The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.symbolic

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

Topic: Where do math symbols originate?
Replies: 1   Last Post: Apr 10, 2013 10:43 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  

Posts: 822
Registered: 9/1/10
Re: Where do math symbols originate?
Posted: Apr 10, 2013 10:43 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:33:12 PM UTC-7, Ralph Frost wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:16:26 -0400, Bernard Massé wrote:
> >THE reference, albeit a little old, on this subject is Cajori,
> Florian, A
> >History of Mathematical Notations which is still available from
> Dover.
> >Although I don't think Cajori wrote a "philosophical" book which
> would
> >immediately give a straight yes or no answer to your question, his
> book
> >might permit your two opposing teams to bring many examples and
> >counter-examples in your discussions.
> >
> >Bernard Massé

> Thank you for the info. I haven't looked up such a thing yet but I do
> hope to get down to Purdue and see if it or something like it might be
> there.
> The squabble down in the "Lab" has quieted down in the last 2 years.
> The abstract math fellows are in some type of deep catatonic state,
> stunned into silence by something that, to them, seems "completely
> unpossible".
> It turns out that as each and every cell in the body lives and
> breathes it is running the general respiration reaction:
> organics + oxygen => water + carbon dioxide + ~energy (eq. 1)
> If you remember your biochemistry, that happens in processes like the
> "Kreb's tri-carboxylic acid cycle" and similar well-oiled channels.
> One point is, the water molecules are ~created in a regular sequence,
> forged in concert with our energizing experience in the world,
> extruded from each process in incremental units.
> Now, as you might also remember, the experimentalists locked in the
> sub-basement at the Lab have routinely been aligning rod magnets
> along the "radii of a tetrahedron" and sticking two north poles to two
> south poles. After grueling analysis or the resulting artifact, they
> have discovered that since that thing has six edges, there are at
> least six way such a thing can be oriented in some imposed field. This
> leads to a 6-to-the-nth type of math. This means that for a sequence
> of, say, 16 units, there are 6^16 or 2.82x10^12 ways to arrange those
> sixteen units in a stack or chain. Many of the fellows in the lab
> have not had that many different experiences, so they are somewhat
> excited.
> The logic goes, as best I can follow it, that this is some sort of
> "smoking gun" model of consciousness. The analog math don't lie.
> The water molecules are formed in distributed, parallel processing
> channels and as the units are extruded, they are jiggled into one of
> the six positions BY the subtle influences of the inbound (sensory)
> "quantum gravitational" vibrations. Once the chain is truncated at
> some length (perhap for some, a consistent length), it's like a
> little resonant reflection of the ~current environmental experience.
> If Mom was yelling, "HOT!", then 'hot!' it is. And so forth.
> Interestingly, the chain one person maps to 'hot!' doesn't have to be
> the say as someone else does.
> Now, the fact is, they really don't know whether to invoke or apply a
> fancy call to "quantum gravitation", or whether to just refer to
> influences of the surrounding, more unified field. The point is,
> they have a non-linearly expanding point. Water makes up something
> like 80% of just about everything important in and near widgets of
> consciousness. Water is FORMED and extruded in rational units,
> sequentially, during respiration, in concert with the vibration of our
> experience. Water does form in "ordered water" arrangements.
> So-called "bound water", water that gets knit together in organic
> materials, is energetically very stable and persistance. Anharmonic
> oscillators, matrix math, torsion-induced sine and cosine tables, even
> "wave-equations" appear to be quite naturally at home in such a
> resonance-based computational/associative media.
> Plus, running such a water-based internal analog math system still
> allows for wild variations in the initializations and in the ways
> linguistics, perceptions, beliefs, values, etc., can be formed and
> held and changed. Com links to deeper levels of organizations and
> comminication are not automatically excluded. As well, dream
> imagery, prayer, imagination and, I suppose, even the creation of
> abstract math symbols and models can all be created using the same
> sort of media/relationhip -- analog math symbols.
> This has come as a bit of a shock to the abstract math folks. Once
> their denial shattered, they have just been sitting there, day after
> peaceful day, watching their breath, trying to figure out if there is
> anything "mathematical" that they can say.
> So far, they are still completely silent on the matter.
> Thanks again for the reference toward a helpful book. I hope to get
> to it.
> Best regards,
> Ralph Frost
> Imagine consciousiness as a single internal analog language
> made of ordered water, and its variants.
> "...and love your neighbor as yourself" Matthew 19:19

> >
> >"Ralph E. Frost" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
> >

> >> [Rated "RFTOR" in s.p.r.]
> >>
> >>
> >> The normally well-mannered, docile fellows in the advanced

> symbolics and
> >> unification division here at the lab started a bad squabble the
> other day
> >> that perhaps someone in SPR can speak into and put an end to
> those
> >> guys can shut up and get back to calculating -- to doing real
> work.
> >>
> >> One group, the experimentalists, came out with the idea that

> since
> >> abstract math symbols are linguistic artifacts, all abstract math
> symbols
> >> and thus all abstract mathematics arise from and thus are secondary
> to a
> >> very small number of very flexible physical structures and
> relationships
> >> down in the guts of human consciousness.
> >>
> >> This made sense to the experimentalists, because they couldn't

> escape
> >the
> >> notion that their plans for improved experimental rigs, as best
> they can
> >> tell, flow up out of various rearrangements of the same flexible
> physical
> >> structures.
> >>
> >> However, as readers might well imagine, the abstract math

> contingent will
> >> have none of this troublesome talk and taunting, even though they
> >> can only grunt and groan ineffable noises when confronted with the
> >> observation that the unified thing itself does all it's math

> flawlessly
> >> using the so-called "analog math symbols". To complicate matters,
> some of
> >> abstract folks are becoming a bit intrigued by the idea that the
> step up
> >to
> >> the emerging, more unified models in fact very might require the
> >> introduction and shift to using more robust, more synchronous math

> symbols
> >> than folks use in the less unified models. At this moment, though,
> none of
> >> them can venture a guess on which analog math symbol might be the
> absolute
> >> best to be deployed or how such an awkward notion might be refined
> and
> >> developed.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I am asking for your help to resolve this squabble one

> way or
> >the
> >> other.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ralph Frost
> >> Looking for a desktop model to help you ponder this topic?
> >> <a href=""></a>

> -- now with secure online ordering
> >> Use more robust symbols
> >> Seek a thought worthy of speech.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>

Most from me (4) Whoever commitx xin also commitx lawlexxnexx, and six is lawlexxnexx. Sub x=s-s=1

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

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