On 3/17/2013 8:45 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In <DPWdncbt4PfeGN_MnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 03/14/2013 > at 09:19 PM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said: > >> Among all of the possible statement concerning a philosophy of >> mathematics that you could have chosen, the one you did is exactly >> the negation of my philosophy. > > See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair>. >
I did post an open apology to the professionals on this site in view of my other posts.
If you read through it you will find that I have identified "mathematics that does not necessarily obey distributive laws" as being central to that with which I have been struggling.
Among the places where that occurs, is in the "language equivalence" of automata with respect to regular sets of accepting strings formed from concatenations. It is under that notion of equivalence where distributive laws can equate deterministic and non-deterministic machines.
I suspect, in part, that that accounts for why the geometries I have been using quickly led to geometries of interest to the applied fields.
Now that I am able to fit my ideas into traditional frameworks, you will see no more claims along those lines.