[guest39538]

Mods please tell me if this correct, I think it is correct to what I have self learnt off google.

ƒ:a<[m x m x m ]>→a<<[n x n x n]>>

T(a)=>a

ƒ:b<[m x m x m ]>→b<<[n x n x n]>>

T(b)=.>b


ƒ:ab<[m x m x m ]>→ab<<[m x m x m]>>

T(ab)=ab

T = transformation


A    m * n  matrix , m would be a dimension  and n would be any dimension?

So m*m*m would be a 3*3*3 matrix with dimensions?

[Bored chemist]

how the hell do I get people to comment?   I

Say something comprehensible.

[guest39538]

how the hell do I get people to comment?   I

Say something comprehensible.

Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance.  When I first started learning science I expected much better, but now to be honest , I just see mostly fools like yourself, one of gods army, trolls. 

[Bored chemist]

Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance. 

Do you have a mirror handy?

[guest39538]

Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance. 

Do you have a mirror handy?

It is not a choice by me to be arrogant, it is a forced discipline because people would always talk rather than listen........meaning it does not matter what the idea is, the defence only put up a defence and cannot falsify the prosecution.

[guest39538]

An electron cannot exist without a Proton

Evidence -  Exhibit 1-a  ,    Coulombs laws of likewise polarities repulse.

Evidence - Exhibit 1-b          ab +  (-a)   = (-b)

Evidence - Exhibit 1-c           a  +  (-a)  =  0

Evidence - Exhibit 1-d        b  +  (-b)  = 0

Evidence - Exhibit 1-e       a  +  b  = ab

Evidence - Exhibit 1-f       (ab)  +  (-a)   =   (b)  =  (-b)  = 0  □

[Bored chemist]

people would always talk rather than listen

Do you have a mirror handy?

Evidence - Exhibit 1-e       a  +  b  = ab

Care to guess again?

[guest39538]

people would always talk rather than listen

Do you have a mirror handy?

Evidence - Exhibit 1-e       a  +  b  = ab

Care to guess again?

Math is not a guess .......
but i guess i missed out time 

(a  +  b) / t   = ab

[Kryptid]

Math is not a guess .......

It's possible to get math wrong, though. For example, "ab" is shorthand for "a multiplied by b" and is not equivalent to "a + b" (unless both a and b are equal to 2).

[guest39538]

Math is not a guess .......

It's possible to get math wrong, though. For example, "ab" is shorthand for "a multiplied by b" and is not equivalent to "a + b" (unless both a and b are equal to 2).

Ok ty, note taken.  I should of kept to a.b    but I am going to change it again and try

a={i}

b = [j]

a  +  b  =  [i} + [j]  =  c

a  +  (-i) = 0
b  +  (-j) = 0
a _i +  b _j = c_i,j = 1



You can work out i and j are 0.5

[guest39538]

a i +  b j = ci,j = 1

Maybe I should put  (a _i +  b _j )/t = c _i,j = 1

[guest39538]

Title -  Quantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix,  an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form, without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process and contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox.   Proof's given in the form of three matrices and the corresponding equations.

Introduction.   

The aim of this  paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.   In matrix c there will be merged integer elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least,  let i = positive polarity and let j = negative polarity .

 My first question is , can i exist in a  single matrix a?  Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of  Matrix a,  would be repulsive points to all other points of the same matrix a.   By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws ,   matrix  a should always be in a state of expansion.
 Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity.   All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.

Which brings me to my first equation and diagram:


i matrix.jpg (11.05 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3371 times)

 a  +  (-i)  =  0    representing the inverse of i,   resulting in the loss of i .

The result , a  newly transformed matrix a = 0 or an empty matrix.


a=0 matrix.jpg (10.45 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3346 times)

[guest39538]

Main text continued.

 Ladies and gentlemen , a ≡ i shows us that i can not exist in a single matrix a.  One must assume a ⇔ b .

The equation for b is:

b +  (-j) =  0 

Showing that

b ≡ j  ∴   (a + (-i))+(b + (-j)) = (a+b)+(-i,-j)=0  ∴   (a + (i/t)) + (b + (j/t)) = c_i,j/t=1□

p.s that did hurt my brain,.....

added

a= i / k

b = j / k

c = i + j = 1

λE₁ = i / k

λE₂ = j / k

λE₁  + λE₂  =  1  = (E = mc²)??

[guest39538]

I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?

[Bored chemist]

I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?

We can only be teachers if you learn...

[guest39538]

I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?

We can only be teachers if you learn...

But what I learn needs to be tested and ''ticked'' or corrected.

I think my latest math using i and j is correct?

a +  (-i)  = 0 

Originally I put a  +  (-a)  = 0 

but I am not taking away a, I am taking away the integer of a which is i. 

Is this equation representative of the inverse?  I read put this way it was. 

[Bored chemist]

I think my latest math using i and j is correct?

Since you have yet to properly define any of the things you are talking about it is impossible to say (usually) if you are right or wrong.
We can only comment on blatant contradictions.
When I did so you said I was wrong, but posted word salad as a "reason".

There's no way anyone can really "teach" in those conditions.

[guest39538]

I think my latest math using i and j is correct?

Since you have yet to properly define any of the things you are talking about it is impossible to say (usually) if you are right or wrong.
We can only comment on blatant contradictions.
When I did so you said I was wrong, but posted word salad as a "reason".

There's no way anyone can really "teach" in those conditions.

Ok, point taken, but I have no idea why you say I have not defined  things. I think I define it well?

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.   In matrix c there will be merged integer elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least,  let i = positive polarity and let j = negative polarity .

What is wrong with that ? 

[Bored chemist]

You have not, for example defined what you mean here
" the integer of a which is i. "

[guest39538]

You have not, for example defined what you mean here
" the integer of a which is i. "

I did, I said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?

Can't I put half integer because I need 0.5 ?

Because in this matrix 1 positive charge = half a Neutral charge.

I can't put 1 + 1 because that would be two, I Need 1 + 1 = 1

So 0.5 is one but half see

added- Could I put something like   i =1 = 0.5i,j   

i + j = 1