![]() |
Solution to the Gamma Riddle
This diagram represents the numbers by which one must multiply the fractional factorials, one at a time, to progress in unit steps from left to right along the X axis. It can be seen that there is a singularity at zero, where the multipliers stop being negative and start to be positive. So below zero, we have alternately a positive and then a negative result from the multiplication - a negation function. Above zero, the results are all positive. The negation function suggests a sinusoid at frequency πx, with a quadrature component in the imaginary axis. The reciprocal of the fractional factorials clearly shows the oscillation of the real component. The riddle is to find the unreal one. | ||
| |||
![]() |
The trouble begins when we examine the negation function. It is a real number to the power of a real number. We have not specified an imaginary axis in the expression, and expect NATURE to deliver the correct hand of the spiral in the imaginary axis. We expect NATURE to IMAGINE. It is quite different with the Euler spiral. Here the expression is already complex: Nature replies If you INSIST on imagining these things, then by YOUR standards it is a left-hand spiral
| ||
There is INVERSE SCALING SYMMETRY in the Gamma function about the point x=0.5 (x=-0.5 for fractorials). Thus, if there is a spiral for negative values, it will be modulated in amplitude by the reciprocal of the Gamma function symmetrically about 0.5. This leads to the following figure: |

However, this is a diagram of a figure that - as we will find out -
DOES NOT EXIST, so the problem of whether
it actually goes to amplitude zero at x=0 need not be solved.
The singularity at zero is shown by a red dot. This is a right-handed
spiral, and as we pass through zero we find ourselves copying a
HALF-SPIRAL and the singularity, by
means of a positive multiplier.
That half-spiral and singularity is then copied again and again.
The following shows two such half-spirals:
|

If the spiral had been of the opposite hand (left-handed), we would still be copying half-spirals into the positive X domain: |

So the Gamma function has been WRECKED in the positive domain, and no longer bears any resemblance to what we started with: |

Nature has shown that you cannot CHOOSE
between Sin(πx) and
-Sin(πx)
modulated by the envelope, but must have BOTH.
Thus the left-hand twist of the spiral is cancelled by the right-hand
twist, which is equal and opposite - and the spiral
DOES NOT spiral.
If we had the number sequence 1, 4, 16, 64
we would say it is exponential in 4. A half-step of the exponentiation
process would involve the SQUARE ROOT OF 4,
just as a third-step would involve the cube root &c.
So a half-step would deliver either 1, 2, 4, 8, 16,
32, 64 for a square-root that is 2, or 1, -2, 4,
-8, 16, -32, 64 for a square-root that is -2.
The negation function is exponential in -1. Thus, the half-step is multiplication
by i1 or by -i1. But
nature refuses to allow this choice.
A set-theoretical explanation is that we started with the set of
REAL and never introduced anything
unreal. The set of real does not contain any element of the unreal,
so nature will not put it there.
Another way of seeing it is that the Reals are what the author calls
MONAL, requiring a single-number
(UNARY) specification. The Complex are
BINAL, requiring a two-number
(BINARY) specification, due to an
additional freedom of movement in complex space (in the i axis).
There is nothing in the original specification of the FACTORIALS,
1, 1, 2, 6 &c. to define the vector in the imaginary axis.
In passing, a study was made of the problem of multiple solutions,
and the difficulty was defined as a UNARY
result being delivered when the solution is still
BINAL. One of the parameters has been
left UNDEFINED, thereby misleading the
mathematician into believing that the one solution is the only one.
The conclusion for the problem of multiple solutions, therefore,
is that all DEGREES OF FREEDOM must
be closed off before one can trust an answer in the complex mathematics.
The conclusion for the Gamma riddle is that
EITHER the Gamma function OR the
complex mathematics or BOTH are artefacts
of Man.
The Gamma function is incompatible with a complex negation
function because the factorial rule will put half-turns of spiral
and singularities into places where they do not belong.
The sinusoid of frequency πX that is seen in the reciprocal of the
Gamma function needs an explanation other than a negation spiral in
complex space.
If it can be shown for other functions unrelated
to the Gamma function, and having a negation function, that Nature rejects
the imaginary axis in this way, then it can be said that Nature rejects
complex mathematics as a human product.
The result of this research is that it has been shown that complex
mathematics is a human artefact in the context
of the Gamma function.
|
| BACK |
(C) 1985-2003 Charles Douglas Wehner.
Use freely but do not plagiarise.
Groups
Erweiterte Groups-Suche Einstellungen
Groups-Suchergebnis 1 für
Time-Dependent Analysis • Univariate, multivariate analysis stationary
and nonstationary models • www.wolfram.com Anzeigen
Free Data Analysis • Powerful EDA facility with visual library. Downloadable
and free. • www.datamology.com
Infinite Series • 150 typical exam problems, solved step-by-step. • http://www.math-ebooks.com
Von:Charles Douglas Wehner (charleswehner@hotmail.com)
Betrifft:THE TROUBLE WITH COMPLEXITY
View: Complete Thread (8 Beiträge)
Original Format
Newsgroups:sci.math
Datum:2003-07-05 09:46:03 PST
In this paper I propose to introduce two terms:
A MONAL number is just one number
A BINAL number is two numbers - it has two pieces of INFORMATION.
These terms are offered to avoid confusion with MONARY and BINARY.
It can be shown that if you have a data set
1, 8, 27, 64
you can do what Isaac Newton and Brook Taylor did, and make
subtraction tables:
01
08 07
27 19 12
64 37 18 6
The six at the end is the FACTORIAL of three, because this was a
THIRD-ORDER series. You divide by the factorial of three and obtain
the COEFFICIENT of the third order. This will be 1.
If the data had contained a second-order component, a first-order
component or a zero-order (constant) component, you could have REMOVED
the third-order component from the data and differenced again and
again until you have FOUR pieces of data.
You will have, for the data above,
ZERO X-to the-0
ZERO X-to-the-1
ZERO X-to-the-2
UNIT X-to-the-3
The data was MONAL, and there were FOUR pieces. Thus we had four
pieces of INFORMATION.
The coefficients are MONAL, we have FOUR of them, and the information
is still FOURFOLD.
If the data had been
Data1
Data2 Diff1
Data3 Diff2 Double-diff1
Data4 Diff3 Double-diff2 -1
we would divide the -1 by factorial 3 and obtain the third-order
coefficient.
Feeding back, we might get:
Data1
Data2 Diff1
Data3 Diff2 0
Data4 Diff3 0
Feeding back again, we might get:
Data1
Data2 1
Data3 1
Data4 1
and again:
0
0
0
0
revealing that the data had originally been
0X-to-the-0 1X-to-the-1 0X-to-the-2 -1/6X-to-the-3
The data tells us that we have zero Cosine and unit Sine as a
third-order McLaurin-Taylor APPROXIMATION.
This is the most crude level of understanding FOURIER ANALYSIS.
For example, if the coefficients were 1, 0, -1, 0 we would have a
COSINE approximation.
Consider Cos(2X).
This is 1 - (2X)squared/2 as a third-order approximation.
So if our coefficients are A, B, C and D we add A to C to "kill" the
CosX.
Anything less is due to higher frequencies. There will be -3 lots of
data due to the Cos(2X) remaining.
Of course, with a tiny data-set such as I have shown, we can only
resolve Cos(X), Cos(2X), Sin(X) and Sin(2X):
A Cos(X)
B Sin(X)
C Cos(2X)
D Sin(2X)
So FOUR monal pieces of data can be resolved into a polynomial of FOUR
coefficients and thence into a spectrum of FOUR components.
Data never arises by magic.
Kurt Gödel won the Nobel prize by showing mathematically that a lie
(1=0) and a truth (1=1) can be proven the same way. Each logical step
had a "Gödel Prime", and the composite of all logical stages was
identical in both cases. Thus, the validity of Maths cannot be proven
by Maths. It required something FROM OUTSIDE, such as human logic.
If our MONAL system should ever become BINAL, each item in the
data-set will magically have acquired TWO parameters where there were
formerly ONE.
Consider the Euler equation:
Exp(iX)= Cos(X) + iSin(X)
The MONAL left-hand-side has created a BINAL right-hand-side.
Where did the extra data come from?
From the X-axis becoming "folded" back upon itself in a circle.
Positions within the X-axis can be resolved to less than Pi. However,
the equation has become MODULAR:
Cos(X) + iSin(X) = Exp(iX mod 2Pi)
Information has gone MISSING.
This is the trouble with complexity.
(See also my new paper - July 4 2003 - http://wehner.org/euler )
Charles Douglas Wehner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2003 Google
|
Groups
Erweiterte Groups-Suche Einstellungen
Groups-Suchergebnis 21 für "Charles Douglas Wehner"
Kolmogorov Centennial • Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov April 25, 1903 - October 20, 1987
• www.Kolmogorov.com Anzeigen
Complex Mathematics • Conformal mapping in art. See math, theory and artists.
• www.noneuclideanart.com
Suchergebnis 21
Von:Charles Douglas Wehner (charleswehner@hotmail.com)
Betrifft:Problems with COMPLEXITY
Dies ist der einzige Artikel zu diesem Diskussionsthema
View: Original Format
Newsgroups:sci.math.num-analysis
Datum:2003-07-06 10:28:33 PST
In my new web page http://wehner.org/euler I touch on the PROBLEM OF
MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS.
In a sci.maths posting (ABOVE)
I suggest that some numbers are MONAL (freedom of movement along a
line) whilst others are BINAL (freedom of movement in a plane).
Here I elaborate a little. Consider the MONAL number line X:
_____________________________________________
It has the "potency" to allow a number to be anywhere in a single
dimension.
It is MONAL.
Consider the modular number line of X:
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
It has TWO monal numbers - the INTEGER, or cycle number and the
MODULUS, or position within a cycle. Each has a potency to allow
a number to be at any place within it.
Nature seems to "steal" the potency from the integer part to give
to the modulus. Now the integer CANNOT allow a number to be anywhere.
But the modulus has the power to allow the number to occupy a place
in a PLANE. It has become BINAL.
Using Euler's EXP(iX) = Cos(X) + iSin(X) we now move off into the
iY complex plane, by virtue of that double potency.
Cox(X) and Sin(X) are LINKED, because although we have a double
potency, we only have one parameter X.
Using LOGe, we can return to iX(MOD 2Pi), but can never regain the
cycle number except by (non-mathematics) "common sense".
The number remains BINAL, however.
That is, it is free to move in the REAL as well as the imaginary axis.
LOGe(Cos(X) + i Sin(X)) might deliver iX.
However, it might also deliver a host of other solutions.
The iX solution appears to be correct, because it is simple.
However, it remains BINAL - and has still got freedom of movement
(potency) in the real axis. The REAL=0 part is an ASSUMPTION.
It is only when some non-mathematical process of logic PROVES that
REAL=0 that the binal number has become MONAL, and the result is true.
Charles Douglas Wehner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2003 Google
|
Groups Erweiterte Groups-Suche Einstellungen Groups-Suchergebnis 3 für "Charles Douglas Wehner" Ableitungen und Integrale • automatisch - billig bis kostenlos! Jeder Schritt auf Deutsch erklärt • calc101.com Anzeigen Kolmogorov in Remembrance • Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov April 25, 1903 - October 20, 1987 • www.Kolmogorov.com 300 Solved Integrals • "Math eBooks" offers solved problem guides on calculus. • www.math-ebooks.com Suchergebnis 3 Von:Charles Douglas Wehner (charleswehner@hotmail.com) Betrifft:Re: Complex Numbers View: Complete Thread (250 Beiträge) Original Format Newsgroups:sci.math Datum:2003-07-23 08:05:42 PST David C. Ullrich |