bert
Posts:
74
Registered:
1/14/10
|
|
Re: 3 dimensions and their 6 directions
Posted:
Apr 8, 2010 11:56 AM
|
|
On Apr 8, 8:13 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:45 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > >On Apr 2, 11:43=A0am, Danny73 <fasttrac...@att.net> wrote:
> > >> But here on the three dimensional earth grid it
> > >> is 6 directions ---
> > >> North,South,East,West,Skyward,Earthward. ;-)
> > >Let me try to inject a serious question I have into
> > >this thread. ;-)
> > >In a hexagonal grid, each point has six immediate neighbors;
> > >what should their names be? (I asked this question before,
> > >with the only answer being the ugly "solution I was
> > >already using: West, Northwest, Northeast, East, SE, SW.)
>
> > A hex grid has 3 coordinates. Using your alignment, they'd be
> > North-South, NE/SW, NW/SE. However, they are not independent, if you
> > know any two, the third is defined. Also, nothing special about those
> > directions, turn the grid 30 degrees and you get a different alignment.
> > Also the NE/SW and NW/SE directions are approximate.
>
> > >Hexagonal grids have big advantages over square grid
> > >but are seldom used. It sounds silly, but perhaps
> > >lack of the msot basic nomenclature is one reason!
>
> > One disadvantage is that a basic hexagon isn't subdividable into smaller
> > hexagons or easily combined into larger ones. In rectangular coordinates,
> > the map gets divided into small squares. Each square is easily divisible
> > into n^2 smaller squares by dividing each side into n parts. You can't
> > divide a large hexagon into smaller ones.
>
> > If you want to have fun, extend the hexagonal mapping into three
> > dimensions. There are two ways - the first is to add a Z axis to a hex
> > map, kind of like making a 2D polar coordinate graph into 3D cylindrical
> > coordinates, like stacking honeycombs. The other way is more interesting -
> > add an axis at 60 degrees to the plane of the graph. You now have 4
> > coordinates for each volume in 3D space. Like the 2D case, you need to
> > know any 3 of them to define a volume region. Once you know 3 the 4th is
> > defined, it's not independent. All of space is divided into 12 sided 3d
> > solids. I don't remember what the shape is called. It is _not_ the
> > platonic dodecahedron with pentagonal faces, but instead, each face is a
> > rhombus. In this shape, all faces and all edges are identical, but all
> > vertices are not identical.
>
> It's the rhombic dodecahedron:
> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
> I agree with what you say above. The shape, which I call a signon,
> does pack (though I don't have a formal proof) and is general
> dimensional. Most importantly when you take this shape down to one
> dimension then you are left with the usual real line segment as a
> bidirectional entity. There is then one more beneath that level whose
> dimension is nill and whose solitary direction matches the behavior of
> time, in which we observe no freedom of movement yet witness its
> unidirectional character coupled with space.
>
> But rising up in dimension the geometry of the signon maintains its
> unidirectional qualities, so that we can argue that your square
> implementation has four directions whereas the simplex system has only
> three. This is because each line of the cartesian construction is
> bidirectional. The cells have a flow form about them, and I have seen
> this shape characterized as 'nucleated'. When the lines connecting the
> interior of the shape are filled in, and the hairs put on the lines,
> then the signon and the simplex coordinate system become more
> apparent.
>
> Getting away from the lattice the usual vector characteristics do
> apply to these coordinate systems and while there is an additional
> coordinate there is likewise a cancellation so that on the 2D
> (hexagonal) version:
> (1,1,1) = 0
> Note that the real number (1D) version has the behavior
> (1,1) = 0
> which is just to say that
> - 1 + 1 = 0
> and so this is a way to bear the polysign numbers, for in the 2D
> version we can write
> - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
> where * is a new sign and minus and plus symbols take on different
> meaning than in the two-signed real numbers. Arithmetic products are
> easily formed from there.
>
> It can be shown that there is a savings of information in high
> dimensional representations by using the polysign or simplex
> coordinate system. Because the coordinates of the
> (a,b,c,d,...)
> representation do not carry any sign and one of them can be zeroed we
> can communicate a 1 of n value and then a series of magnitudes. For
> large dimension this method saves roughly n bits of information. So
> for instance a 1024 dimensional data point would save roughly 1014
> bits of information by using the simplex geometry. This is because we
> saved all of those sign bits, and needed just 10 bits to communicate
> the zero component. This is an esoteric savings because the size of
> each magnitude will likely be a larger cost. Still, the savings is
> real.
>
> I believe that there will be a more natural form a Maxwell's equations
> on the progressive structure
> P1 P2 P3 ...
> which will bear productive physics. The rotational qualities of
> Maxwell's equations are somewhat built into this structure, as is
> time. Study more closely and many details are in alignment with
> existing theory, both relativity and string/brane theory. Should the
> electron's spin be inherent rather than tacked onto a raw charge? In
> some ways this is the ultimate in existing Maxwellian thought. A
> stronger unification lays in structured spacetime. Relativity theory
> is a first instance of structured spacetime, not a tensor spacetime.
>
> - Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Macro has 3 dimentions+ spacetime Thanks to Witten micro string
theory on space dimentions is down to only 6 (that is a lot better
than 11) O ya TreBert
|
|
