Already a few years back I wanted to write a post on the so called de Padé apprximations because they are so good at taking the logarithm of a matrix. For me the access to an internet application that calculated those logs from matrix representations was a very helpful thing to speed things up. It would have taken me much much longer to find the first exponential circle on the 3D complex numbers if I could not use such applets. But in the year 2018 pure evil struck the internet: the last applets or websites having them disappeared to never come back. Ok by that time I had perfected my method of simply using matrix diagonalization for finding such logs of matrices. You can still find it easily if you do an internet search on ‘Calculation of the 7D number tau‘. Yet in the beginning I only had such applets as found on the internet and I soon found out that using the so called de Padé approximation always gave much better results compared to say a Taylor approximation. It is not very hard to understand how to perform such a de Padé approximation. Much harder to understand is how de Padé found them, after all it looks like a strike of genius if this works. The genius part is of course found in the stuff you can simply neglect in such approximations, at first it baffles the mind and later you just accept it that you are more stupid as de Padé was…;) Anyway this week I stumbled upon a cute video and as such I decided to write a small post upon this de Padé stuff. (On the shelf are still a possible new way of making an antenna based on the 3D exponential circles and some updates on magnetism.) So let us first take a look at the video, here we go:
As you see the basic idea is pretty simple: you use those two polynomials to ‘approximate’ that Taylor series and as a bonus you have a much better approximation of the original function. All in all this is amazing and it makes you wonder if there are methods out there that are even better compared to this de Padé approximation.
Now you can choose beforehand what degree polynomial you use in the nominator and denominator. There are plenty of situations where this brings a big benefit like in the video they point out the divergence problems of say the sine function that is bounded between +1 and -1 on the real axis. The Taylor approximations always go completely beserk outside some interval where they fit quite well. With the appropiate choice of the degrees of the polynomials in the de Padé approximation you can avoid this kind of stuff. In my view the maker of the video should also have pointed out that a de Padé approximation can have it’s own troubles when you divide by zero. And when the original function never has such a pole at that point, the de Padé approximation also goes very bad. These de Padé approximations are indeed much better compared to the average Taylor approximation but they are not from heaven. You still have to use your own brain and may be that is a good thing.
In this post I did not cover the matrices and why a de Padé approximation of the logarithm of a matrix is good or bad. If you want to find exponential circles and curves for yourself, use those applets mostly on imaginary units who’s matrix representation has a determinant of +1. In case you want to find your very first exponential circle, solve the next problem:
Ok, it is late at night so let me hit that button ‘publish website’ and see you around.
A couple of days ago I started on a new post, it is mostly about elliptic curves and we will go and see what exactly happens if you plug in one of those counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat. There is all kinds of weird stuff going on if you plug such counter example in such a ‘Frey elliptic curve’. I hope next week it will be finished.
In this post I would like to show you three video’s so let’s start that: In the first video a relatively good introduction to the last theorem of Fermat is given. One of the important details of that long proof is the relation between elliptic curves and so called modular forms. And now I understand a bit better as why math professors go bezerk on taking such an elliptic curve modulo a prime number; the number of solutions is related to a coefficient of such an associated modular form. It boggles the mind because what do those other coefficients mean? As always just around the corner is a new ocean of math waiting to get explored.
Anyway, I think that I can define such modular forms on the 3D complex and circular numbers too so may be that is stuff for a bunch of future posts. On the other hand the academic community is never ever interested in my work whatsoever so may be I will skip that whole thing too. As always it is better to do what you want and not what you think other people would like to see. The more or less crazy result is shown in the picture below and after that you can see the first video.
Next video: At MIT they love to make a fundamental fool of themselves by claiming that their version of a nuclear fusion reactor will be the first that puts power on the electricity grid… Ok ok, after five or six years I have terminated the magnetic pages on the other website because it dawned on me that the university people just don’t want to read my work. I have explained many many times that it is just impossible that electrons are magnetic dipoles but as usual nothing happens. Oops, wasn’t it some years ago that Lockheed Martin came bragging out they would make mobile nuclear fusion reactors and by now (the year 2021) there would be many made already? Of course I would never work properly because at Lockheed Martin they to refuse to check if the idea’s of electron spin are actually correct. If electrons are magnetic monopoles all fusion reactors based on magnetic confinement will never work. Just look at Lockheed Martin: So much bragging but after all those years just nothing to show. Empty headed arrogant idiots is whart they are.
And now MIT thinks it is their time to brag because they have mastered much stronger magnetic fields with their new high temperature superconducting magnets. Yes well you can be smart on details like super conducting magnets but if you year in year out refuse to take a look at electron spin and is that Pauli matrix nonsense really true in experiments? If you refuse that year in year out, you are nothing but a full blown arrogant overpaid idiot. And you truly deserve the future failure that will be there: A stronger magnetic field only makes the plasma more turbulent faster. And your fantasies of being the first to put electricity on the grid? At best you are a pathetic joke.
It is very difficult to make a working nuclear fusion reactor on earth if you just don’t want to study the magnetic properties of electrons while you try to contain the plasma with magnetic fields. Oh the physics imbeciles and idiots think they understand plasma? They even do not understand why the solar corona is so hot and if year in year out I say that magnetic fields accelerate particles with a net magnetic charge, the idiots and imbeciles just neglect it because they are idiots and imbeciles.
The third video is about a truly Hercules task: Making a realistic model of the sun so that can run in computer simulations… If humanity is still around 10 thousand years from now may be they have figured it out but the sun is such a complicated thing it just cannot be understood in a couple of decades. There is so much about the sun that is hard to understand. For example a number of years ago using the idea that electrons are magnetic monopoles, it thought that rotating plasma like in some tornado kind of structure is all you need to get extremely strong magnetic fields. But I never ever wrote down only one word in that direction. Anyway about a full year later I learned about the rotational differential for the sun: at the equator it spins much faster as it does on the poles. And that would definitely give rise to a lot of those tornade like structurs that must be below the sun spots. Of course nothing happens because of ‘university people’ and at present day I do not give a shit any longer. I am 100% through with idiots and imbeciles like that. For me it only counts that I know, that I have figured out something and trying to communicate that to a bunch of overpaid highly absorbed in their giant ego’s idiots and imbeciles is a thing I just stopped doing. If it is MIT, ITER or Max Planck idiots and imbeciles, why should I care?
Ok, that was it for this post. If you are not related to a university or academia thanks for your attention. And to the university shitholes: please go fuck yourselves somewhere we don’t have to watch it.
It is late at night, my computer clock says it is 1.01 on a Sunday night. But I am all alone so why not post this update? This post does not have much mathematical depth, it is all very easy to understand if you know what split complex numbers are. In the language of this website, the split complex numbers are the 2D circular numbers, In the past I named a particular set of numbers complex or circular. I did choose for circular because the matrix representations of circular numbers are the so called circulant matrices. It is always better to give mathematical stuff some kind of functional name so people can make sense of what the stuff is about. For me no silly names like ‘3D Venema positive numbers’ or ‘3D Venema complex numbers’. In math the objects should have names that describe them, the name of a person should not be hanged on such an object. For example the Cayley-Hamilton theorem is a total stupid name, the names of the humans who wrote it out are not relevant at all. Further reading on circulant matrices: Circulant matrix. I also have a wiki on split complex numbers for you, but like all common sources they have the conjugate completely wrong. Professional math professors always think that taking a conjugate is just replacing a + by a – but that is just too simplistic. That’s one of the many reasons they never found 3D complex numbers for themselves, if you do that conjugate thing in the silly way all your 3D complex math does not amount to much… Link: Split-complex number.
This is the last part on this oversight of counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat and it contains only the two dimensional split complex numbers. When I wrote the previous post I realized that I had completely forgetten about the 2D split numbers. And indeed the math results as found in this post are not very deep, it’s importance lies in the fact that the counter examples now are unbounded. All counter examples based on modular arithmetic are always bounded, periodic to be precise, so professional math professors could use that as a reason to declare that all a bunch of nonsense because the real integers are unbounded. And my other counter examples that are unbounded are only on 3D complex & circular number spaces and the 4D complex numbers so that will be neglected and talked into insignificance because ‘That is not serious math’ or whatever kind of nonsense those shitholes come up with.
All in all despite the lack of mathematical depth I am very satisfied with this very short update. The 2D split numbers have a history of say 170 years so all those smart math assholes can think a bit about why they never formulated such simple counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat… May be the simplicity of the math results posted is a good thing in the long run: compare it to just the natural numbers or the counting numbers. That is a set of numbers that is very simple too, but they contain prime numbers and all of a sudden you can ask thousands and thousands of complicated and difficult questions about natural numbers. So I am not ashamed at all by the lack of math depth in this post, I only point to the fact that over the course of 170 years all those professional math professors never found counter examples on that space.
This post is just 3 pictures long although I had to enlarge the lastest one a little bit. The first two pictures are 550×825 pixels and the last one is 550×975 pixels. Here we go:
That was it for this post, one of the details as why this post is significant is the use of those projector numbers. You will find that nowhere on the entire internet just like the use of 3D complex numbers is totally zero. Let’s leave it with that, likely the next post is about magnetism and guess what? The physics professors still think there is no need at all to give experimental proof to their idea of the electron having two magnetic poles. So it are not only the math professors that are the overpaid idiots in this little world of monkeys that think they are the masters of the planet.
Post number 191 already so it will be relatively easy to make it to post number 200 this year. If you think about it, the last 190 posts together form a nice bunch of mathematics. In this post we will pick on where we left it in the last post; we start with the three dimensional complex and circular numbers. In the introduction I explain how the stuff with a pair of divisors of zero works and from there it is plain sailing so to say. When back in Jan of this year I constructed the first counter example to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat I considered it a bit ‘non math’ because it was so easy. And when one or two days later I made the first counter example using modular arithmetic I was really hesitant to post it because it was all so utterly simple… But now half a year later it has dawned on me that all those professional math professors live up to their reputation of being overpaid under performers because in a half year of time I could find not one counter example on our beloved internet. And when these people write down some calculations that could serve as a counter example, they never say so and use it only for other purposes like proving the little theorem of Fermat. It has to be remarked however that in the past three centuries of time, when people tried to find counter examples, they likely started with the usual integers from the real line and as such tried to find counter examples. Of course that failed and this is not because they are stupid or so. It is the lack of number spaces they understand or know about that prevented them in finding counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat. If you do not know anything about 3D complex or circular numbers, you are not a stupid person if you cannot find counter examples to the last theorem. But you are definitely very very stupid if you do not want to study 3D complex numbers, if you refuse that it proves you have limited mathematical insights and as such likely all your other math works will be limited in long term value too. While writing this post all of a sudden I realized I skipped at least one space where counter examples are to be found: It is on the space of so called split complex numbers. I did not invent that space, that was done by the math professors. The split complex numbers are a 2D structure just like the complex plane but instead of i^2 = -1, on the split complex plane the multiplication is ruled by i^2 = 1. Likely I will write a small post about the split complex number space. (Of course in terms of the language of this website, the 2D split complex numbers are the 2D circular numbers.)
This post is 8 pictures long, I kept on to number them according to the previous post so we start at picture number 11. They are all in the size of 825×550 pixels. I hope it is worth of your time. Here we go:
In this post I used only ‘my own spaces’ like 3D complex and circular numbers and the 4D complex numbers. As such it will be 100% sure the math professionals will 100% not react on it. Even after 30 years these incompetents are not able to judge if there is any mathematical value in spaces like that. Why do we fork out so much tax payer money to those weirdo’s? After all it is a whole lot of tax payer money for a return of almost nothing. Ok ok a lot of math professors also give lectures in math to other studies like physics so not all tax payer money is 100% wasted but all in all the math professors are a bunch of non-performers.
I think I will write a small post about the 2D split complex numbers because that is a space discovered by the math pro’s. So for them we will have as counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat all that modulo calculus together with the future post on the split complex numbers. Not that this will give a reaction from the math pro’s but it will make clear you just cannot blame me for the non reactive nature of the incompetents; the blame should go to those who deserve it… Or not?
May be the next post is about magnetism and only after that I will post the split complex number details. We’ll see, anyway if you made it untill here thanks for your attention and I hope you learned a bit from the counter examples to the last theorem of Pierre de Fermat.
After a few weeks it is finally dawning on me that it might very well be possible that the professional math people just do not have a clue about how easy it is to find counter examples to the FLT. (FLT = Fermat’s Last Theorem.) That is hard to digest because it is so utterly simple to do and understand on those rings of integers modulo n. But I did not search long and deep and I skipped places like the preprint archive and only used a bit of the Google thing. And if you use the Google thing of course you get more results from extravert people. That skews the results of course because for extraverts talking is much more important compared to the content of what you are talking or communicating. That is the problem with extraverts; they might be highly social but they pay a severe price for that: their thinking will always be shallow and never some stuff deeply thought through…
As far as I know rings of the integers modulo n are not studied very much. Of course the additive groups modulo n are studied and the multiplicative groups modulo n are studied but when it comes to rings all of a sudden it is silent always everywhere. And now I am looking at it myself I am surprised how much similarity there is between those kind of rings and the 3D complex & circular numbers. Of course they are very different objects of study but you can all chop them in two parts: The numbers that are invertible versus the set of non-invertibles. For example in the ring of integers modulo 15 the prime factors of 15 are 3 and 5. And those prime factors are the non-invertibles inside this ring. This has all kinds of interesting math results, for example take the (exponential) orbit of 3. That is the sequence of powers of 3 like in: 3, 3^2 = 9, 3^3 = 27 = 12 (mod 15), 3^4 = 36 = 6 (mod 15) and 3^5 = 18 = 3. As you see this orbit avoids the number 1 because if it would pass through 1 you would have found an inverse of 3 inside our ring and that is not possible because 3 is a non invertible number…
Likely my next post will be about such stuff, I am still a bit hesitant about it because it is all so utterly simple but you must never underestimate how dumb the overpaid math professors can be: Just neglecting rings modulo n could very well be a common thing over there while in the meantime they try to act as a high IQ person by stating ‘We are doing the Langlands program’ & and more of that advanced blah blah blah. Anyway it is getting late at night so from all that nonsense weird stuff you can find on Google by searching for counter examples to the last theorem of Fermat I crafted 3 pictures. Here is the first one:
I found this retarded question on quora. For me it is hard to process what the person asking this question was actually thinking. Why would the 2.999…. be important? What is this person thinking? Does he have integer solutions to say 2.9 and 2.99 and is this person wondering what would happen if you apply those integer solutions to 2.99999999…..???????
It is retarded, or shallow, on all levels possible. So to honor the math skills of the average human let’s make a new picture of this nonsense:
We will never be intimidated by the stupidity of such questions and simply observe these are our fellow human beings. And if ok, if you are a human being running into tons of problems, in the end you can always wonder ‘Am I a problem myself because I am so stupid?’
If you have figured out that question, you are getting more solid & you look more like a little cube:
I want to end this post on a positive note: Once you understand how stupid humans are you must not view that as a negative. On the contrary, that shows there is room for improvement.
On the one hand it is a pity I have to remove the previous post from the top position. Never ever I would have thought that the Voyager probes would be a big help in my quest of proving that electrons are not magnetic dipoles. Electrons are magnetic monopoles, if your local physics professor thinks otherwise why not ask you local physics professor for the experimental evidence there is for the electron magnetism dipole stuff?
On the other hand this post is about Gaussian intergers for the 3D complex and circular numbers and it is with a bit of pride that I can say we have a bunch of beautiful results because the last theorem of Fermat does not hold in these spaces.
The last theorem of Fermat is a kind of negative result, it says that it is impossible for three integers x, y and z that x^n + y^n = z^n, this for integer values of n greater than 2 of course. (For n = 2 I think most readers know it is possible because those are the Pythagoras triples.)
Anyway I succeeded into writing the number 3 as the sum of two Gaussian 3D integers that are also divisors of zero. So this pair of integers, in this post I name them A and T because they are related to the famous 3D numbers alpha and tau, are divisors of zero so as such AT = 0. As such as a denial of the Fermat theorem, an important result as posted here is that A^n + T^n = 3^n. So on the 3D complex & circular numbers this result is possible while if you use only the 2D complex plane and the real line this is not possible… But there are plenty of spaces where the Fermat conjecture or the last theorem does not hold. A very easy to understand space is the ring of integers modulo 15. In this ring there are numbers that do not have a multiplicative inverse, say 3 and 5. And if inside this ring you multiply 3 and 5 you get 15 and 15 = 0 in this ring… Hence inside this ring we have that 8^n = 3^n + 5^n (mod 15) also contradicting the Fermat stuff.
I did some internet searches like ‘Fermat last theorem and divisors of zero’ but weirdly enough nothing popped up. That was weird because I view the depth of the math results related to this divisor of zero as the depth of a bird bath. It is not a deep result or so, just a few centimeters deep. But sometimes just a few centimeters can bring a human mind into another world. For example a long time ago when I still was as green as grass back in the year 1986 I came across the next excercise: Calulate the rest of 103 raised to 103 and divided by 13. I was puzzled, after all 103^103 is a giant number so how can you find the rest after dividing it by 13? But if you give that cute problem a second thought, after all that is also bird bath deep because you can solve it with your human brain…
This post is 11 pictures long, all of the standard size of 550×775 pixels. Because I could not find anything useful about the last Fermat theorem combined with divisors of zero I included a small addendum so all in all this post is 12 pictures long.
After so much Gaussian integer stuff, there is only one addendum about the integers modulo 30. In that ring you can also find some contradictions to the standard way of presenting the last theorem of Fermat.
Ok, if you are still fresh after all that modulo 30 stuff, for reasons of trying to paint an overall picture let me show you a relatively good video on the Kummer stuff. Interesting in this video is that Kummer used the words `Ideal numbers´ and at present stuff like that is known as an ideal. For myself speaking I never use the word ´ideal´ for me these are ´multiplicative attractors´ because if a number of such an ideal multiplies a number outside that ideal, the result is always inside that ideal. Here is a relatively good video:
And now you are at the end of this post. Till updates.
I am rather satisfied with the approach of doing the same stuff on the diverse complex spaces. In this case the 2D complex plane and the 3D & 4D complex number systems. By doing it this way it is right in your face: a lot of stuff from the complex plane can easily be copied to higher dimensional complex numbers. Without doubt if you would ask a professional math professor about 3D or higher dimensional complex numbers likely you get a giant batagalization process to swallow; 3D complex numbers are so far fetched and/or exotic that it falls outside the realm of standard mathematics. “Otherwise we would have used them since centuries and we don’t”. Or words of similar phrasing that dimishes any possible importance.
But I have done the directional derivative, the factorization of the Laplacian with Wirtinger derivatives and now we are going to do the total differential precisely as you should expect from an expansion of the century old complex plane. There is nothing exotic or ‘weird’ about it, the only thing that is weird are the professional math professors. But I have given up upon those people years ago, so why talk about them?
In the day to day practice it is a common convention to use so called straight d‘s to denote differentiation if you have only one variable. Like in a real valued function f(x) on the real line, you can write df/dx for the derivative of such a function. If there are more then one variable the convention is to use those curly d’s to denote it is partial differentiation with respect to a particular variable. So for example on the complex plane the complex variable z = x + iy and as such df/dz is the accepted notation while for differentiation with respect to x and y you are supposed to write it with the curly d notation. This practice is only there when it comes to differentiation, the opposite thing is integration and there only straight d‘s are used. If in the complex plane you are integrating with respect to the real component x you are supposed to use the dx notation and not the curly stuff. Well I thought I had all of the notation stuff perfectly figured out, oh oh how ultrasmart I was… Am I writing down the stuff for the 4D complex numbers and I came across the odd expression of dd. I hope it does not confuse you, in the 4D complex number system I always write the four dimensional numbers as Z = a + bl + cl^2 + dl^3 (the fourth power of the imaginary unit l must be -1, that is l^4 = -1, because that defines the behavior of the 4D complex numbers) so inside Z there is a real variable denoted as d. I hope this lifts the possible confusion when you read dd…
More on the common convention: In the post on the factorization of the Laplacian with Wirtinger derivatives I said nothing about it. But in case you never heard about the Wirtinger stuff and looked it up in some wiki’s or whatever what, Wirtinger derivatives are often denoted with the curly d‘s so why is that? That is because Wirtinger derivatives are often used in the study of multi-variable complex analysis. And once more that is just standard common convention: only if there is one variable you can use a straight d. If there are more variable you are supposed to write it with the curly version…
At last I want to remark that the post on the factorization of the Laplacian got a bit long: in the end I needed 15 pictures to publish the text and I worried a bit that it was just too long for the attention span of the average human. In the present years there is just so much stuff to follow, for most people it is a strange thing to concentrate on a piece of math for let’s say three hours. But learning new math is not an easy thing: in your brain all kind of new connections need to be formed and beside a few hours of time that also needs sleep to consolidate those new formed connections. Learning math is not a thing of just spending half an hour, often you need days or weeks or even longer.
This post is seven pictures long, have fun reading it and if you get to tired and need a bit of sleep please notice that is only natural: the newly formed connetions in your brain need a good night sleep.
Here we go with the seven pictures:
Yes, that’s it for this post. Sleep well and think well & see you in the next post. (And oh oh oh a professional math professor for the first time in his or her life they calculate the square Z^2 of a four dimensional complex number; how many hours of sleep they need to recover from that expericence?) See ya in the next post.
Originally I wanted to make an oversight of all ways the so called Dirac quantization condition is represented. That is why in the beginning of this post below you can find some stuff on the Dirac equation and the four solutions that come with that equation. Anyway, Paul Dirac once managed to factorize the Laplacian operator, that was needed because the Laplacian is part of the Schrödinger equation that gives the desired wave functions in quantum mechanics. Well I had done that too once upon a time in a long long past and I remembered that the outcome was highly surprising. As a matter of fact I consider this one of the deeper secrets of the higher dimensional complex numbers. Now I use a so called Wirtinger derivative; for example on the space of 3D complex numbers you take the partial derivatives into the x, y and z direction and from those three partial derivatives you make the derivative. And once you have that, if you feed it a function you simply get the derivative of such a function.
Now such a Wirtinger derivative also has a conjugate and the surprising result is that if you multiply such a Wirtinger derivative against it’s conjugate you always get either the Laplacian or in the case of the 3D complex numbers you get the Laplacian multiplied by the famous number alpha.
That is a surprising result because if you multiply an ordinary 3D number X against it’s conjugate you get the equation of a sphere and a cone like thing. But if you do it with parital differential operators you can always rewrite it into pure Laplacians so there the cones and spheres are the same things…
In the past I only had it done on the space of 3D numbers so I checked it for the 4D complex numbers and in about 10 minutes of time I found out it also works on the space of 4D complex numbers. So I started writing this post and since I wanted to build it slowly up from 2D to 4D complex numbers it grew longer than expected. All in all this post is 15 pictures long and given the fact that people at present day do not have those long timespan of attention anymore, may be it is too long. I too have this fault, if you hang out on the preprint archive there is just so much material that often after only five minutes of reading you already go to another article. If the article is lucky, at best it gets saved to my hard disk and if the article has more luck in some future date I will read it again. For example in the year 2015 I saved an article that gave an oversight about the Dirac quantization condition and only now in 2020 I looked at it again…
The structure of this post is utterly simple: On every complex space (2D, 3D and 4D) I just give three examples. The examples are named example 1, 2 and not surprising I hope, example 3. These example are the same, only the underlying space of complex numbers varies. In each example number 1 I define the Wirtinger derivative, in example 2 I take the conjugate while in the third example on each space I multiply these two operators and rewrite the stuff into Laplacians. The reason this post is 15 pictures long lies in the fact that the more dimensions you have in your complex numbers the longer the calculations get. So it goes from rather short in the complex plane (the 2D complex numbers) to rather lengthy in the space of 4D complex numbers.
At last I would like to remark that those four simultanious solutions to the Dirac equation it once more shouts at your face: electrons carry magnetic charge and they are ot magnetic dipoles! All that stuff like the Pauli matrices where Dirac did build his stuff upon is sheer difficult nonsense: the interaction of electron spin with a magnetic field does not go that way. The only reason people in the 21-th century think it has some merits is because it is so complicated and people just loose oversight and do not see that it is bogus shit from the beginning till the end. Just like the math professors that neatly keep themselves stupid by not willing to talk about 3D complex numbers. Well we live in a free world and there are no laws against being stupid I just guess.
Enough of the blah blah blah, below are the 15 pictures. And in case you have never ever heard about a thing known as the Wirtinger derivative, try to understand it and may be come back in five or ten years so you can learn a bit more… As usual all pictures are 550×775 pixels in size.
Oh oh the human mind and learning new things. If a human brain learns new things like Cauchy-Riemann equations or the above factoriztion of the Laplacian, a lot of chages happen in the brain tissue. And it makes you tired and you need to sleep… And when you wake up, a lot of people look at their phone and may be it says: Wanna see those new pictures of Miley Cyrus showing her titties? And all your new learned things turn into insignificance because in the morning what is more important compared to Miley her titties?
Ok my dear reader, you are at the end of this post. See you in the next post.
A couple of days ago all of a sudden while riding my bicycle I calculated what the so called directional derivative is for 3D & 4D complex numbers. And it is a cute calculation but I decided not to write a post about it. After all rather likely I had done stuff like that many years ago.
Anyway a day later I came across a few Youtube video’s about the directional derivative and all those two guys came up with was an inner product of the gradient and a vector. Ok ok that is not wrong or so, but that is only the case for scalar valued functions on say 3D space. A scalar field as physics people would say it. The first video was from the Kahn academy and the guy from 3Blue1Brown has been working over there lately. It is amazing that just one guy can lift such a channel up in a significant manner. The second video was from some professional math professor who went on talking a full 2.5 hour about the directional derivative of just a scalar field. I could not stand it; how can you talk so long about something that is so easy to explain? Now I do not blame that math professor, may be he was working in the USA and had to teach first year math students. Now in the USA fresh students are horrible at math because in the USA the education before the universities is relatively retarded.
Furthermore I tried to remember when I should have done the directional derivative. I could not remember it and in order to get rid of my annoyance I decided to write a small post about it. Within two hours I was finished resulting in four pictures of the usual 550×775 pixel size. So when I work hard I can produce say 3 to 4 pictures in two hours of time. I did not know that because most of the time I do not work that fast or hard. After all this is supposed to be a hobby so most of my writing is done in a relaxed way without any hurry. I have to say that may be I should have taken a bit more time at the end where the so called Cauchy-Riemann equations come into play. I only gave the example for the identiy function and after that jumped to the case of a general function. May be for the majority of professional math professors that is way to fast, but hey just the simple 3D complex numbers are ‘way to fast’ for those turtles in the last two centuries…
Anyway, here is the short post of only 4 pictures:
Should I have made the explanation longer? After all so often during the last years I have explained that the usual derivative f'(X) is found by differentiating into the direction of the real numbers. At some point in time I have the right to stop explaining that 1 + 1 = 2.
Also I found a better video from the Kahn academy that starts with a formal definition of the directional derivative:
At last let me remark that this stuff easily works for vector valued functions because in the above limit you only have to subtract two vectors and that is always allowed in any vector space. And only if you hang in a suitable multiplication like the complex multiplication of 3D or 4D real space you can tweak it like in the form of picture number 4 above.
That was all I had for you today, this is post number 166 already so I am wondering if this website is may be becoming too big? If people find something, can they find what they are searching for or do they get lost in the woods? So see you in another post, take care of yourself & till the next post.
For a couple of years I have a few pdf files in my possession written by other people about the subject of higher dimensional complex and circular numbers. In the post we will take a look at the work of Shlomo Jacobi, the pdf is not written by him because Shlomo passed away before it was finished. It is about the 3D complex numbers so it is about the main subject of this website.
Link used: http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1509.01459&qid=1603841443251ler_nCnN_1477984027&qs=Shlomo+Jacobi&in=math
Weirdly enough if you search for ‘3D hypercomplex number’ the above pdf does not pop up at all at the preprint archive. But via his name (Shlomo Jacobi) I could find it back. Over the years I have found three other people who have written about complex numbers beyond the 2D complex plane. I consider the work of Mr. Jacobi to be the best so I start with that one. So now we are with four; four people who have looked at stuff like 3D complex numbers. One thing is directly curious: None of them is a math professional, not even a high school teacher or something like that. I think that when you are a professional math professor and you start investigating higher dimensional complex numbers; you colleagues will laugh about it because ‘they do not exist’. And in that manner it are the universities themselves that ensure they are stupid and they stay stupid. There are some theorems out there that say a 3D complex field is not possible. That is easy to check, but the math professionals make the mistake that they think 3D complex numbers are not possible. But no, the 2-4-8 theorem of say Hurwitz say only a field is not possible or it says the extension of 2D to 3D is not possible. That’s all true but it never says 3D complex numbers are not possible…
Because Shlomo Jacobi passed away an unknown part of the pdf is written by someone else. So for me it is impossible to estimate what was found by Shlomo but is left out of the pdf. For example Shlomo did find the Cauchy-Riemann equations for the 3D complex numbers but it is only in an epilogue at the end of the pdf.
The content of the pdf can be used for a basic introduction into the 3D complex numbers. It’s content is more or less the ‘algebra approach’ to 3D complex numbers while I directly and instantly went into the ‘analysis approach’ bcause I do not like algebra that much. The pdf contains all the basic stuff: definition of a 3D complex number, the inverse, the matrix representation and stuff he names ‘invariant spaces’. Invariant spaces are the two sets of 3D complex numbers that make up all the non-invertible numbers. Mr. Jacobi understands the concept of divisors of zero (a typical algebra thing that I do like) and he correctly indentifies them in his system of ‘novel hypercomplex numbers’. There is a rudimentary approach towards analysis found in the pdf; Mr. Jacobi defines three power series named sin1, sin2 and sin3 . I remember I looked into stuff like that myself and somewhere on this website it must be filed under ‘curves of grace’.
A detail that is a bit strange is the next: Mr. Jacobi found the exponential circle too. He litarally names it ‘exponential circle’ just like I do. And circles always have a center, they have a midpoint and guess how he names that center? It is the number alpha…
Because Mr. Jacobi found the exponential circle I applaud him long and hard and because he named it’s center the number alpha, at the end I included a more or less new Euler identity based on a very simple property of the important number alpha: If you square alpha it does not change. Just like the square of 1 is 1 and the square of 0 is 0. Actually ‘new’ identity is about five years old, but in the science of math that is a fresh result.
The content of this post is seven pictures long, please read the pdf first and I hope that the mathematical parts of your brain have fun digesting it all. Most pictures are of the standard size of 550×775 pixels.
Ok ok, may be you need to turn this into exponential circles first in order to craft the proof that a human brain could understand. And I am rolling from laughter from one side of the room to the other side; how likely is it that professional math professors will find just one exponential circle let alone higher dimensional curves?
I have to laugh hard; that is a very unlikely thing.
End of this post, see you around & see if I can get the above stuff online.