Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #647082 > unrolled thread

Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Hayden Maksimov <mmivy@eh.ru> - 2026-08-01 14:00 +0000
    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-03 06:28 +0200
      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Brooks Mikhaltsov <oov@vhitsair.ru> - 2026-08-03 12:01 +0000
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-05 07:21 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Toney Zolotenkov <ennv@nkt.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:20 +0000
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 06:51 -0700
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Rondell Martzenkov <dank@lona.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:57 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 07:09 -0700
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Yves Bilbasov <say@aee.ru> - 2026-08-06 18:01 +0000
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 11:30 -0700
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Cole Baharev <bae@avoa.ru> - 2026-08-06 20:01 +0000
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-07 05:02 -0700
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 18:53 +0200
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 08:44 +0200
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Victo Babahanov <biti@nia.ru> - 2026-08-07 10:16 +0000
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 08:12 -0600
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Presley Elepov <epse@eeveele.ru> - 2026-08-07 17:41 +0000
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 12:06 -0600
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Wilfredo Dogadaev <adaddw@wi.ru> - 2026-08-07 18:38 +0000
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-08 08:09 +0200
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 13:36 -0700
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 15:25 -0700
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 20:49 -0700
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 22:29 -0700
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-08 09:25 -0700
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 19:13 +0200
        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-06 05:33 +0200
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 21:48 -0700
            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-06 01:13 -0700
              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-07 08:32 +0200
                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Leslie Ruzimatov <lzoiev@smr.ru> - 2026-08-07 10:19 +0000
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-07 08:35 -0600
                  Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-08 07:59 +0200
                    Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Delbert Lohanov <hebh@rdooe.ru> - 2026-08-08 15:29 +0000
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-08 10:57 -0600
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Latane Tulebaev <eebet@tvaa.ru> - 2026-08-08 18:38 +0000
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-08 18:04 -0700
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Bertin Badikov <iiaid@vberi.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:21 +0000
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:50 +0200
                      Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-09 09:47 +0200
                        Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Beau Holmogorov <hb@olooa.ru> - 2026-08-09 14:18 +0000
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-09 10:55 -0700
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-10 05:40 +0200
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to  apply? Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-10 11:02 +0000
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 06:55 -0700
                                Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 07:12 -0700
                              Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Hardy Babansky <bkyn@bkn.ru> - 2026-08-10 17:08 +0000
                          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2026-08-10 05:30 +0200
                            Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Wendel Durmanov <reewn@dwnren.ru> - 2026-08-10 09:26 +0000
          Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? Mercury Abdrahmanoff <frm@rbrh.ru> - 2026-08-06 13:51 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#647196

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot
> 
> 
> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
> quaternions.

my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont 
undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got. 
They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics

⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647200

On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
>>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
>>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot
>>
>>
>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
>> quaternions.
>
> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
>
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>


"Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say,
and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or
"hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though
one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike,
that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i,
then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that
the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian"
about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian",
the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch,
and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results.


The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow
was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at
some point he got to working on establishing the "existence
and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in
complex numbers. So, then working through his example,
as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence
is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients
is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex
quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division
is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square
roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers,
nor even numbers.

So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town,
and Cartan has his own sorts of rules.

Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are
as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then,
people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium
problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make
for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647203

Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
>>>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
>>>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
>>> quaternions.
>>
>> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
>> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
>> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
>>
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>
> 
> 
> "Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say,
> and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or
> "hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though
> one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike,
> that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i,
> then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that
> the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian"
> about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian",
> the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch,
> and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results.
> 

I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is 
representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.

look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality

and this file

file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf

(and at my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
)

Th


> The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow
> was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at
> some point he got to working on establishing the "existence
> and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in
> complex numbers. So, then working through his example,
> as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence
> is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients
> is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex
> quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division
> is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square
> roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers,
> nor even numbers.
> 
> So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town,
> and Cartan has his own sorts of rules.
> 
> Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are
> as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then,
> people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium
> problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make
> for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647205 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply?

Le 10/08/2026 à 05:40, Thomas Heger a écrit :

> look at:
..
> and this file
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf

LOL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647207 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis)

On 08/09/2026 08:40 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>> On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>
>>>>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
>>>>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
>>>>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
>>>> quaternions.
>>>
>>> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
>>> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
>>> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
>>>
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say,
>> and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or
>> "hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though
>> one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike,
>> that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i,
>> then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that
>> the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian"
>> about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian",
>> the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch,
>> and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results.
>>
>
> I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is
> representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
>
> look at:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
>
> and this file
>
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf
>
> (and at my 'book':
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> )
>
> Th
>
>
>> The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow
>> was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at
>> some point he got to working on establishing the "existence
>> and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in
>> complex numbers. So, then working through his example,
>> as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence
>> is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients
>> is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex
>> quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division
>> is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square
>> roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers,
>> nor even numbers.
>>
>> So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town,
>> and Cartan has his own sorts of rules.
>>
>> Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are
>> as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then,
>> people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium
>> problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make
>> for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first.
>>
>>
>

Hm. There are lots of diagrams, about both closures, and openings.

For example, the usual complex diagram attains to a closure of
a sort, "complex analyticity", which is that it attains to
"real analyticity", about integers and counting and geometry and measure.

So, "zero" comes along as a "singularity", or opening.

Then here there's an "identity dimension" idea, which
is a diagrammatic way to basically take the right half of
the usual plane coordinate diagram, x >= 0 or x > 0,
and via transformation of coordinates, split the first
quadrant into octants by the identity line, then,
any function f(x) = x, or y = x, where x and y are
interchangeable, like y = 1/x, has that the interchanged
functions, are symmetric about the identity line.

Then, instead of making it more closed, the diagrammatic
setting, it makes it more open, since now the identity line
or identity dimension is a singularity like zero, and
then for "integral analysis" instead of "differential analysis".

Much like zero is a singularity, or about whether zero is
having that 1/zero is undefined, then for many sorts usual
and fundamental integral equations, like the linear fractional equation,
Clairaut's equation, and d'Alembert's equation,
the "envelope" of these integral equations, which are like
singular boundaries in differential equations, is this
identity-line, that diagrammed in this identity-dimension-diagram,
have ways to transform the diagram, by transforming the dimensions,
instead of transforming the coordinates.

Then, since complex numbers have at least two definitions of
division, and all the positive numbers are in Quadrant I
in this diagram, then Quadrants II and IV have room for
complex-left and complex-right, or a complex-complex diagram.


They don't already have one that I've heard of, though
some accounts of the "semi-infinite" or "half-plane"
like Wigner or Witten, have their own kinds of developments
that can be written in a similar kind of way.


Anyways, mathematics sort of has "roots of zero" before "roots of
unity", then the identity dimension opens the singularity,
x = y = z = ... is a singularity.


(A spiral space-filling curve is a singularity, ....)

Singularities in a singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity
theory. Saying that complex numbers have unique quotients is like
saying real numbers have no imaginary components.

So, there are lots of diagrammatic settings, and various accounts
of transforms, then overlaying the diagrams and considering the
surfaces the same, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647208 — Re: What amount of acceleration involved is too high for SR to apply? (complex analysis and complex-complex analysis)

On 08/10/2026 06:55 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 08/09/2026 08:40 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 19:55 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
>>> On 08/09/2026 07:18 AM, Beau Holmogorov wrote:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
>>>>>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
>>>>>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
>>>>> quaternions.
>>>>
>>>> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
>>>> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you
>>>> got.
>>>> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
>>>>
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Triality is quadratic", is what Lounesto used to say,
>>> and it's about that usual accounts of the "complex" or
>>> "hypercomplex" analysis are two different things, though
>>> one imagines that the imaginary terms are not alike,
>>> that quaternions ijk are not the same as complex i,
>>> then that as modeling "rotations and reflections" that
>>> the usual use of the quaternion is more "Cartanian"
>>> about reflections and rotations, than "deMoivre-Euler-Gaussian",
>>> the usual accont of complex analysis, which is just a branch,
>>> and makes for distinctness results, not uniqueness results.
>>>
>>
>> I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is
>> representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
>>
>> look at:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
>>
>> and this file
>>
>> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf
>>
>> (and at my 'book':
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>>
>> )
>>
>> Th
>>
>>
>>> The other day I was watching a math stream and the fellow
>>> was working out deriving Euler's identity. Anyway at
>>> some point he got to working on establishing the "existence
>>> and uniqueness of inverse multiplication" or division, in
>>> complex numbers. So, then working through his example,
>>> as he put it, "messy elimination" of that the existence
>>> is easy to figure out yet the uniqueness of quotients
>>> is an _axiom_ since they are left-complex and right-complex
>>> quotients, to begin, the usual idea that complex division
>>> is unique is as closed-minded as that there are no square
>>> roots of negative numbers, nor even negative numbers,
>>> nor even numbers.
>>>
>>> So, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town,
>>> and Cartan has his own sorts of rules.
>>>
>>> Usual accounts of the "almost" and "very" are
>>> as much "not-quite" as "close-enough". Then,
>>> people with their Hilbert problems and Millenium
>>> problems and "solve the Riemann problem" make
>>> for that maybe they want to "un-solve" it first.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Hm. There are lots of diagrams, about both closures, and openings.
>
> For example, the usual complex diagram attains to a closure of
> a sort, "complex analyticity", which is that it attains to
> "real analyticity", about integers and counting and geometry and measure.
>
> So, "zero" comes along as a "singularity", or opening.
>
> Then here there's an "identity dimension" idea, which
> is a diagrammatic way to basically take the right half of
> the usual plane coordinate diagram, x >= 0 or x > 0,
> and via transformation of coordinates, split the first
> quadrant into octants by the identity line, then,
> any function f(x) = x, or y = x, where x and y are
> interchangeable, like y = 1/x, has that the interchanged
> functions, are symmetric about the identity line.
>
> Then, instead of making it more closed, the diagrammatic
> setting, it makes it more open, since now the identity line
> or identity dimension is a singularity like zero, and
> then for "integral analysis" instead of "differential analysis".
>
> Much like zero is a singularity, or about whether zero is
> having that 1/zero is undefined, then for many sorts usual
> and fundamental integral equations, like the linear fractional equation,
> Clairaut's equation, and d'Alembert's equation,
> the "envelope" of these integral equations, which are like
> singular boundaries in differential equations, is this
> identity-line, that diagrammed in this identity-dimension-diagram,
> have ways to transform the diagram, by transforming the dimensions,
> instead of transforming the coordinates.
>
> Then, since complex numbers have at least two definitions of
> division, and all the positive numbers are in Quadrant I
> in this diagram, then Quadrants II and IV have room for
> complex-left and complex-right, or a complex-complex diagram.
>
>
> They don't already have one that I've heard of, though
> some accounts of the "semi-infinite" or "half-plane"
> like Wigner or Witten, have their own kinds of developments
> that can be written in a similar kind of way.
>
>
> Anyways, mathematics sort of has "roots of zero" before "roots of
> unity", then the identity dimension opens the singularity,
> x = y = z = ... is a singularity.
>
>
> (A spiral space-filling curve is a singularity, ....)
>
> Singularities in a singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity
> theory. Saying that complex numbers have unique quotients is like
> saying real numbers have no imaginary components.
>
> So, there are lots of diagrammatic settings, and various accounts
> of transforms, then overlaying the diagrams and considering the
> surfaces the same, Euler & Gauss is not the only game in town.
>
>

P.S. I think that the spelling of "Dinkin" of the diagrams
is more like "Dynkin", then, the accounts of Feynman diagrams,
are sort of like straight lines for closures and squiggles for
openings, then for example Arkani-Hamed the other day made an
example of digrams that go around instead of Feynman's that
go out and showed they're equivalent, about then that these
"diagrammatic settings" their only job is to relate to geometry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647213

Thomas Heger wrote:

> I was actually playing around with the Dinkin diagram D_4, which is 
> representing 'triality', and tried to connect that with physics.
> 
> look at:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triality
> 
> and this file
> 
> file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/3FlavoursNeutrinoOscillationHiggsVEV.pdf

thanks, you also log in without password, correct?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647202

Am Sonntag000009, 09.08.2026 um 16:18 schrieb Beau Holmogorov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
>>> this stupid half german doesnt even know what a magnitude, direction
>>> and a vector is, nor what a rate of change in that direction is. How
>>> would you know all that without a reference, idiot
>>
>>
>> Actually I'm against vectors and wanted to replace them with
>> quaternions.
> 
> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you got.
> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
> 
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⣶⣶⣤⡀⠈⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠄⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠄⠄⠄⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠄⢺⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⠄⠄⠙⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠻⣿⡄⠄⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⠄⠁ 👁️ ⠄⢹⣿⡗⠄ 👁️ ⢄⡀⣾⢀⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠄⠄⠄⢀⡀⠄⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣧⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣰⣿⡿⠟⠃⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡛⠿⢿⣿⣷⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠻⠿⢛⣿⣿⠿⠂⠄⢹⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡐⠐⠄⠄⣠⣀⣀⣚⣯⣵⣶⠆⣰⠄⠞⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠄⠄⠈⠛⠿⠿⠿⣻⡏⢠⣿⣎⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
> ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠛⠄⠄⠄⠄⠙⣛⣿⣿⣵⣿⡿⢹⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿


There are lots of books about quaternions.

E.g. I recall

https://leanpub.com/doingphysicswithquaternionsv11

or look at this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647204

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> my man, quaternions without references, just another thing you dont
>> undrestand. Draw a quaternion on a piece of paper, tell me what you
>> got.
>> They also are crashing for tan and cot, making them useless in physics
> 
> There are lots of books about quaternions.
> 
> E.g. I recall
> 
> https://leanpub.com/doingphysicswithquaternionsv11
> 
> or look at this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

you dont have to read anything once you know they are crashing, hence 
useless in physics, proven wrong

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647162

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> I compare spacetime diagrams with Argand diagrams and find
>>> similarities.
>>>
>>> That's why I thought, that spacetime of GR is real and has complex
>>> valued components.
>> 
>> The z-plane is a discrete-time version of the s-plane, where
>> z-transforms are used instead of the Laplace transformation.
> 
> That's true.
> 
> But I wanted to start at the GR side and proceed from there to the
> QM-side.
> 
> Actually my aim was to build particles out of spacetime (of GR), hence
> assume the real existence of something like the z-plane (which I simply
> called 'complex plane'), but 'in volume'.
> 
> Then the axis of time is local and in a cone around it we find what we
> call 'space' and perpendicular as an inverse to time the hyperplane of
> the present.

unbelievable so much crap in a short sentence. A z-plane involves discrete 
sampled frequencies. Do it again, one more time

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web