# Is this real maths or somebody winding me up?

Well, there might be some hope.

But you've been watching a video on matrices and linear algebra. Matrix algebra and linear algebra are kind of the same thing, at least in a Euclidean space.
In physics, every space has a Hilbert space associated with it, Hilbert spaces are more general than Euclidean spaces. And sure, there a a lot of programming languages that handle matrices and operations on them.
Try writing a program that can handle a permutation group (like for a deck of cards, say).

If you think linear algebra is complicated, try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space
That was not a clever suggestion!

That was not a clever suggestion!
I disagree it took me to a place I needed to be to explain hopefully the isotropic stretch of my empty matrix . I just need to work out the correct maths and add the speed of c somewhere.

What I am trying to explain in matrix form is E=mc² , energy turning into mass and mass turning into energy

a.b/2=E

a+b=M

M=N

E=Nc²

Last edited:
We say that the event A is not independent of the event A (assuming P(A) ≠ 0 of couse.) And, in general, an event A is not independent of an event B iffP(A) ≠ P(A|B), i.e., if occurrence of B affects the probability of A.

?????????

P(A) ≠ P(A|B),

(P(a)=M)=0

(P(b)=M)=0

(P(a.b)=M)=1

event a : electron formation

event b : proton formation

event a.b : atom formation

Last edited:
I am trying to explain in matrix form is E=mc² , energy turning into mass and mass turning into energy

a.b/2=E
You defined a and b as both charge and electric fields. Let's assume you mean electric fields this time, since you can't have a dot product of scalars. So the dot product of 2 electric field vectors is an electric field vector. You then divide that vector by 2. That is a bit of a problem but let's ignore that and just say the vector has half the magnitude. So you are saying an electric field vector equals energy. Nope,sorry that isn't close to right.

This says that the electric field vector that results from the addition of 2 electric field vectors equals mass. Nope not even close.

Mass equals some random letter. OK, that is allowed, a waste of time that accomplishes nothing, but at least it is legal.

N which equals M means E=Mc^2.

You haven't the foggiest idea what you are doing.

I wonder how long this farce will be permitted to continue in the Hard Science area of this forum.

Does not seem very good for its reputation.

You defined a and b as both charge and electric fields. Let's assume you mean electric fields this time, since you can't have a dot product of scalars. So the dot product of 2 electric field vectors is an electric field vector. You then divide that vector by 2. That is a bit of a problem but let's ignore that and just say the vector has half the magnitude. So you are saying an electric field vector equals energy. Nope,sorry that isn't close to right.

This says that the electric field vector that results from the addition of 2 electric field vectors equals mass. Nope not even close.

Mass equals some random letter. OK, that is allowed, a waste of time that accomplishes nothing, but at least it is legal.

N which equals M means E=Mc^2.

You haven't the foggiest idea what you are doing.
I do know what I am doing, there is a difference in knowing and explaining something.

a.b/2 = E, I was splitting an atom not creating a partition.

I wonder how long this farce will be permitted to continue in the Hard Science area of this forum.

Does not seem very good for its reputation.
This is the hardest science, I am discussing E=mc² , linear algebra, matrix's..... what do you consider is harder than that? I am practising until I get things correct that the teachers on here are teaching me a bit of.

and N = neutral like I have said before. n would be n-dimensional.

I think some of these comments are from people who are skipping through the thread and not actually reading it proper, Back in post 120 I wrote ƒ:[]→[n]?

I explained then , that n was n-dimensional . So N obviously is not n.

ƒ:event a = ƒ: []→[n] = P (a=m)=0

where m is mass and P is probability and a is an electron formation.

All points of the transformed matrix being likewise in polarity to each other.

Last edited:
I do know what I am doing, there is a difference in knowing and explaining something.

a.b/2 = E, I was splitting an atom not creating a partition.

Oh for chrisake....

Mods, please for the love God move this to the cesspool!

Oh for chrisake....

Mods, please for the love God move this to the cesspool!
Hahahaha! So eventually you cracked. I knew it would be just a matter of time.

But my sentiments entirely, Doctor!

The authentic Theorist experience, no?

Hahahaha! So eventually you cracked. I knew it would be just a matter of time.
I cracked like an egg. I started to feel my IQ dropping with every reply and just could not handle the constant-theorist experience anymore....

Oh for chrisake....

Mods, please for the love God move this to the cesspool!
I guess discussion outside your comfort zone is too difficult for you?

I guess discussion outside your comfort zone is too difficult for you?
Ha-Ha, you got it. You're too much of a stable genius for me.

Ha-Ha, you got it. You're too much of a stable genius for me.
I do not consider what I am discussing and my opinions are genius. I consider that's how things work using present information as a guide. I would not declare my opinions to be fact, all I can say is look at the information yourself and make your own opinion.

After all , my matrix is imaginary unless I could show R³ format.

added - If I can learn the correct maths to my imaginary matrix, then I have learnt some maths.

Last edited:
I cracked like an egg. I started to feel my IQ dropping with every reply and just could not handle the constant-theorist experience anymore....
Ah yes, just like old times, eh?

Well I will try again to see if the teacher gives me a cross or a tick.

An empty imaginary Matrix (i) that in a split second expands in any direction could be mapped :

ƒ: i→[n] ? where n is n-dimensional?

amber said:
An empty imaginary Matrix (i) that in a split second expands in any direction
Well, I imagined I could mow the real lawn with an imaginary mower, but then I realised the imaginary fuel tank was empty in all directions.

What an amazing coincidence!

ed. Folks, if you're having trouble seeing how amazing the coincidence is, vacuously, since the imaginary fuel tank is empty in all directions I could vacuously push an imaginary mower, it's also empty in any direction, coincident with amber's logic!

Last edited:
Well, I imagined I could mow the real lawn with an imaginary mower, but then I realised the imaginary fuel tank was empty in all directions.

What an amazing coincidence!

ed. Folks, if you're having trouble seeing how amazing the coincidence is, vacuously, since the imaginary fuel tank is empty in all directions I could vacuously push an imaginary mower, it's also empty in any direction, coincident with amber's logic!
Actually your idea just explained the big bang theory, according to ''that'', in the beginning not even the empty fuel tank existed. So according to you the big bang is a load of rubbish then?

Actually your idea just explained the big bang theory, according to ''that'', in the beginning not even the empty fuel tank existed. So according to you the big bang is a load of rubbish then?
If you can calm down.

And, then, ask a question.