#mandalic numbers
Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - V
(continued from here)
The four Cartesian quadrants provide the two-dimensional analogue of the number line and its graphic representation in Cartesian coordinate space. This is the true native habitat of the square and, by implication, of square root. Because Enlightenment mathematicians found fit to define square root in a different context inadvertently -that of the number line- we will find it necessary to devise a different name for what ought rightly to have been called square root, but wasn’t. I propose that we retain the existent definition of tradition and refer to the new relationship between opposite numbers in the square, that is to say, opposite vertices through two dimensions or antipodal numbers, as contra-square root.[1]
Modified from image found here.
Given this fresh context - one of greater dimension than the number line - it soon becomes clear with little effort that a unit number[2]ofany dimension multiplied by itself gives as result the identity element of that express dimension. For the native two-dimensional context of the square the identity element is OLD YANG, the bigram composed of two stacked yang (+) Lines, which corresponds to yang (+1), the identity element in the one-dimensional context of the number line. In a three-dimensional context, the identity element is the trigram HEAVEN which is composed of three stacked yang (+) Lines. The crucial idea here is that the identity element differs for each dimensional context, and whatever that context might be, it produces no change when in the operation of multiplication it acts as operator on any operand within the stated dimension.[3]
As a corollary it can be stated that any number in any dimension n composed of any combination of yang Lines (+1) and yin Lines (-1) if multiplied by itself (i.e., squared) produces the identity element for that dimension. In concrete terms this means, for example, that any bigram multiplied by itself equals the bigram OLD YANG; any of eight trigrams multiplied by itself equals the trigram HEAVEN; and any of the sixty-four hexagrams multiplied by itself equals the hexagram HEAVEN; etc. (valid for any and all dimensions without exception). Consequently, the number of roots the identity element has in any dimension n is equal to the number 2n, these all being real roots in that particular dimension.
Similar contextual analysis would show that the inversion element of any dimension n has 2n roots of the kind we have agreed to refer to as contra-square roots in deference to the Mathematics Establishment.[4]
That leads us to the possibly startling conclusion that in every dimension n there is an inversion element that has the same number of roots as the identity elementandall of them are real roots. For two dimensions the two pairs that satisfy the requirement are bigram pairs
For one dimension there is only a single pair that satisfies. That is (surprise, surprise) yin(-1)/yang (+1). What it comes down to is
this:
If we are going to continue to insist on referring to square root
in terms of the one-dimensional number line, then
- +1 has two real roots of the traditional variety, +1 and -1
- -1 has two real roots of the newly defined contra variety,
+1/-1 and -1/+1
So where do imaginary numbers and quaternions fit in all this? The short answer is they don’t. Imaginary numbers entered the annals of human thought through error. There was a pivotal moment[5] in the history of mathematics and science, an opportunity to see that there are in every dimension two different kinds of roots - - - what has been called square root and what we are calling contra-square roots. Enlightenment mathematicians and philosophers essentially allowed the opportunity to slip through their fingers unnoticed.[6]
Descartes at least saw through the veil. He called the whole matter of imaginary numbers ‘preposterous’. It seems his venerable opinion was overruled though. Isaac Newton had his say in the matter too. He claimed that roots of imaginary numbers “had to occur in pairs.” And yet another great mathematician, philosopher opined. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, in 1702 characterized √−1 as “that amphibian between being and non-being which we call the imaginary root of negative unity.” Had he but preserved such augury conspicuously in mind he might have elaborated the concept of probable numbers in the 18th century. If only he had truly understood the I Ching, instead of dismissing it as a primitive articulation of his own binary number system.
(continuedhere)
Image: The four quadrants of the Cartesian plane. By convention the quadrants are numbered in a counterclockwise direction. It is as though two number lines were placed together, one going left-right, and the other going up-down to provide context for the two-dimensional plane. Sourced from Math Is Fun.
Notes
[1] My preference might be for square root to be redefined from the bottom up, but I don’t see that happening in our lifetimes. Then too this way could be better.
[2] By the term unit number, I intend any number of a given dimension that consists entirely of variant elements of the number one (1) in either its positive or negative manifestation. Stated differently, these are vectors having various different directions within the dimension, but all of scalar value -1 (yin) or +1 (yang). All emblems of I Ching symbolic logic satisfy this requirement. These include the Line, bigram, trigram, tetragram, and hexagram. In any dimension n there exist 2n such emblems. In sum, for our purposes here, a unit number is any of the set of numbers, within any dimension n, which when self-multiplied (squared) produces the multiplicative identity of that dimension which is itself, of course, a member of the set.
ADDENDUM (01 MAY 2016): I’ve since learned that mathematics has a much simpler way of describing this. It calls all these unit vectors. Simple, yes?
[3] I think it fair to presume that this might well have physical correlates in terms of quantum mechanical states or numbers. Here’s a thought: why would it be necessary that all subatomic particles exist in the same dimension at all times given that they have a playing field of multiple dimensions, - some of them near certainly beyond the three with which we are familiar? And why would it not be possible for two different particles to be stable and unchanging in their different dimensions, yet become reactive and interact with one another when both enter the same dimension or same amplitude of dimension?
[4] Since in any contra-pair (antipodal opposites) of any dimension, either member of the pair must be regarded once as operator and once as operand. So for the two-dimensional square, for example, there are two antipodal pairs (diagonals) and either vertex of each can be either operator or operand. So in this case, 2 x 2 = 4. For trigrams there are four antipodal pairs, and 2 x 4 = 8. For hexagrams there are thirty-two antipodal pairs and 2 x 32 = 64. In general, for any dimension n there are 2 x 2n/2 = 2n antipodal pairs or contra-roots.
[5] Actually lasting several centuries, from about the 16th to the 19th century. Long enough, assuredly, for the error to have been discovered and corrected. Instead, the 20th century dawned with error still in place, and physicists eager to explain the newly discovered bewildering quantum phenomena compounded the error by latching onto √−1 and quaternions to assuage their confusion and discomfiture. This probably took place in the early days of quantum mechanics when the Bohr model of the atom still featured electrons as traveling in circular orbits around the nucleus or soon thereafter, visions of minuscule solar systems still fresh in the mind. At that time rotations detailed by imaginary numbers and quaternions may have still made some sense. Such are the vagaries of history.
[6] I think an important point to consider is that imaginary and complex numbers were, -to mathematicians and physicists alike,- new toys of a sort that enabled them to accomplish certain things they could not otherwise. They were basically tools of empowerment which allowed manipulation of numbers and points on a graph more easily or conveniently. They provided
their controllers a longed for power over symbols, if not over the real world itself. In the modern world ever more of what we humans do and want to do involves manipulation of symbols. Herein, I think, lies the rationale for our continued fascination with and dependence on these tools of the trade. They don’t need to actually apply to the world of nature, the noumenal world, so long as they satisfy human desire for domination over the world of symbols it has created for itself and in which it increasingly dwells, to a considerable degree apart from the natural world’s sometimes seemingly too harsh laws.
© 2016 Martin Hauser
Please note: The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)
Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent). This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added. To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering. To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)
-Page 310-
Beyond the Enlightenment Rationalists:
From imaginary to probable numbers - IV
(continued from here)
One of the notable things the Rationalists failed to take into account in their analysis and codification of square roots was the significance of context. In so doing they assured that all related concepts they developed would eventually degenerate into a series of errors of conflation. Do not ever underestimate the importance of context.
Mathematicians, for example, can show that for any 3-dimensional cube there exists a 2-dimensional square, the area of which equals the volume of the cube.[1] And although that is true, something has been lost in translation. This is another of the sleights of hand mathematicians are so fond of. Physicists cannot afford to participate in such parlor tricks as these, however mathematically true they might be.[2]
We will begin now, then, to examine how the mandalic coordinate approach stacks up against that of imaginary numbers and quaternions. The former are holistic and respective of the natural order; the latter are irresponsibly rational, simplistic and, in final analysis, wrong about how nature works.[3] Ambitious endeavor indeed, but let’s give it a go.
We’ve already looked at how the standard geometric interpretation of imaginary numbers in context of the complex plane is based on rotations through continuous Euclidean space. You can brush up on that aspect of the story here if necessary. The mandalic approach to mapping of space is more complicated and far more interesting. It involves multidimensional placement of elements in a discrete space, which is to say a discontinuous space, but one fully commensurate with both Euclidean and Cartesian 3-dimensional space. The holo-interactive manner in which these elements relate to one another leads to a probabilistic mathematical design which preserves commutative multiplication, unlike quaternions which forsake it.
Transformations between these elements are based on inversion (reflection through a point) rather than rotation which cannot in any case reasonably apply to discrete spaces. The spaces that quantum mechanics inhabits are decidedly discrete. They cannot be accurately detailed using imaginary and complex numbers or quaternions. To discern the various, myriad transitions which can occur among mandalic coordinates requires some patience. I think it cannot be accomplished overnight but at least in the post next up we can make a start.[4]
(continuedhere)
Image: A drawing of the first four dimensions. On the left is zero dimensions (a point) and on the right is four dimensions (A tesseract). There is an axis and labels on the right and which level of dimensions it is on the bottom. The arrows alongside the shapes indicate the direction of extrusion. By NerdBoy1392 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0orGFDL],via Wikimedia Commons
Notes
[1] If only in terms of scalar magnitude. Lost in translation are all the details relating to vectors and dimensions in the original. Conflation does not itself in every case involve what might be termed ‘error’ but because it always involves loss or distortion of information, it is nearly always guaranteed to eventuate in error somewhere down the line of argument. The point of all this in our context here is that, in the history of mathematics, something of this sort occurred when the Rationalists of the Enlightenment invented imaginary and complex numbers and again when quaternions were invented in 1843. These involved a disruption of vectors and dimensions as treated by nature. The loss of information involved goes a long way in explaining why no one has been able to explain whyandhow quantum mechanics works in a century or more. These misconstrued theses of mathematics behave like a demon or ghost in the machine that misdirects, albeit unintentionally, all related thought processes. What we end up with is a plethora of confusion. The fault is not in quantum mechanics but in ourselves, that we are such unrelentingly rational creatures, that so persistently pursue an unsound path that leads to reiterative error.
[2] Because physicists actually care about the real world; mathematicians, not so much.
[3] It must be admitted though that it was not the mathematicians who ever claimed imaginary numbers had anything to do with nature and the real world. Why would they? Reality is not their concern or interest. No, it was physicists themselves who made the mistake. The lesson to be learned by physicists here I expect is to be careful whose petticoat they latch onto. Not all are fabricated substantially enough to sustain their thoughts about reality, though deceptively appearing to do just that for protracted periods of time.
[4] My apologies for not continuing with this here as originally intended. To do so would make this post too long and complicated. Not that transformations among mandalic coordinates are difficult to understand, just that they are very convoluted. This is not a one-point-encodes-one-resident-number plan like that of Descartes we’re talking about here. This is mandala country.
© 2016 Martin Hauser
Please note: The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)
Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent). This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added. To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering. To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where
n = x + 1 - p. :)
-Page 309-
