schrödinger's cat (but I guess you knew who I ment)
Since my spelling is attrochous - atrocious I tend to rely on spell check. It came up with Schroeder - I took it
View attachment 1841
And I guess you recognise this Schroeder
Cheers
That point in Cartesian coordinates system would be at 0 on the x-axis, 0 on the y-axis and 1 on the z-axis.
Your use of the term vector doesn't make sense in the context you presented.
There are many ways to represent a vector. You could say that you have a vector a, defined as a = [0, 0, 1], which would be a vector of length 1 in the z direction. This particular vector is also known as a unit vector in the z direction; $$ \hat{k}$$