Solution to the Gamma Riddle

By Charles Douglas Wehner

7 August 2003

The problem is insoluble.

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  wrote in message news:...

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 21:36:49 +0200, "Mattias Wikström"
>  wrote: 
> 
> >Why pretending there is asymmetry
> >when there is none?
>  
> What a few people have said is what's correct: The symmetry exists,
> and there is _no_ reason why one of those complex numbers should
> be called i and the other one -i. We just picked one and called it i.
> 
> (And no, there's no way to say _which_ of the two is the one we
> decided to call i.)
> 

THIS IS A POINT I ALREADY COVERED in a posting in this thread.
Is it not remarkable that when Nature delivers TWO, the mathematician
instinctively thinks he has a CHOICE (a OR b)?

That is begging the question. In the Gamma (factorial) function, I
have shown that Nature delivers an AND function of iX and -iX:

Is it left OR right?
Is it left AND right?

The negation function -1 to the power of X is (as I already said) REAL
to the power of REAL. We do not feed anything imaginary INTO the
mathematics - and wait for Nature to tell us what the imaginary part
is. In the context of the Gamma function, the negation function
spirals left AND right at the same time.

Accordingly, Nature says the spiral is NOT ALLOWED to spiral. Nature
DOES NOT TAKE SIDES - and Nature ALLOWS NO CHOICE.

This means that Man INVENTED the complex maths or Man INVENTED the
Gamma function.

I used the Gamma function as a "tool" to investigate the complex
maths. Good mathematicians do not "leave their tools behind". Thus,
until it is proven that the negation function spirals BOTH ways in ALL
applications, one has to consider that it might be a special property
of the Gamma function alone.

However, I have established to my own satisfaction that the complex
maths is incompatible with the Gamma function - or with my fRactorials
(fractional factorials).


> >If we accept that there is complete symmetry, then we are faced with a
> >strange consequence: we cannot name any single non-real complex number. We
> >can easily name real numbers -- -16, 21, pi, to take some examples -- but
> >with complex numbers we can only name pairs of numbers, such as the pair
> >that satisfies the equation x^2+1=0.
> >

What is so information-poor about the complex maths is when you take
any polynomial and substitute a complex argument (see my FOUR-BOX
ALGORITH at http://wehner.org/euler ). I did this for the fractional
factorials.

I obtained the Fraccos, Fracsin, Fraccosh and Fracsinh for example -
that is to say, the equivalent of Sine, Cos, Shine and Cosh but with
the Gamma polynomial replacing the Exponential polynomial.

That pointless symmetry kept popping up - as if to say "this research
is jejeune".


> >One could go on and argue that it makes no more sense to talk about /the
> >complex plane/ than to talk about /the plane/ (as if only one plane
> >existed).
> >

Sloppy! On the page of my website mentioned above, I show images in
the iX complex plane and in the iY complex plane. Those who do serious
maths know that there is more than one complex plane.

> >Comments?
> >
> >Mattias
> >
> David C. Ullrich 
> 
I have elaborated on your posting - but have not disagreed with a word
that you or Mattias Wikström said.

Charles Douglas Wehner
Folgetext zu diesem Beitrag schreiben