I want to start with a bit of caution: In this post you can find the definition of the 4D Fourier series. It looks a lot like the definition as on the complex plane. But I still did not prove all those convergence questions. And I also do not remember very much from the time when I had that stuff as a student (that was about 30 years ago). So I don’t know if I will be able to make such proofs about convergence and what kind of functions you can use to make a Fourier series from etc etc.
Yet in this post I define a set of possible signals that I name ‘pure tones’ and these clearly have a 4D Fourier expansion because by definition they have a finite number of non-zero Fourier coefficients. Of course when you only have a finite amount of non-zero coefficients, you don’t have any kind of convergence problem. So for the time the convergence problems are avoided.
In this post, number 154 already, I hope I demenstrated enough that the basis functions used in the definition are all perpendicular to each other. After all that was a nasty hurdle we met when it was tried with just the four coordinate functions of the 4D exponential curve as our basis vectors. So we do not meet that problem again using the exponential curve as a whole. If I denote the exponential curve as f(t), the basis functions we use are basically f(nt) where n is a whole number. Just like in the previous posts I always use the notation f(t) when the period is related to the dimension and g(t) when the period is different. Here I use of course a period of two pi because that is convenient and it makes the coordinate functions more easy to write out: the first one is now cos(t)cos(2t) and the other three are just time lags of the first one. But if you want to write g(t) as an exponential, because of the period it now looks a bit more difficult compared to just e to the power tau times t.
For myself speaking I have no idea at all if crafting a Fourier series like this has any benefits of using just the definition as on the complex plane. After all I only have more or less basic knowledge about the use of Fourier series, so I just don’t know if it is ‘better’ in some regards and ‘worse’ in others.
At last without doubt under my readers there will be a significant fraction that wonder if those 4D complex number system is not some silly form of just the complex plane? After all if that 4D space is based on some imaginary unit l with the property that now the fourth power l^4 = -1, how can that be different from the complex plane? The answer to that lies in the logarithm of the first imaginary unit l. If this 4D space was just some silly extension of the complex plane, this log of l should be nicely bound to i pi/4 where i is of course the imaginary unit from the complex plane. But log(l) is the famous number tau because with that you can make the exponential curve f(t) = e^(tau t). Basically the main insight is that i pi/4 makes the complex exponential go round with a period of four because i^4 = 1 and the 4D number tau makes the exponential curve go round with a period of 8 because l^8 = 1.
This post is six pictures long, all 550×775 pixels in size.
As usual I skipped a lot of stuff. For example, how did Fourier do it? After all at the time all this stuff with inner products was poorly developed or understood. That alone would be a cute post to write about. Yet the line of reasoning offered by Joseph Fourier was truly brilliant. In case you are lazy or you want to avoid Google tracking you, here is a link to that cute symbolab stuff: symbolab.com Link used: https://www.symbolab.com/solver/fourier-series-calculator
Ok, that is what I had to say for this tiny math update.
Oh oh, this is one of those posts where I only calculate in the 3D circular numbers while I classify it as 3D complex numbers. In the past when I made those categories on this website I did not want to have too many categories so that is why I only have 3D complex numbers as a category.
All in all this post (number 146 already) is not extremely important because over the years I have given many proofs that the parametrization for the exponential circle indeed fulfills all those equations like the sphere-cone equation of the fact the determinant is always one. On the other hand, if you have an important mathematical object like the exponential circles, it is always good to have as many proofs as possible. Just like there are many proofs for the theorem of Pythagoras, it would be strange if we only had one proof and nobody cares about more proofs to that theorem that more or less the central to a giant mountain of math.
What do I mean with ‘first principles’? Very simple: that is the summation formula for the exponent of a linear operator or the matrix exponential if you want. In this post I use a somehow slightly different number tau; I use a number tau that gives a period of 2 pi for the exponential circle. The reason is simple: that makes the long calculation much more readable.
Another thing I want to mention is that the long calculation is nine lines long. For myself when I read the works of other people I do not like it if calculations go on and on and on. I always try to avoid too long calculations or I just don’t write posts about them. Almost nobody reads the stuff it it’s too long and gets too complicated so most of the time I simply skip that. Beside that there is always 0% feedback from the mathematical community, so although I always year in year out try to keep it so simple that even math professors can understand it, nothing happens. Just nothing, so after all those years it is not much of a miracle I don’t want to engage with these overpaid weirdo’s at all. Likely if you are born stupid you will die stupid & I have nothing to do with that. Mathematics is not a science that is capable of cleaning itself up, the weirdo’s keep on hanging to their fantastic quaternions and their retarded ideas of what numbers & complex numbers are. Too much money and too much academic titles have not lead to a situation where the science of math is capable of cleaning itself when needed.
Enough of the blah blah blah, after all the physics professors have the same with their electron spin: where is your experimental proof that the electron is a magnetic dipole? For over five years nothing happens except a lot of weird stuff like quantum computers based on electron spin…
This post is five pictures long, for me it was cute to see how those three cosine functions slowly rise from the start of the long calculation. Also of importance is to notice that I had to use the simple formula for cos(a + b) = cos(a)cos(b) – sin(a)sin(b) that comes from the exponential circle in the complex plane. Just once more showing that 3D complex & circular numbers are indeed emerging from the 2D complex plane. Not that the math professional will react, but anyway…
Let’s go to the five pictures:
Again, this is not a ´very important´ post. Given all those results and proofs from the past it is logical such a long calculation has to exist. It´s relevance lies in the fact you simply cannot have enough proofs for the calculation of parametrizations of the 3D exponential circle.
Let me leave it with that. See you in the next post.
This time a somewhat different post, just 3 video’s I thought are interesting to share for their own reasons. In the first video the American television physics professor Brian Greene goes beserk on the beauty of the exponential circle in the complex plane… Brian, like so many others, do not know what they are missing. So many spaces have exponential circles and curves and indeed they are beautiful.
The second video is about a question that is often asked: Is math invented or is it a discovery? I think this is a false way of looking at math, if you replace the word ‘math’ by ‘food’ you already understand this is a weird question: Is food invented or is it discovered? In my view that often goes hand in hand but opinions vary wildly on this subject. The video is an interview with the UK math professor Roger Penrose. I included this video because back in the 80-ties of the previous century Roger had written some books on the things known as spinors. A lot of so called scientists think that spinors have something to do with electron spin, there are even weirdo’s that think after the electron has encircled the nucleus once it’s spin state is altered so that after two rounds the electron has it’s original spin back… Oh oh for people like Roger and those others it will be a long way in understanding the electron cannot be a magnetic dipole. In all ways possible that is not logical. For example the unpaired electron is not magnetically neutral while the electron pair is. And there are a whole lot more examples to be given showing electrons simply can’t be magnetic dipoles. And you only have to use the thing called logic for that; no weird quantum mechanical stuff but just a magnetic charge on the electron gives much better results if you use the thing called logic.
The third video is about a weird line of reasoning that I have observed in many video’s. It is about explaining how those jets form that emerge from black holes and their accredion disks. The reasoning is that the plasma in the accretion disk goes around the black hole and if a charge goes round it produces a magnetic field & that is all explanation given always. That is nonsense of course, even spinning metals like when you are drilling a hole with your drill machine never produces a magnetic field because for every electron that goes round on average also a proton goes round and all in all there is no overall magnetic field created. But if the electrons are magnetic monopoles, they will have much more acceleration compared to the far more heavy protons and as such an accretion disk around a black hole should be positively charged all of the time and that explains why the magnetic fields are so strong over there.
Ok, I crafted 8 pictures from the stuff. For example I made a 4D generalization of the 3D outer product while explaining such math is an invention and not a discovery. After the 8 pictures I will post the three video’s that aroused my attention for one reason or another. Have fun reading it.
All in all it was a nice day today. Brewing is completed and tomorrow the wort can go into the fermentation bottles and the wonderful process of fermenting can take place. For those of you that also like to brew: A couple of months back I found a cute video explaining that you can also brew beer without cooking it. And I was like seeing water burning or I was like a professional math professor understanding 3D complex numbers for the very first time in their life… Anyway if you are interested search for ‘Raw ale no boil brewing’ on Youtube. It is of interest because if you brew without boiling, only after that you understand what you usually cook away in things that might taste good (or bad).
But let’s go to this post: It is about probability amplitudes as they are used in quantum physics where all those kind of amplitudes are multiplied against their conjugate and that gives a real positive number known as the probability. If you write it in polar coordinates on the complex plane, it is easy to see that those probability amplitudes can have all kinds of phases (the argument of the complex plane number). So for that to work on 3D complex or circular numbers, it would be great if you can write it more or less like the polar coordinates as in the complex plane. And that is easy to do in 3D space: Once you have found and also understand the exponential circles, it is evident that all numbers on those exponential cones are some real multiple of a number from the exponential circle.
As such the numbers found on the exponential cone can be written just like the polar stuff from the complex plane, also now the r as used in polar coordinates can also be negative. That is a strange result because for millions of years we were always indoctrinated by a positive r … 😉
Another important difference with the complex plane lies in the fact that the complex plane is closed under addition. That is obvious, but it is also obvious that on a cone it is very different. Most of the time if you add up two numbers you are either inside or outside the cone. But probability amplitudes are always multiplied against their conjugate and added up only later, so we can still use the exponential cone for things like that. I don’t see that ship stranding, so let’s do it.
I also want to remark I am using the so called ‘pull back map’ once more. The professional professors also have a pull back map but that is a very different thing compared to what I use. So don’t be confused by that: the way I use it is to fix higher dimensional exponential circles (and curves) on the exponential circle in the complex plane. (This for fine tuning the period in time and stuff like that, or for understanding why the numbers are what they are: WTF that square root of 3 in it???
This post is 7 pictures long, most are the usual size of 550×775 pixels. At last I want to remark that for myself speaking I do not know if there is any benefit in trying this kind of use of 3D complex and circular numbers. It is funny to think about positive and negative values for r like for example in electron spin or a wave function for the electron pair. But I just do not know if this add any value or that you can use the complex plane only and miss nothing of all you could have learned.
Ok, here we go:
Ok, that was it for this post. Till updates my dear reader.
First a household message: In about two weeks time this website should go to new very fast servers. In order for that to work properly I have to do all kinds of things that I have never done before. Stuff like updating PHP. Ok, that does not sound too difficult but as always the work explodes because first I have to backup everything. And before I can backup everyting I need a new ftp account. The only luck is I still have a running ftp client on my own computer…
In case this website is gone in two weeks, somewhere I got lost in the woods. And there is no hurry: this math website is just a hobby of me. An important hobby because it is a bit of exercise for the brain… End of the household message.
What is the yeast of this post? Historically the de Moivre identity (or theorem) predates the very first exponential circle on the complex plane. If you use the exponential circle, a proof of the de Moivre identity becomes very very easy. In this short post we will use the 3D exponential circle for circular numbers. Two posts back I showed you a possible parametrization via those 3 cosine expressions, in this post we use those parametrizations to formulate a 3D de Moivre identiy. Because we already have an exponential circle, we do not need to give a rigid math proof for this identity. Once you have and exponential cricle, stuff like that comes for free along with it…
As usual I skipped a lot of things while writing this post. For example I skipped using those modified Dirichlet kernels. I skipped giving the 4D de moivre identity for the 4D complex numbers. All in all I was satisfied to cram this all in a very short post; only three pictures long! In case you are still reading this while having no clue whatsoever what a de Moivre identiy is, here is some stuff from brilliant.org: De Moivre’s theorem Http stuff in the link: https://brilliant.org/wiki/de-moivres-theorem/
Ok, only three pictures long. Here we go:
That was it for this post. If I don’t change plans, in the next post we will look at the 3D exponential cone because on that cone you can do all those quantum probability calculations just like in the 2D complex plane. But before that I have to go though that horrible PHP update…
So see you in the next post or let’s split indefinitely and end this stupid website for no reason at all… 😉
It is about high time I post the solution in parametrization form of those five equations from 03 Oct 2019. That is almost 2 months back and oh how ashamed am I for my laziness… But for me math is a hobby, an important hobby but a hobby anyway. So other hobby’s are allowed to interfere with my little math hobby.
This post is 10 pictures long and at the end there is a horrible bad video from the Youtube channel Seeker. Begin this week I crossed that video with an intriguing title; Could These Numbers Unravel New Dimensions in Space? I was just curious but it is that Cohl Furey stuff again. It is an attempt to explain particle physics via complex number, quaternions and octonions… What do they have in common? These number systems are always fields that means all non-zero numbers have an inverse. Why the professional math professors find that so important is unknown to me, it is more like they have nothing else in the toolbox. If you are interested you can find the Cohl Furey video’s on Youtube.
In this post I too write about things that are common in the complex plane, complex and circular 3D numbers and 4D complex numbers. You can use the modified Dirichlet kernels as the building blocks for all possible exponential circles or in the case with 4D complex numbers: the exponential curve (in 4D space the curve is in a 3D hyper plane).
But I also wanted to show you the original cosine solution that I found years ago. To this day it is still amazing that the cosine can pull it off; that the cosine can be a building block for a 3D exponential circle. Next year it will be three decades ago when I found the 3D complex numbers and got interested in them. At present day you can wonder why there is never a healthy response from the math communuty. It is all very logical: if there is no healthy response that means the math community in itself cannot be healthy. It is just a community of perfumed princes and that’s it.
After so much blah blah it is high time to go to the ten pictures:
So from the complex plane in two dimensions to 4D complex space; a binding element is how you can use the modified Dirichlet kernels and their time lags to construct these very interesting parametrizations. Of course there is much more that binds those spaces together; the matrix representations are all very similar, just like the eigen values and eigen vectors. But above 2D it is never a field. And again why the professional math professors have this weird fixation on fields is completely unknown to me. At last, here is that wonderful video that will make your toes curl
After a lot of rainy days it was perfect weather today for the time of the year. It has been 3 weeks already since the last post and it is not that I have been doing nothing but the next post still isn’t finished. I told you that we would be looking at a parametrization that solves all 5 equations from the last post. So let me give you the parametrization in the teaser picture below. I also included the parametrization based on the modified Dirichlet kernels, by all standards the discovery of those modified kernels was one of the biggest discoveries in my study of higher dimensional number systems. To be precise: I found the first modified Dirichlet kernel years ago when I studied the 5D complex space.
In the last post I may have sounded a bit emotional but that is not the case. I am more or less one 100% through with the behavior of the so called math professors. They are incompetent to the bone and although that is not an emotional thing, it is that coward behavior that I do not like in those people. No, if it is highly overpaid, utterly incompetent and on top of that day in day out a coward, better show them the middle finger.
After having said that (I wasn’t expecting an invitation anyway) let’s look at the teaser picture because it is amazing stuff. I remember when I wrote down the parametrization for the very first time. At the time I did not know if the cosine thing would work because say for yourself: if you have a periodic function and you make two time lags of it, how likely is it they will form a flat circle in 3D space? But the cosine together with the two time lags does the trick because it is not hard to prove the parametrization lies in the plane with x + y + z = 1.
Ok, here is the cute parametrization for the 3D exponential circle:
I think next week everything is ready so likely I can finally upload the next post. So thanks for your attention and till updates.
It is about time for a new post on 3D numbers, circular and complex. In this post I write the sphere-cone equation in a matrix notation so see the previous post on conjugates if you feel confused. The sphere-cone equation gives us two equations, as the name suggests these are a sphere and a cone and on the intersection we find the famous exponential circle.
Beside the sphere-cone equation I also demand that the determinant equals 1, now we have three equations and every intersection of those 3 equations has as it’s solution the exponential circle. Can it become more crazy? Yes because it is possible to factorize the third degree determinant into a linear and a quadratic factor. Those factors must also be 1 and now we have five equations! And since you can pick 10 pairs out of five, we now have 10 ways of solving for the intersection where the exponential circle lives…
It is strange that after all these years it is still easy to find 10 video’s where so called ‘professional math professors’ sing their praise upon the exponential circle in the complex plane. They really go beserk over the fact that e to the power it gives the cosine and sine thing. And after all those years still silent, yeah yeah those hero’s really deserve the title of honorable shithole… It is honorable because they often have relatively large salaries and they are shitholes because of their brave behavior when it comes to 3D complex numbers. Bah, I am getting a bad taste in my mouth when I think about the behavior of professional math professors. Let me stop writing about that low form of life.
This post is 8 pictures long. May be, I have not decided yet, is the next post about parametrizations of the exponential circle. In these 8 pictures I work out the case for the circular multiplication, that is the case where the imaginary unit j behaves like j^3 = 1. At the end I only give the 3D complex version of the matrix form of the sphere-cone equation and the rest you are supposed to do yourself.
Ok, again do not confuse this with quadratic forms. A matrix equation as written above has a real and two imaginary components while quadratic forms are often just real valued.
Let´s try to upload this stuff. See you in the next post.
This is a lazy easy going summer post, it does not have much mathematical depth. Let’s say the depth of a bird bath. But with most posts I write you also need a lot of knowledge about what was in previous posts and for the average person coming along that is often too time consuming… So we keep it simple today; quadratic forms on 3D space.
If you have had one or two courses of linear algebra you likely have encountered quadratic forms. They are often denoted as Q(X) where the X is a column matrix and the quadratic form is defined as Q(X) = XT A X. Here XT is the transponent of X so that would be a matrix row. As you might guess, the X column matrix contains the variables while the constant square matrix A is the source of coefficients in the quadratic form Q(X). In most literature it is told the matrix A is symmetric, of course there is no reason at all for that; any square matrix will do. On the other hand it is easy to see or to show that if a square matrix is anti-symmetric the corresponding quadratic form will always be zero everywhere.
In this post we will take matrices that are always the matrix representation of 3D complex & circular numbers. Matrix representations are a complete category on this website so if you don’t know them you must look that up first. (Oh oh, here I go again: this was supposed to be easy but now the average reader must first try to understand matrix representations of higher dimensional multiplications…)
Compared to the previous update on the likely failure of all fusion reactors this post is far less dramatic. If in the future I am right and we will never have fusion power, that will be the difference between life and death of hundreds of millions of people in the long run… So in order to be a bit less depressing let’s lift the spirits by a lightweight new post on quadratic forms! Why not enjoy life as long as it lasts?
Ok, the actual post is seven pictures long, all in the usual size of 550×775 pixels.
I have to admit that for me the use of the number alpha was important because that is at the center of the exponential circles in the 3D complex and circular spaces. So I have a legitimate reason to post this also under the category ´exponential circle´. And from the non-bird bath deep math, that is the big math ocean that is very deep, I like to classify as much posts under that category ´exponential circles´.
Ok, let´s leave it with that and try to upload this post. Till updates my dear reader.
I just finished brewing the 100-th batch of a beer under the names Dark Matter and Spin 1/2 beer. All in all that is an amazing amount of beer; in the past I brewed 35 liter per batch but now it is 40 liter per batch so all in all an amount of something between 3500 and 4000 liters… So ein prosit my dear reader.
The ‘new’ roots of unity aren’t that new, this post is a re-editing of something I posted on 05 Jan 2014 on the other website. Later that year I started this website. Actually these roots of unity are just over five years old. In mathematical terms that is still very young so in that sense they are still new.
Recall the roots of unity in the complex plane are solutions to z^n = 1 and as such these roots are found on the exponential circle (the complex exponential) in the complex plane. As you have found the exponential circle or exponential curve in some space, from that you can always make new roots of unity. That is hardly a mathematical achievement because it is so simple to do once you have found your exponential circle or curve. But in the diverse spaces these new roots of unity behave very different, for example in this post we will add them all up but unlike in the complex plane they do not add up to zero. That is caused by the fact that in the complex 3D space the number alpha is at the center of the exponential circle, as such if we add n roots of unity in 3D space the result is n times alpha. Last year we studied the space of 4D complex numbers and if you would craft new roots of unity in that space it will behave much more like those in the complex plane because in the 4D complex numbers we have 0 as the center of the exponential curve. (For dimensions above 3 the exponential curve always lies in a hyperplane so it can never be a circle.) It always amazes me that you have all those physics people who study string theory but as far as I know never use exponential curves…
Life is beautiful, because how can you do string theory without math like that? But in physics almost everything is beautiful, for example if they explain the outcome of the Stern-Gerlach experiment always 50% of unpaired electrons align with the applied magnetic field and the other 50% for some mysterious reason do the anti-align thing. And if one hour later the same physics professor explains how a permanent magnet can attract some piece of iron, all of a sudden 100% of the unpaired electrons align and all that talk of 50/50 suddenly is not observed… Life inside the science of physics is wonderful; all you have to do is a bit of blah blah blah and if people complain this is not logical at all you simply say: Quantum physics is such that if you think you understand it, you don’t understand it… How wonderful is the life of physics professors; talk some blah blah blah and if people complain you blame them for ‘not understanding quantum things’. For sure that is a beautiful form of life.
But enough of the talking, somewhere in the next seven pictures I did forget to insert a graph of the determinant. Yet I showed you the structure of the non-invertible numbers so often, I think I post it with that fault included. After all why should life be perfect? If life would be perfect you would have no way of improvement and likely that is the moment you die: no more possibility of improvement. As usual the pictures are 550×775 pixels but I had to make the first one a tiny bit longer. Good luck with digesting it & have a bit of fun in the process.
For myself speaking it was fun to read my own two proof for the rain theorem again after five years. Please do not forget that new roots of unity on other spaces can be very different in behavior, after all they are always part of the exponential circle or curve in that space so they will derive their math properties from that. Till updates.