Constructing Time from an Axiom

[Willem]

I can construct time from a single axiom. See file: Dropbox/Constructing Time.XML at Dropbox.com.

 

[Willem]

The correct address is: https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Time+Constructed.docx

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Uh, dude.

I'd think it more appropriate if you gave a bit more info than this:

I can construct time from a single axiom.

I did click the link, however, signing in I thought would be too much effort for what it's worth.

 

[Willem]

Here goes:

A_1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

Index...Statement...………………………………………………………………………………………………Reason
0...…….Import all mathematical operations..................................................................….Plato's Forms
1...…….Construct S = C x C.............................................................................................…..A_1, 0
1.1........S is 4 dimensional................................................................................................….1
2...…….S can transform in order to capture numbers......................................................…A_1, 1, 0
3...…….Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS....................................……….A_1, 0
4...…….Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_4 and call it P_T...................................................A_1, 0
5......….Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) at regular intervals. Call this dynamic "Sub-time" = T_S. A_1, 4
7...…...Define "Duration of Sub-time" by: T_Sf - T_Si.........................................................4
8.........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_. 3,4........................................................................1
11...…..Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this durations of sub-times...…5, 7
12...….Define "time interval" = Delta t = (1/N) \sum\limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)…….1-11

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Complex numbers exists.

First off, did I read that correctly?

As in say, imaginary numbers are real.

 

[Willem]

First off, did I read that correctly?

That is correct.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

That is correct.

And by Plato's Forms, you're asserting, for lack of better words, imaginary numbers are actually the real numbers and vice versa?

 

[Willem]

No, imaginary numbers are R x iR. Where R = real numbers.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

No, imaginary numbers are R x iR. Where R = real numbers.

Well, what do you mean by invoking Plato's Forms?

 

[Willem]

Assume Plato's Forms exists (not just in minds but also on paper and internet).

 

[Willem]

No, the reason is that Plato's Forms exist in minds, on paper and on the internet. Therefore mathematical operators are usable.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Uh, think I read somewhere that Descartes thought that mind and matter should be considered separately so that the mathematical laws that govern the behavior of could be studied.

So, if imaginary numbers have a basis in reality can you give a simple example?

 

[Willem]

The current in a capacitor is described by a function of complex numbers.

 

[Willem]

Uh, think I read somewhere that Descartes thought that mind and matter should be considered separately

Materialism has been disproved.

 

[NotEinstein]

Here goes:

A_1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

Index...Statement...………………………………………………………………………………………………Reason
0...…….Import all mathematical operations..................................................................….Plato's Forms
1...…….Construct S = C x C.............................................................................................…..A_1, 0
1.1........S is 4 dimensional................................................................................................….1

This is false: S is two dimensional. You literally spelled it out in (1): S = C x C

2...…….S can transform in order to capture numbers......................................................…A_1, 1, 0

Transform how? And what does "capture numbers" mean?

3...…….Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS....................................……….A_1, 0
4...…….Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_4 and call it P_T...................................................A_1, 0

What is the Riemann Circle of S_4?

5......….Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) at regular intervals. Call this dynamic "Sub-time" = T_S. A_1, 4

You can't use the word "dynamic" here; you are currently describing a static model. There's nothing dynamic about it.

7...…...Define "Duration of Sub-time" by: T_Sf - T_Si.........................................................4
8.........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_. 3,4........................................................................1
11...…..Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this durations of sub-times...…5, 7
12...….Define "time interval" = Delta t = (1/N) \sum\limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)…….1-11

Right, you've now defined something called a "time interval". Now please prove that the name fits, i.e. that what you've got there really is time, and not (for example) a mislabeled spatial dimension.

Also note that you started out with S = C x C, so if there's one time dimension (number 4), there are two (number 2) due to symmetry. So what you are describing doesn't seem to match reality.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The current in a capacitor is described by a function of complex numbers.

But you don't need complex numbers to do so, do you?

It's just easier to describe than with real numbers alone.

 

[Willem]

Easier is a big help. It is more elegant.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Easier is a big help. It is more elegant.

Can you describe time as an axiom, or whatever, with use of only real numbers?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Materialism has been disproved.

Slow down, I still have no idea what you're thinking with Plato's Forms.

 

[DaveC426913]

But you don't need complex numbers to do so, do you?

It's just easier to describe than with real numbers alone.

You are quite correct.

Equations that involve complex numbers can be described without them, complex numbers can be used as a shortcut.

Or as Willem puts it: more elegant.