Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:07:48 UTC No. 16223887

Oops, didn't finish my sentence

I just wanted to share what I've been working on, and how I've fleshed out a little bit more for expanding the algebra and making more sense out of his bullshit.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:42:24 UTC No. 16223937

>>16223886
interesting, have a bump

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:45:00 UTC No. 16223942

>>16223937
Thanks anon. I'm going to try learning about metric spaces just to flesh out some ideas I'm having about how to define distances with Howard's algebra.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:54:08 UTC No. 16224508

Bump

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:13:20 UTC No. 16224548

>>16223886
When are you going in JRE?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:17:22 UTC No. 16224560

>>16223886
>Heisenberg algebra

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:20:06 UTC No. 16224568

Read it. You are going through a lot of trouble for this.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:34:16 UTC No. 16224600

>>16224548
Two more weeks
>>16224568
I think it's fun. I like trying to critically engage with nonsense. If you can point out any errors I'm making (besides the obvious ones) I'm more than willing to sink more time into it.

🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) 'kneel' at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:34:58 UTC No. 16224606

Paul

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:45:58 UTC No. 16224644

>>16223886
Why even entertain this nonsense???

We look at applied mathematics as a linguistic structure to test a philosophical hypothesis.

Mathematics is language. So for all intents and purposes 1 times itself is 1.

So 1x1=2 has no practical application no matter how you spin it.


So anon you wasted your time

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:50:46 UTC No. 16224663

>>16224644
>practical application
let me guess, this "practical" system is your self described 'real' number system

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:56:43 UTC No. 16224681

>>16224663
I don’t understand what you’re implying here, but I assume you mean the arbitrary structure of real numbers.

If that’s what your getting at then
Yes you are correct it’s a linguistic structure as a point of reference for humans to understand or conceptualize something

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:57:25 UTC No. 16224683

>>16224644
I've decided to update my paper to include you as a source for a quote.

Thank you anon, I am aware I am wasting my time. I just think it's fun.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:07:52 UTC No. 16224717

>>16224683
Thank you I will save and cherish your academic paper

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:27:41 UTC No. 16225273

>>16223886
why yes, NJ Wildberger is quoted

it'll be quite interesting to see how the Howard Algebra behaves in the box math.

Motivated by your work, i too am looking at his work.

I found myself looking at russell around the time of his publication at https://tcotlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/OTOET_PREVIEW_062_October_03_2021.pdf

and the attestion that there was no curved lines was interesting to me as i was just reviewing the fundemental theorem of vector calculus, the helmholtz decomposition. ergo, if nature had not straight lines, how could you separate it into a inner divergence free, curl free field? the nature of orthogonality mathematically implies statistical independence, but alas this is the point.

Preemptively i see Russell's work as potential alternative stream to helmholtz (and maybe helmholtz-hodge) if we cant have x,y,z coordinates, or even get away with contravarient tensor basis, than perhaps applying special rules at the unity (the box math here) a special algebra for when calculations arrive at the implosion center. As all motion is than curved and radial, i imagine it like dripping some electric charge on a point and have a penrose tile electric effect whirl out

now, for some experiments in base golden_ratio

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:34:36 UTC No. 16225294

>>16224681
I am implying anon has not wasted his time, it is in the hegelian dialect the vast collage of applied maths is filled with but arbitrary structures.

It is in the faustian spirit that nature prefer one "arbitrary structure" over another. And hence deems it sacred.

Those hegelians will be the end of art

here, pic related, from the first english translation of Euclids elements

https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2010english20856/?sp=64&r=-1.177,-0.079,3.354,1.214,0

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:37:36 UTC No. 16225301

>>16223886
I like your prose, very calm and level-headed

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:46:17 UTC No. 16225320

>>16223886
nice

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:55:12 UTC No. 16225672

>>16225301
Thank you. I’m taking the entire paper step by step.
>>16225273
You can technically work in a space with no curved lines if you define the concept of curvature with specific respect to the coordinate system and not in a Euclidean sense. That’s where geodesics come from, anyways. You would need a specific metric that allows for curved spaces, like a Riemannian metric or something more esoteric like a Gödel metric.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:32:12 UTC No. 16225954

>>16223886
>noticeably change considerably
Stopped reading right there. Life is too short for bad writing.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:55:33 UTC No. 16225991

>>16224683
>Howard defines the cubed root of 1 as the absolute value of π
i think he defines the 3rd power of 1(1^3) as π, not the 3rd/cubed root(1^(1/3))

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:15:44 UTC No. 16226023

>>16225954
Thank you for your criticism. I will make the wording less clunky in the beginning.
>>16225991
Oops. My fault, I mistyped that. Thanks anon. Also I added more shit.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 02:45:06 UTC No. 16226059

>>16226023
Don't let the greys know you know this, anon.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:04:41 UTC No. 16226268

>>16223886
"A Howard algebra" kek
This is incredibly well done anon, looks and feels just like an actual paper

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:14:34 UTC No. 16226539

>>16226023
oh shit nigga, i just realized that purely "Howardian" positional notation is fubar'd, i mean, not only 1000<4(if zero was even howardly absorptive) due to 1^3=π, but im not even sure that "24" or even "1" could work due to Howardian powers and them being (2*_H base^_H 1)+(4*_H base^_H 0) and (1*_H base^_H 0) respectively, like im not even sure we could make "^_H 0" be the empty Howard product, since those quote often tend to be the fucking identity of the operation, and in the case of positional notation, what lets say "5"=5*10^0=5*1=5, and don't get me started on decimals, jesus christ...

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:19:47 UTC No. 16226546

>>16226268
this can quite succinctly be summarized(i think) in the following one liner:
1_H≠1

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:27:59 UTC No. 16226553

>>16226539
whoops >>16226546
oh and this gets quite a bit fuckier if we start numbers from the Peano axioms due to the successor operation, so S(0)_H≠S(0), the "_H" denote that it's Peano(or at least Presburger arithmetic) imbued with the Howard product... wait, is Presburger arithmetic+the Howard product still decidable?, can one perform Gödel encoding in it?, does the Howard product even have objects that are the "Howard Primes", dear God...

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:45:55 UTC No. 16226569

>>16223886
>>16224600
>Howard continues the paper by going into an explanation about how some God-like figure left the concept of an identity element to steer humanity off-course.
Bruh don't try to fight mental illness with logic. A person who thinks the number 1 is a conspiracy theory by God is going to be able to schizobabble his way around any argument you ever make. These retards have been around for all of mathematical history and are all basically the same. Reading about them is fun though:

http://library.lol/main/7BC738BB2B5E9C291AE262CB638EC845

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:04:42 UTC No. 16226588

>>16226553
oh, and now that >>16226569 brings it up, both in the book's index and on his twitter "paper" he clearly states who those "God-like" being are, the Anunnaki, you should clarify that by adding "or as he has called in numerous occasions, the Anunnaki" after "God-like figure", although you might want to change "figure" and what i suggested for something more apt

B00T at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:09:40 UTC No. 16226598

Fair is square.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:31:20 UTC No. 16226676

>>16226553
>S(0)_H≠S(0
oh wait, no, in the peano representation S(0)_H=S(0), but the moment we take S(0)_H out of the peano representation we do get my one liner 1_H≠1, and i now realize that that "1_H"'s value is base dependent, boy that Howard truly is the """""""""""""gift""""""""""""" that keeps on giving

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:46:52 UTC No. 16226697

>>16226676
OH, and i just noticed that the "Howard exponential" has two ways of doing the normal "(n^m)^ŋ=n^(m*ŋ)", we have the fully "Howardian" way of (n^_H m)^_H ŋ=n^(m*ŋ)_H, but due to us having access to good old sums, we can also do (n^_H m)^_S ŋ=n^(m+m+m+... ŋ amount)(S stands for Sum, although i would pose it also stands for "Sensible"), yes, it is basically just re-stating multiplication using sums(might even want to use sigma notation), but im allowing myself that, which then leads to quite the "humorous" FOUR WAY INEQUALITY:
(n^_H m)^_H ŋ≠(n^_H m)^_S ŋ≠(n^_S m)^_H ŋ≠(n^_S m)^_S ŋ
if you can parse whatever the hell im saying, obviously in a fully Howardian system "^_S n" might be forbidden, but i just found the inequalities to funny, have a good day

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:50:57 UTC No. 16226701

>>16226697
in case it isn't obvious i would not put "Howard" and the notion of "Sensible" in the same basket

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:08:39 UTC No. 16226727

>>16226697
but i just found the plausible* inequalities
i have not checked, but given how things have gone, i have a hunch big enough that im willing to wager being wrong

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:11:25 UTC No. 16226731

the whoops is that i meant to >> >>16226539 instead of >>16226268 on >>16226546
sorry for the plausible confusion it might have caused

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:01:01 UTC No. 16226799

>>16226268
Thank you! It's a work in progress and sort of all over the place at some times. But I'm trying to make it straightforward.
>>16226569
I'm not fighting it more than I am fleshing it out because I think it's fun. Also, I want to at least try and see if I understand the math I learned while in school. I look at this as a fun exercise, even if there really isn't a reason for it to be one.
>>16226588
I'll fix it later today, thanks. It's funny you bring up the Peano axioms because I tried comparing his axioms with the Peano axioms at one point but deleted them because I felt like it was going to be overly technical. I haven't tried touching exponentials as functions but it sounds like a fun problem to tackle. He explicitly doesn't allow for identities so doing any "real" algebraic work is sort of impossible. I think with extending the algebra to the real numbers I can at least show that an identity is necessary for some sort of groundwork but I'm considering just going forward with having no identity and seeing what happens.