why is there +sqr(2) and -sqr(2) ?

[Sergio]

if
[+sqr(2)] * [+sqr(2)] = 2 = [-sqr(2)] * [-sqr(2)]


does +sqr(2) = -sqr(2) (?)

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

One is a subtraction.
The other is not.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Please shut up, you are not helping telling falsehoods

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Nope, for non-injective functions f(x)=f(y) does not imply that x=y

[FromTheRafters]

Sergio formulated the question :

> if
> [+sqr(2)] * [+sqr(2)] = 2 = [-sqr(2)] * [-sqr(2)]
>
>
> does +sqr(2) = -sqr(2) (?)

If one times one equals one and negative one times negative one also
equals one, does that mean one equals negative one?

[Vittorio Santiago-Rodriguez]

Sergio wrote:


> if [+sqr(2)] * [+sqr(2)] = 2 = [-sqr(2)] * [-sqr(2)]
> does +sqr(2) = -sqr(2) (?)

so true. BREAKING - Doctors sue CDC for Pandemic Fraud and capitalism
https://www.bitchute.com/video/H8P4Yl15KucI/

*_CDC_* is a capitalist commercial business driven company. Owns many
patents on both viruses and vaccines. Centrally Controlling Diseases.

A “Pandemic” So Novel It Can Be Cured — with YOGURT!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qLveffQscVmK/

Dr. Fauci Compares Covid-19 To Seasonal Flu
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qkzgMLGnFZ4q/

WHO Accidentally Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Qo8xmO85jtgH/

THE 1918 SPANISH FLU DID NOT KILL 50,000,000 PEOPLE! VACCINES THE GOVT
FORCED THEM TO TAKE DID!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Runz3OSnERXe/

National Guardsman At NY Testing Center Says Media Has Overblown COVID19
Pandemic "It's the Flu!"
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rqDGJLbsWWA/

Deja Vu- The Swine Flu Vaccination Fraud of 1976
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KckFn6QczJGA/

WHO Changes COVID Tune, Now Says Sweden Had It Right & CDC "Suspends" Flu
Reporting https://www.bitchute.com/video/KlKz_HyAiE4/

"Dangers of the Swine Flu Vaccine” CBS 60 Minutes 1979
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hMUeZ4vz6cU/

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny Warns Doctors - 'God Will Judge You For Your
Ignorance.'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gkSJZPOwt6hl/

Michael Yeadon Interview - Former Pfizer VP Speaks Out On Dangers Of mRNA
Vaccines & COVID Illusion

Vaccine bans, Red Cross Don’t Want Vaccinated Blood + More!

World Shocked By SPARS 2025-2028 Document

UK nurses blow whistle on crimes committed in the name of covid

[Vittorio Santiago-Rodriguez]

Sergio wrote:

> if [+sqr(2)] * [+sqr(2)] = 2 = [-sqr(2)] * [-sqr(2)]
> does +sqr(2) = -sqr(2) (?)

Yes, sure, plainly the capitalist 20 to 1 profit CDC terrorist
organization, which owns patents on viruses and vaccines, "controlling"
the diseases.

BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE FLU - 'Dr'. Birx - MORE PROOF Covid is FLU
https://www.brighteon.com/b0953b38-0183-48f9-9de5-75fb722ab264

They are retarding and killing children now, with their lethal
injections. Wake up ffs.

Small Child Vaccinated - Maddie and the horrors she has endured after
inoculation
https://www.brighteon.com/b8b7fc33-0e8b-4e5b-ac47-39758f900677

[Quantum Bubbles]

Your comments display a lack of even basic scientific literacy and are not of any intellectual interest. I am a very left wing socialist (by British standards), so this isn't some pro-corporate comment; covid-19 is not influenza, we know this for many reasons but a sufficient one is that the genetic code of both has been analyzed and compared.

The contention of some vague conspiracy against the general public on behalf of big pharma is silly. The staggeringly large number of doctors, researchers and nurses who work for or in the NHS in the UK have all been simultaneously bribed have they?

Switch to de-cafe and have a great day.

Kind Regards

[Vittorio Santiago-Rodriguez]

stupider than a bag of rocks, _Quantum_Wanker_Bubbles_, wrote:

> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 12:34:26 PM UTC+1, Vittorio
> Santiago-Rodriguez wrote:
>> Sergio wrote:
>>
>> > if [+sqr(2)] * [+sqr(2)] = 2 = [-sqr(2)] * [-sqr(2)]
>> > does +sqr(2) = -sqr(2) (?)
>> Yes, sure, plainly the capitalist 20 to 1 profit CDC terrorist
>> organization, which owns patents on viruses and vaccines, "controlling"
>> the diseases.
>>
>> BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE FLU - 'Dr'. Birx - MORE PROOF Covid is
>> FLU https://www.brighteon.com/b0953b38-0183-48f9-9de5-75fb722ab264
>>
>> They are retarding and killing children now, with their lethal
>> injections. Wake up ffs.
>>
>> Small Child Vaccinated - Maddie and the horrors she has endured after
>> inoculation
>> https://www.brighteon.com/b8b7fc33-0e8b-4e5b-ac47-39758f900677
>
> Your comments display a lack of even basic scientific literacy and are
> not of any intellectual interest. I am a very left wing socialist (by
> British

Cretin, those are NOT comments, but references. Go there and read it, you
uneducated piece of shit.

[FromTheRafters]

Your comments and your references are crap from a known crap producer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brighteon

[Quantum Bubbles]

I thank Vittorio Santiago-Rodriguez for kindly taking the time to respond to my comment

I have training in medical statistics, worked on and off for the University of London in various positions. What would Mr Rodriguez know that I don't about how either research is done or how the NHS operates, or how researchers are educated? Does Mr Rodriguez even have the training to read statistical research papers in scientific journals? Or is their only source a rather silly looking site even by the standards of such 'non-mainstream' parts of the internet sewers.

There is a website called rationalwiki, which whilst not comprehensive nor perfect by any means, often does a good job of giving overviews of various kinds of science denialism and why they are mistaken.

Kind Regards

[Steffler Oharra]

Quantum Bubbles wrote:

> On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 1:47:24 PM UTC+1, Vittorio
> Santiago-Rodriguez wrote:
>> stupider than a bag of rocks, _Quantum_Wanker_Bubbles_, wrote:
>> >> BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE FLU - 'Dr'. Birx - MORE PROOF Covid is
>> >> FLU https://www.brighteon.com/b0953b38-0183-48f9-9de5-75fb722ab264
>> >>
>> >> They are retarding and killing children now, with their lethal
>> >> injections. Wake up ffs.
>> >>
>> >> Small Child Vaccinated - Maddie and the horrors she has endured
>> >> after inoculation
>> >> https://www.brighteon.com/b8b7fc33-0e8b-4e5b-ac47-39758f900677
>> >
>> > Your comments display a lack of even basic scientific literacy and
>> > are not of any intellectual interest. I am a very left wing socialist
>> > (by British
>> Cretin, those are NOT comments, but references. Go there and read it,
>> you uneducated piece of shit.
>
> I thank Vittorio Santiago-Rodriguez for kindly taking the time to
> respond to my comment
>
> I have training in medical statistics, worked on and off for the
> University of London in various positions. What would Mr Rodriguez know

Wow, they are giving you a particle analyser regarding those lethal
injections?? Idiot! Those "non mainstream" references are linking to the
real references. You just proved the imbecile you are. Nuremberg 2 is
about to happen, expect no mercy. No excuses for being stupid.

[Steffler Oharra]

FromTheRafters wrote:

>>>> BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE FLU - 'Dr'. Birx - MORE PROOF Covid is
>>>> FLU https://www.brighteon.com/b0953b38-0183-48f9-9de5-75fb722ab264
>>>>
>>>> They are retarding and killing children now, with their lethal
>>>> injections. Wake up ffs.
>>>>
>>>> Small Child Vaccinated - Maddie and the horrors she has endured after
>>>> inoculation
>>>> https://www.brighteon.com/b8b7fc33-0e8b-4e5b-ac47-39758f900677
>>>
>>> Your comments display a lack of even basic scientific literacy and are
>>> not of any intellectual interest. I am a very left wing socialist (by
>>> British
>>
>> Cretin, those are NOT comments, but references. Go there and read it,
>> you uneducated piece of shit.
>
> Your comments and your references are crap from a known crap producer.

ANother imbecile on the rampage. You are going to delete from history, or
not be hearing, what that bitch brix said on record, before the entire
free world? Go fuck yourself, cretin. Why the hell are you opening your
stupid mouth. Shut the fuck up, you'll be held accountable.

[Quantum Bubbles]

I thank Steffler Oharra for kindly taking the time to respond to my comment.

The real references would have to be things like scientific literature that has been published in mainstream peer reviewed journals. But that aside, any conspiracy theory concerning covid-19 has to face the following problem: it would require the staggeringly high number of doctors, nurses and researchers who work for the NHS in the UK to have been simultaneously bribed or coerced. This has not happened.

Steffler Oharra's position is very silly.

Kind Regards

[Sergio]

www.brighteon.com is almost like the Midnight News that was sold at
the grocery store


The Upcoming Zombie Apocalypse

Did Israel Invent 5G & Why Are They So Slow To Build 5G Networks?

Bill Gates' Masonic Birth-Rite Name Coding (Part 5)

[Edmond Foust]

Sergio wrote:

>>>>> BECAUSE WE NO LONGER HAVE THE FLU - 'Dr'. Birx - MORE PROOF Covid is
>>>>> FLU https://www.brighteon.com/b0953b38-0183-48f9-9de5-75fb722ab264
>>>>>
>>>>> They are retarding and killing children now, with their lethal
>>>>> injections. Wake up ffs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Small Child Vaccinated - Maddie and the horrors she has endured
>>>>> after inoculation
>>>>> https://www.brighteon.com/b8b7fc33-0e8b-4e5b-ac47-39758f900677
>>>>
>>>> Your comments display a lack of even basic scientific literacy and
>>>> are not of any intellectual interest. I am a very left wing socialist
>>>> (by British
>>>
>>> Cretin, those are NOT comments, but references. Go there and read it,
>>> you uneducated piece of shit.
>>
>> Your comments and your references are crap from a known crap producer.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brighteon
>
> www.brighteon.com is almost like the Midnight News that was sold at
> the grocery store

That's a platform for messages. And it's always about the messages, not
the messenger. The message here is "Dr" BRIX, based on "science", saying
*_there_is_no_flu_anymore_*, but covid. And people have died for canceled
treatments and procedures in hospitals and elsewhere, to say the least.
In itself a severe crime against humanity. Is this a math group, or I
terribly misunderstand something? Anyway, bye.

[Sergio]

(that was a sounding, the waters are quite shallow, almost "Mark non")

[FromTheRafters]

Sergio wrote :

Unfathomably so.

[Timothy Golden]

Agreed, yet this is obviously an entry position for polysign interpretation.
You are discussing P2, but in P3 it is true that
[+sqrt(2)] * [+sqrt(2)] = - 2
and
[-sqrt(2)] * [-sqrt(2)] = + 2
where sqrt() is the square root function and * is the third sign, though it is not needed in this discussion yet.
In P3:
sqrt( - 1 ) = + 1
but you see these signs are modulo three behaved; not modulo two behaved as they are in the reals, which are P2.
In P1:
sqrt( - 1 ) = - 1
and so you see that the minus sign is actually more primitive than the + sign; something that real analysis has gotten backwards. We can generate all other numbers in Pn from products of MU x, where MU is minus unity and x is a magnitude. The rudimentary form of numbers in polysign is
s x
where s is discrete sign and x is raw (unsigned obviously) magnitude.
We ought to have built complicated things from simpler things, and this again is the paradigm of structured programming. It has escaped mathematicians. There never was any compiler level integrity. Now there is. The consequences of this school of thought are rather large and under-appreciated to date.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

WHAT!? nothing you wrote there is right but one ufcking thing!

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Fwiw, in complex numbers:

The 2-ary roots for a complex number c = 2+0i are:

r0 = sqrt(2)+0i
r1 = -sqrt(2)+0i

where:

r0^2 = (2,0)
r1^2 = (2,0)


On the other hand, the 2-ary roots for a complex number c = 0+2i are:

r0 = 1+1i
r1 = -1-1i

where:

r0^2 = 0+2i
r1^2 = 0+2i

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Then there are the 2-ary roots for complex number c = -2+0i at:


r0 = 0+sqrt(2)i
r1 = 0-sqrt(2)i

where:

r0^2 = (-2,0)
r1^2 = (-2,0)

[Timothy Golden]

Ignorance is bliss, eh, Zelos?

[Timothy Golden]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:52:30 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

P2 : - 1 + 1 = 0 ; - - = + ; - - - = -
P3 : - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0 ; - - = + ; - - - = * ; - - - - = -

Do the math. This little codex should be enough for the brightling that U R.
Or R U A F ?

[zelos...@gmail.com]

You are not using * to mean multiplication and you really should use something else cause it is customary that * denotes multiplication if thats what you're going on about.

>- - - = *

In real numbers and such - - -x=-x

There is no "third sign" here.

[Timothy Golden]

You are proving your own fraudulence. Thank you.
I thought you had more power, but you are now in the Pee-Turd club.

[Sergio]

for other readers
lots of complex calculators online

its easy, go from rectangular to polar notation on complex plane then
back again.

https://www.hackmath.net/en/calculator/complex-number?input=%7C1-i%7C

i ^ 0.5 = ( e^(i * π/2))^0.5 = i^(0.5 × e^(i* 0.5 × π/2)) = e^(i * π/4)

[zelos...@gmail.com]

By what, knowing mathematics better than you?

[Timothy Golden]

****************************************************
Wed 21 Apr 2021 06:48:01 AM EDT sci.math

I will attempt again from scratch to show you how another route makes greater sense than the route that the greats have taken to date. This route is known to me and to a few others as polysign numbers. By polysign we mean no difference from the usage of that prefix 'poly' than was done with the polygon.

That some are capable of granting such a construction does place some distance between themselves and those who are so closed as to deny its possibility. For this reason we need merely grant the freedom to construct and see what comes along en route. For those who fail this axiomatic necessity they ought to have checked in at the breakfast barf club where their regurgitant ways can be explored more fully. As the generations go by with little variation a problem of regurgitant reuse with just a tough of fresh flakes on top so as to freshen the stuff seems to be the order of the day. So much so that if the odor of the regurgitant is not present then the bowl does not contain real food. Thus is the conditioning of modern academia. I have seen it not just here on USENET, but as well in person before my very eyes. To be dismissed in person is rather a different procedure than to be dismissed here on USENET, for here the record of dismissal and lack of character in the dismissal is apparent for all to see. AFAICT, this is the sole place that such accountability can be had. Lo and behold look at the limited use of the medium that could be the truth slayer's paradigm... abused by some ad nauseum... still though distributed into a cloud decades before the modern arrival. Here wee beings shit and piss on this medium and it does in fact expose the human race. I am not claiming to be much higher than most here. Yes, I have taken to mathematics from an early age, and I do seem to keep going with it now, and somehow I keep turning the duff and finding things. At this point my trail is growing quite long and you could quite literally follow the little digging spots and find that I've gone full circle now. One thing I can tell you for sure: there is nothing quite like digging into the earth and discovering what is down there. As much as we come from the branches of the tree we do know the roots as well. We ought to seek them out further.

Polysign numbers do not just start from nowhere. Already wee humans have developed two-signed numbers, but it seems we'll have to spend a bit more time hand-holding in order to make it to the three-signed numbers. Such is the operant conditioning of academia. I will have an easier time explaining to a twelve year old than to a modern PhD. Says a lot about your community. That we exist in a preHitlerian society; that the term wasp can come down on us ten times harder than that abysmal fail... that it goes on to this day... shrouded and clouded by diversionary tactics and tic-tacs... And if the deep state did develop covid-19 can you have any doubts as to how they would handle the mess? That we are all tied together is not a stage that academia cares to travel with. That sort of baggage is a real drag. Yes, a drag on humanity. That is what we are. Oh, it's much worse really than I care to say here. By the time the full mechanisms are covered we will have a proof like no other. We already do have proof, by the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8VdAdo8Sw

To engage in polysign formally we have to confess that the real number has an inner structure. This is consistent with the modern programmers vision of data structures and the notion that we build more complicated things from simpler things. The simplicity of the situation is belayed by the very notation that we use in such instances as
- 1.234 , + 2.0 , - 1.0 , ...
and now of course the structured thinker is seeing
{ binary s; magnitude x; }
but of course we are free here in mathematics to simply say
s x
where s is sign and x is magnitude. Magnitude obviously is devoid of sign. Sign is obviously discrete in character. Of course we are about to go to a three-signed system. Could this simple hint allow some minds to come along? I do attempt to coax you. At my website I forewarn you of the potential threat to your own prior thinking; that you may look upon the real value rather differently upon absorbing polysign. Perhaps that is too strong. Still, if you do not have the strength, as Zelos posits here, and we'll see just what a weak response comes back, well, that is fine. It is my great hope to induct just a few good minds into polysign, for that is all that we need to carry on the development. To date all has been done in the open here. Well, but for some private conversations and emails. Anyway it suits polysign that it be not the property of any academic journal; that it be in the name of the internet, for this is how they were born.
This is how they ought to stay. Their consequences ring throughout, and sadly with a sledge hammer in my hand, and your ear near the crack in the bell known as modern mathematics,... get ready...

The sign of the real number is known to be modulo two behaved. We alled learned these sign mechanics early in life. So how difficult can it be to engage the mod-three system? Mod-four, and so on? Why has no other come to this game? This I can say is a standing mystery. It is entirely possible that I have come to it from an early brain injury; that the ordinary human mind is a binary process incapable of getting out of its own way. Ahh, but it can be taught and it is so simple as I've already explained that the twelve year old will have an easier time than you possibly. We can diddle along all day with sign mechanics here. Is it really so hard? If I just prefix:

P2: - - = + ; - - - = - ; - - - - = + ; ...

have we really broken anything? No. This is your ordinary usage of sign. So when I go on now to:

P3: - = - ; - - = + ; - - - = * ; - - - - = - ; - - - - - = + ; ...
P4: -=-;--=+;---=*;----=#;-----=-;------=+; ...
...

but for the exhaustion of sensible characters availabl at my keyboard the signs as the number of strokes that it takes to form them are mnemonic. This good luck that the real value happens to fit is most fortunate, but as you can see the identity sign moves around a bit. It is thus that the zero sign '@' becomes formalized, yet this is a secondary lesson. We do not require it. We can work with the system as it has been laid out above. The real breakthrough is what comes next...

How does it come that the real line takes geometrical significance? Who is it that brought the graphical rendering to the real number and is its geometry coherent? Polysign answers yes; that it is; but that the symmetry which brings its geometry likewise brings the higher dimensions in via the same identical construction reused on the higher branches P3, P4, and so on, and even the lesser sibling P1.

When we utter that on P2:
- x + x = 0
or for that matter:
- 1.0 + 1.0 = 0
then we have established the reason that P2 develop the line. The values balance each other perfectly. Lo and behold, and I wish so that you would have already guessed it, and if you care to share this with your twelve year old then please do allow them the possible pleasure of extending the balance themselves for here I give it away and it seems so wrong to do so, yet in P3 witness:

- 1.0 + 1.0 * 1.0 = 0

and it is thus that the plane is born.

Tim Golden DBA Band Technology http://bandtechnology.com

[Sergio]

please continue...

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>where s is sign and x is magnitude. Magnitude obviously is devoid of sign. Sign is obviously discrete in character. Of course we are about to go to a three-signed system. Could this simple hint allow some minds to come along? I do attempt to coax you

I have gone down the idea of "three sign" because it strikes anyone who isn't good at mathematics and I was young and dumb.

"Sign" is the property of comparing x to 0, negative sign if it is less than, positive if it is more than.

Any structure that "Could" have 3 "directions" would inherently be unorderable and thus the idea of "sign" doesn't apply.

This is ESPECIALLY so when it comes to - - - an such. -x meanas you apply the - operator, an unary one, on x, which for any albelian group/ring structure is an idempotent function so you cannot have -^3(x) by anything but -x

[Timothy Golden]

There is no problem with P3. P3 are the complex numbers; just in a different format. This is actually something you ought to be astounded by, for P3 come out of the same exact rules that build P2 (the real numbers). Polysign develop a family of number systems:
P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, ...
and all are algebraically behaved. Sum and product are well defined. Geometry is demanded by them from their primitive rules. Rotational behavior of product is clear; just keep multiplying by minus one and you'll get through each ray.

So where did modern mathematics go astray? The Cartesian product is one vector of awareness that can be attacked. You see P3 demand their geometry of the plane no different than P2 demand their geometry of the line. To face the fact that the ray is more fundamental than the line: this may be an apt start. The line is in fact composed of two rays. That they happen to fall opposite each other is guaranteed numerically by the fact that
- a + a = 0
and while this statement of symmetry is not common to ordinary definitions of the real numbers it is crucial to polysign. The inverse in polysign in general does not take the form of a minus sign. The minus sign is merely sign one. The plus sign is merely sign two. The star sign is sign three. How could you expect a three-signed system to hold the behaviors of a two-signed system? Mod-two and Mod-three are rather different things. What does hold is the symmetry; the balance; the cancellation:
- a + a * a = 0
and of course this statement is P3. We can take now a value such as:
- 2.3 + 1.2 * 4.5
and we see that
- 2.3 + 1.2 * 4.5 = - 1.1 - 1.2 + 1.2 * 3.3 * 1.2
= - 1.1 * 3.3 - 1.2 + 1.2 * 1.2
= - 1.1 * 3.3
for the latter part is balanced to naught. The geometry is of three rays in the plane each 120 degree to the neighbor. We are engaged in a simplex coordinate system; a non-orthogonal geometry whose symmetry is as pure as the algebra that builds it.
There is in fact no need to exercise this balance condition and its expression is tantamount to rendering geometrically a position in that plane; no matter which of the equivalents you choose. These are vector behaved values. The inverse of the value constructed generally goes like:
+ 1.1 * 1.1 - 3.3 + 3.3
for these will balance that value to naught. Of course we can reduce this expression as all good grade schoolers are taught to do:
- 3.3 + 4.4 * 1.1
= - 2.2 + 3.3
and now for the double check we see that:
( - 1.1 * 3.3 ) * ( - 2.2 + 3.3 )
= - 3.3 + 3.3 * 3.3
= 0
and but for the usage of star as summation( for it is the identity sign in P3 just as plus was the identity sign in P2 ) you should be following along as if you were a grade school child. That said, this annoyance of the identity sign does have resolution in the implementaion of the zero sign '@' so that we do not have a moving identity sign and of course is completely fitting with modulo mechanics of sign. Likewise the 'silent' sign of an unsigned value in Pn would take this interpretation though I generally have been signing all values. The notation of polysign maintained in congruence with standard notation on real values exposes the ease of migration, but obviously you don't just shift over to four-signed values thinking that your old two signed interpretation is going to hold. The reuse of the symbols is coherent even as the habits require changing. It is good of you to give them a shot and I do thank you for letting them have a bit of your attention.

If you do not see this then we have a problem. It is time to go to your paper and work this out for yourself.
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/NonOrthogonal
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/ThreeSignedComplexProof.html

The primitive nature of polysign will not suffer under your scrutiny.
Your time, Z, will be well spent.
Possibly you will come to have a greater contribution in the subject than I.
Welcome to polysign.

[Sergio]

google fuzzy logic

3 state logic

[Timothy Golden]

Alright, I'll have to admit that I am as bad a listener as anyone else here. What you say about order, well, when we enter a 2D format, though by this I must stress that word 'dimensional' is inherently a P2 concept that lacks generality for we need not build P3 from P2, but instead build them as adjacent siblings in a rather large and dynamic family of number systems, all under the same identical rule set but for their Pn quality where we see that the dance of the mod three is rather different than the dance of the mod two. Even the mod four brings on some other qualities. Most recently I feel posessed by the mod six and I have an internal soul telling me that there is something rather important there.

Z: polysign are an open front in mathematics. But for the holding of others who refuse to publish in the open here as they await for me to publish perhaps in some journal, there is a flood gate about to open upon mathematics. I am not a brilliant man. I am simply led around like a dog on a leash here. I follow them; not the other way around, sir.

Control and Pavlov's dogs; well; we are all dogs of technology now. In hindsight we always have been so. It defines us but for the fact that the modern human fails to make his own tools anymore. Welcome to the post-human capitalist society. It will be done shortly. Let us hope that MAD is not their way out. Post now, or forever hold your piece.

[Sergio]

sure, but... its already used in neural networks, like 30 years ago,
they may not have called it polysign back then,

here is a paper on it

http://www.von-eitzen.de/math/PolysignNumbers.pdf

[Timothy Golden]

I don't think it's true about neural networks, but I'd love a link. Not well read on it.
Most frighteningly close are the barycentric coordinates, but you see they take the simplex as fundamental in n+1 dimensional space as built from the rectilinear coordinate system as say the tetrahedron on familiar (x,y,z,w) 4D space as the vertices:

( 1, 0, 0, 0 ), ( 0, 1, 0, 0 ), ( 0, 0, 1, 0 ), ( 0, 0, 0, 1 )

and a center at (0,0,0,0) and then a projection down onto that from ( 1, 1, 1, 1 ) or so. The fact that these two points are exactly equivalent does not get connected whereas from polysign this symmetry in n demands all of this geometry from naught. The construction is immediate. Even the term construction is not quite right is it? The relation between geometry and algebra is so tightly sealed in polysign that there is no intermediate. The numerics of P3 I've already showed you boil down to two components in the reduced form. We cannot simply call this 'two dimensional' for that language presupposes the usage of the real line within the basis. Also above I do not mean to jump a dimension as the barycentrists do. The tetrahedron is a structure that is natural to what has been called 3D space no different than the equilateral triangle fits the plane. There is no such usage. Furthermore, polysign really is just the rays that emanate from the center of the simplex out to those vertices; n rays for n signs with unit vectors balancing to naught.

Hagen has bridged polysign over to abstract algebra which caused my study of that subject. It may seem too convenient that I find a flaw in that subject, but you see now I am tracing flaws throughout mathematics as a worm makes its way through an apple. The room for criticism and how polysign numbers ever got overlooked in the first place... you see my large statements on humankind are sourced from quite a stable basis. We have undergone the largest propaganda wave here of my lifetime in my cuntry and I do intend to cash in big with polysign on the problem. This is the gain that I will make for our species. I will hold down the spooks and the goons by calling them out at their game as much as I can. That said, it is understandable that the general population is developing their beliefs in their living rooms based upon information placed before their eyes and their ears. That such lies have become so pervasive and that so little room was given for the counter-argument spells doom for my cuntry. Please do consider what exactly the corrective measures entail and it will grow clear that what has gone on here is a doubling down of doubling down on lies and propaganda from a prior period. I have lived this lie my entire life now and feel some duty to react. I did not realize that I would be taking down the Queen as well and right under the King's nose. And to learn just exactly how she likes it so dirty... what a surprise!

[michael Rodriguez]

> "Sign" is the property of comparing x to 0, negative sign if it is less than, positive if it is more than.
> Any structure that "Could" have 3 "directions" would inherently be unorderable and thus the idea of "sign" doesn't apply.

You could have supplied more details in your brief description...
for example, elements that keep the "cardinality" in the usual sense, but where their "ordinality" is altered
where a vertice has always (no more no less than) three neighbor vertices (not in graphs(graph theory) ? ),
as if the order where threaded in other way.

or where is implied one "variable", not as in eisenstein integers or tim 's p3 polysign, but rather, something that
is nearby of the trichotomy of real numbers.

> This is ESPECIALLY so when it comes to - - - an such. -x meanas you apply the - operator, an unary one, on x, which for any albelian group/ring
> structure is an idempotent function so you cannot have -^3(x) by anything but -x

here you could have added in regarding a certain relation R.

a R b --> e R b·(a-)

when possible(in certain type of relations), the "thing" that is altered when is moved to the other side of the relation,
meaning that other possible description of what one may refer as "sign" may require compatibility between the "sign" of an
object and certain property in a relation R, in other words, that a relation "enforce" a mechanic, sometimes called negation.
Here you may say 'negation' and 'relation', where the negation has a "length orbit" of 2.


Other angle may be, that, if on one side one have the trichotomy of real numbers, on other side one may have a graded
structure, and other side, a structure where authors dispense with "signs" and only "get on" with operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graded_(mathematics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_set

other description could be related with symmetrical polynomial/functions.


In any case, that there isnt exists an exact generalization with all the features at the same time does not imply that,
that may be generalized with some feature. other debate is, of course, that one want or not call it "more signs".

I do agree with Hagen paper, although, one can see a lack proximity in the sense that he could have leveraged on graded structure as
extra structure to polynomial rings/group rings while describing polysigns.

Undoubtly, in some cases ma be difficult to know where are the points where a concept/mechanics/structure is accepted
or not.

[michael Rodriguez]

> You are not using * to mean multiplication and you really should use something else cause it is customary that * denotes multiplication if thats > what you're going on about.

Undoubtly, I have seen several descriptions where what authors want to express get obscured by the use of a notation/visual symbols that have already "being used", and are "deeply rooted in the unconscious", so overloading, with more meanings certain symbol may be "mortal", so to speak

> why is there +sqr(2) and -sqr(2) ?

In how are defined reals, you encode the info to x^2-c, and you want the "reverse process", and get the two roots/zeroes
In the case you want more the "symmetry" aspect, you may use multivalued sort of notation to manipulate all the roots "simultaneously" and
avoid the squaring/sqirting stuff. Or you want more the "square root" aspect when plotting a cool graph...

[Timothy Golden]

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 5:48:12 PM UTC-4, michael Rodriguez wrote:
> > "Sign" is the property of comparing x to 0, negative sign if it is less than, positive if it is more than.
> > Any structure that "Could" have 3 "directions" would inherently be unorderable and thus the idea of "sign" doesn't apply.
> You could have supplied more details in your brief description...
> for example, elements that keep the "cardinality" in the usual sense, but where their "ordinality" is altered
> where a vertice has always (no more no less than) three neighbor vertices (not in graphs(graph theory) ? ),
> as if the order where threaded in other way.
>
> or where is implied one "variable", not as in eisenstein integers or tim 's p3 polysign, but rather, something that
> is nearby of the trichotomy of real numbers.

I would be guilty of picking a fight at this point, but you are not picking one so I'll try to remain as unagressive as I possibly can with the hope of luring you further into polysign numbers. There is another way than you mention above and it has to do with the informational qualities that we witness in real values such as
- 1.23 , + 4.56 , - 0.001
and we see that sign is prepended to a magnitudinal value which clearly lacks sign. We see that these are unique types and so in the simple mind of a structured computer programmer we can understand that
s x
where s is sign and x is magnitude is actually the structure that we are witnessing in use. The reals just happen to be balanced in two signs which allow for ordinary analysis to hold in P2, but this does not mean that those analysis all hold on P3. You must see that through this new analysis the real number is no longer fundamental. We see discrete sign and continuous magnitude build the ordinary real value on modulo-two sign. Polysign are quite literally splitting the real number open and generalizing. They are in this way a new construction of the real numbers, but now I'm thinking of forgoing all the baggage of the reals and instead attacking them for their drunken misconduct. Their compilers were desperate it seems. Once again the modern computer representation of number satisfies an unexceptional status that goes ignored and instead an OCD collector's initiative seems to have been the way the 'real' analysts filled the line. Certainly our modern gaps are well behaved and we simply match a staircase that has unambiguous representation to their supposedly perfect line which has ambiguous representation. That we can double down anytime and meanwhile perform computations far beyond their own abilities in time and space; as I see it we are just an epsilon and a delta away from ditching the Queen's main thing. This would be well and good for the real value is not so real anymore.

> > This is ESPECIALLY so when it comes to - - - an such. -x meanas you apply the - operator, an unary one, on x, which for any albelian group/ring
> > structure is an idempotent function so you cannot have -^3(x) by anything but -x
> here you could have added in regarding a certain relation R.
>
> a R b --> e R b·(a-)
>
> when possible(in certain type of relations), the "thing" that is altered when is moved to the other side of the relation,
> meaning that other possible description of what one may refer as "sign" may require compatibility between the "sign" of an
> object and certain property in a relation R, in other words, that a relation "enforce" a mechanic, sometimes called negation.
> Here you may say 'negation' and 'relation', where the negation has a "length orbit" of 2.
>
>
> Other angle may be, that, if on one side one have the trichotomy of real numbers, on other side one may have a graded
> structure, and other side, a structure where authors dispense with "signs" and only "get on" with operations.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graded_(mathematics)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_set
>
> other description could be related with symmetrical polynomial/functions.
>
>
> In any case, that there isnt exists an exact generalization with all the features at the same time does not imply that,
> that may be generalized with some feature. other debate is, of course, that one want or not call it "more signs".
>
> I do agree with Hagen paper, although, one can see a lack proximity in the sense that he could have leveraged on graded structure as
> extra structure to polynomial rings/group rings while describing polysigns.
>
> Undoubtly, in some cases ma be difficult to know where are the points where a concept/mechanics/structure is accepted
> or not.

I am enjoying your thinking here. There are some rather expansive corollaries down this road. Why has polysign been overlooked by humans? This is math that a grade schooler could arrive at but for the corrections of their teachers. It would not surprise me if many a clever child did so naturally on their paper plot down the two-signed and then the three-signed version which maps even better to their paper. The Cartesian product is weak in comparison. Lo and behold I am finding weakness in the usage of the Cartesian product even in the purified form known as abstract algebra. The binary operator is a fraud especially on the sum, and to stay at
a + b
when the general form is
a
a + b
a + b + c
a + b + c + d
...
exposes the singleton as lurking beneath, while above under the ordinary interpretation the last filled line is a four dimensional problem? No. All of these expressions have no need of the Cartesian product whatsoever. The binary operator is over built. To focus on the second line as fundamental is a mistake. Obviously the sum is not a binary operator when it is an n-ary operator and at n=1 we see a significant and fundamental opportunity. That all in reality exists in such a grand sum but for a substrate whose qualities are worth toying with... it would be nice if mathematicians would take off their blinders, have a look back at the poor Queen in her carriage, and witness but a skeleton that they haul.

[Timothy Golden]

https://www.facebook.com/ChemicalBros/videos/289419432272321

[zelos...@gmail.com]

That is not what sign adn such means in mathematics, for fuck sake man.

[michael Rodriguez]

It could be an issue. Let me explain.

Either regarding when using 'comparison'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28mathematics%29#Terminology_for_signs
or also, when building on top of comparison, with the 'Sign Function' or the "absolute value"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_function (output of the sign function)

In some loose way, one could call it "positive by default" or "preference for the
positive", and it occurs when one is using an unsigned base, as opposed to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed-digit_representation

The issue is, while working with unsigned bases, like the usual base 10, the string
of digist, is, by force, positive (no internal structure), but, negatives, require
the unary operator '-' preceding the "unsigned numeral", and in this case, one may
consider that negatives have, sort of, internal structure (unary operator and the numeral).

On the other hand, when is used a signed base like 'Balanced Ternary', this problem dissapears,
since an unary operator '-' is "not required".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_operation#Unary_negative_and_positive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus_and_minus_signs#Minus_sign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ternary

I guess that one can do a parallel of this issue, building a p3-like system, that instead of
using a sign component (the 's' in (s)m)), use a couple of operators and an unsigned numeral,
a operator '-' to 'rotate by 120 degrees', and an operator '+' to 'rotate by 240 degrees'
(no neutral sign * or @)

a = ---a = +++a = -+a
-a = ++a , +a = -a

Now when considering 'a' as an unsigned numeral, in the same as the usual p3 ?
'-a' and '+a' have internal structure, but 'a' does not ?

a little different topic is comparison in Tim's system. I suppose, that, in the same way
that in polysign one operate 'sign component' with 'sign component', and, 'magnitude component'
with 'magnitude component', one can make a comparison, component-wise. I dont know if Tim has also
an analogy more similar to classic comparison of real numbers.

--

I guess that 'ternary signs' and alike machinery, not just in the sense as a trivial analogy, this is
not just structures as ternary versions of 'inverse element' , 'neutral elment,'cancellation', or
https://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Neutral_element_for_a_multiary_operation
equipped with some exotic ternary relation (comparison and transactions ?), maybe some metric among element
of a multiset, rather, enphasizing compatibility and/or building some kind ofnon-trivial artifact with some
relaxed condition, capable of decomposition into combination of more trivial artifacts.

Still could be other contexts when the concet of 'sign' appears, as the positive and negative parts of a function,
the even-odd decomposition of a function, uniqueness of negative numbers, or some analogy that use conjugates.

[Timothy Golden]

I think that it is great that you are exploring this on your own terms here. Still, I see that you have yet to absorb the fundamental nature of sign as primitive.
Then again, I should be careful not to insult you, but to encourage you onward.
There are no special uses of sign within sign within polysign numbers. We do not for instance embed P2 into P3. There are instead a family of number systems:

P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, ...

and while you are working in one of them clearly your work does not need to worry about another of them. The reals are simply P2. Their geometry is exposed by the balance:
- 1.0 + 1.0 = 0.0
or

- a + a = 0

and while you can think of a as a magnitude (or require it ) the truth is that a can as well be a P2 value. This is likewise true in Pn.
In P3 we could have:
z = - 1 + 2 * 3 = + 1 * 2
and now we compose:
- z + z * z = - ( + 1 * 2 ) + ( + 1 * 2 ) * ( + 1 * 2 ) = 0
though I have left out some of the work I think you'll see that this holds generally.
All of these values whether in the rudimentary sx form or in their conglomerate planar form that P3 demands via balance (which develops the geometry without any actual angle specification) work out just fine, but always in P3. Usage of the term 'negative' to mean 'inverse' is not present here.

How about you express the inverse of z above?
We've nearly done it already. It may seem strange, but when you add it up you'll see that the inverse exists just fine, but it has nothing to do with the minus sign as happened to work in P2.

I don't generally give quizzes here, and if you don't like getting quizzed, I am sorry. Still you seem to be up for more. Your thought process is already here so I'm just sort of helping along the translation and do not wish to give it away to one such as you who cares to process for yourself. Good on you, sir.