Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: 3 dimensions and their 6 directions
Replies: 214   Last Post: Jun 3, 2010 6:36 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com Posts: 1,490 Registered: 12/13/04
Re: 3 dimensions and their 6 directions
Posted: Apr 21, 2010 9:25 AM
 Plain Text Reply

On Apr 20, 2:56 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
>
>
>

> > On Apr 19, 10:04 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
> >> Tim Golden BandTech.com schrieb:
>
> >>> On Apr 19, 2:51 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:

> >>>> On Apr 18, 1:16 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 8, 5:13 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 -

> >>>>> Aether field of dimension. 8 directions for 4D space aether
> >>>> No that you have figured out that 4 times 2 is 8, here is a new puzzle
> >>>> for you: what is 5 times 2? Take your time.

> >>> No. There is no need for five times two. It's just five direction for
> >>> a 4D space. They balance so that
> >>> (1,1,1,1,1) = 0.
> >>> This is the simplex geometry. The components do not require any sign
> >>> and instead the construction is the generalization of sign, just as
> >>> the one dimensional form is
> >>> (1,1) = 0
> >>> which is to say that
> >>> - 1 + 1 = 0 .
> >>> Five signed numbers do have inverses but each individual sign does not
> >>> carry a direct inverse as they do in the two-signed numbers.

> >> Hi Tim
>
> >> long time no see..
>
> >> Don't want to disturb, but you should have a look at my latest version.
> >> The double-tetrahedron is generating such a hexagonal pattern. This is a
> >> symbol for complex four-vectors or bi-quaternions. That two are
> >> tetrahedrons acting in opposite directions.http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >> (it is now more or less finished, but I have still not many reactions)

>
> >> Greetings
>
> >> Thomas
>
> > Hi Thomas.
> > If you can point me to one section you'd like me to review that would
> > be great.

>
> I think everything boils down to something in between octonions and
> bi-quaternions. But the physicists are sooo stupid. It would be
> essential to search for the solution 'somewhere near' these constructs.
> Once you do this, the final problems could be circled in. It is
> important to do something like the text, that I have written and think
> about, what to search for and why and then search.
> Otherwise, everything gets soo pointless.
> Even your polysigned numbers don't address some kind or real problem
> (even though they are a good approximation). It is simply an assumption,
> that nature could be modeled by an appropriate algebra. I think, that
> could be the case, but by one, you could never use, because the 'real
> thing' is smooth, continuous and infinite.
>
> Greetings
>
> Thomas

Well, the problems are open. I'm pretty sure that the mainstream
respects Hamilton's quaternion and its EM representation, but also
accepts that the Heaviside expressions are the cleanest expression of
EM. These are the modern form of Maxwell's equations. At least this is
the way that I look at it. I haven't yet read Heaviside so that
portion is hazy to me.

Regardless of these differences I feel pretty sure that the quaternion
struck Hamilton as having spacetime correspondence. Still, why then is
time unidirectional in nature? Even relativity is a structured
spacetime and is forced into a linguistic interpretation of sign as
timelike or spacelike and really just abuses the tensor representation
in order to get its result, all the while preaching the tensor and
isotropic behavior.

The quaternion does not stand alone. It stands in a chain
real->complex->quaternioin->octonion->...
The 4d relativistic representation does not stand alone. It stands in
a chain
1D->2D->3D->4D->5D->...
But on the chain of polysign a natural breakpoint exists
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 ...
and unidirectional time exists consistent with unified spacetime. The
electromagnetic qualities are already present there in the geometry
with a rotational disk P3 and an (informationally) orthogonal P2 axis.
Still, I have yet to express this as it is done on the other theories.

Whether spacetime should be arbitrarily built out of general
dimensional phenomena or whether it should be derived... This is a
question that polysign answers affirmatively. The existence of
polysign numbers already expose the flaw in an arbitrarily constructed
spacetime from a theoretical perspective. The purpose of theory is not
just to fit a curve or match a dimension mathematically; it is to
provide some reasoning why such a limitation might exist. In that
theory explains observation then the existence of 3D space already is
the observation.

A spacetime theory does not exist, except for polysign. We are free to
pull things out of a hat, but the best things to pull out of the hat
are the fewest things necessary. A Euclidean geometry with twenty
axioms will gain little attention if ten axioms will do the job. The
direction of progression here is pertinent to modern theory. The
question
Why SpaceTime?
is valid and relativity makes no theoretical statement on spacetime
itself from the quantity of dimensions. Now we have string/brane
theories which have truly expressed this problem. Some have caught
onto this paradigm, but most just leave it feeling vague, at least I
think this must be so. Even Newton and Kant did not grapple with this.
It was beyond them. It lays still beyond us and is a critical step in
the advancement of pure theory. So it goes undiscussed as do many
conflicts.

- Tim

Date Subject Author
4/1/10 Nick
4/2/10 dan73
4/2/10 dan73
4/2/10 Rob Johnson
4/2/10 Igor
4/2/10 James Dow Allen
4/7/10 Michael Moroney
4/2/10 Nick
4/2/10 Nick
4/3/10 Igor
4/3/10 Nick
4/3/10 nuny@bid.ness
4/3/10 Nick
4/4/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/5/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
4/7/10 Nick
4/8/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/8/10 bert
4/8/10 Nick
4/17/10 zookumar yelubandi
4/17/10 Nick
4/18/10 Nick
4/19/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
4/19/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/19/10 Thomas Heger
4/19/10 Nick
4/20/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/20/10 Thomas Heger
4/20/10 Nick
4/20/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
4/21/10 Thomas Heger
4/20/10 Nick
4/21/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/21/10 Thomas Heger
4/22/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/28/10 Thomas Heger
4/22/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
4/22/10 Nick
4/24/10 Thomas Heger
4/24/10 Nick
4/26/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
4/26/10 Nick
5/5/10 Thomas Heger
5/5/10 Nick
5/5/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/5/10 Thomas Heger
5/5/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/6/10 Thomas Heger
5/6/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/6/10 Thomas Heger
5/7/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/8/10 Thomas Heger
5/8/10 Nick
5/7/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/8/10 Thomas Heger
5/8/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/9/10 Thomas Heger
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Nick
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Nick
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Nick
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Nick
5/9/10 Karl Heinz
5/9/10 Thomas Heger
5/10/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/10/10 Karl Heinz
5/10/10 Thomas Heger
5/10/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/10/10 Thomas Heger
5/11/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/11/10 Thomas Heger
5/11/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/11/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/11/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/11/10 Thomas Heger
5/11/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/11/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/12/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/12/10 Thomas Heger
5/12/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/12/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/12/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/12/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/12/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/12/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/13/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/13/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/13/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/14/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/19/10 suzysewnshow
5/20/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/21/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/14/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/14/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/15/10 Thomas Heger
5/15/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/15/10 Thomas Heger
5/16/10 waldofj
5/16/10 Thomas Heger
5/19/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/19/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/19/10 Thomas Heger
5/19/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/20/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/20/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/20/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/21/10 Thomas Heger
5/21/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/21/10 Thomas Heger
5/23/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/15/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/15/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/15/10 waldofj
5/16/10 Thomas Heger
5/19/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/19/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/7/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/8/10 Thomas Heger
5/13/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
4/21/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
4/8/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
4/8/10 Nick
4/9/10 Michael Moroney
4/9/10 Androcles
4/9/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
4/9/10 Nick
4/9/10 Nick
4/9/10 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
4/9/10 Nick
4/10/10 Clifford J. Nelson
4/20/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
4/25/10 Clifford J. Nelson
4/20/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
4/28/10 Sid
4/28/10 Paul Hovnanian P.E.
4/28/10 Nick
5/16/10 dlzc@aol.com \(formerly\)
5/17/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/18/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/21/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/21/10 Thomas Heger
5/21/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/22/10 Y.Porat
5/22/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/22/10 Clifford J. Nelson
5/23/10 Thomas Heger
5/23/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/23/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/25/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/25/10 Thomas Heger
5/25/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/25/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/26/10 Thomas Heger
5/26/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/26/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/26/10 Thomas Heger
5/26/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/27/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/27/10 Thomas Heger
5/31/10 J. Clarke
5/27/10 zookumar yelubandi
5/28/10 Thomas Heger
5/28/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/28/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/29/10 Thomas Heger
5/29/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/29/10 Thomas Heger
5/29/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/30/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/30/10 Thomas Heger
5/31/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/31/10 Thomas Heger
5/29/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/30/10 Thomas Heger
5/30/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/31/10 Thomas Heger
5/31/10 J. Clarke
5/31/10 Thomas Heger
5/31/10 J. Clarke
5/31/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/31/10 vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com
5/28/10 Nick
5/30/10 Clifford J. Nelson
5/30/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
5/30/10 Clifford J. Nelson
5/31/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
6/1/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/1/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/1/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
6/2/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/1/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/1/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/1/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/2/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/2/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/2/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/2/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/2/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/1/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/2/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
6/2/10 Clifford J. Nelson
6/3/10 Tim Golden http://bandtech.com
6/3/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/3/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/3/10 Brian Q. Hutchings

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.