[guest39538]

Did you see this bit

(and I want maths + thermodynamics rather than hogwash here)

Well as you know I am useless at maths, you must be quite good at it , why don't you do the maths and present it to the forum?

Because (broadly speaking) maths is a language for expressing logic, and you haven't provided any.

Contrary, I have expressed math based on my logic, this just means you can't automatically read it.  You do not know  my language.

[alancalverd]

Ah! The British abroad! IF THE NATIVES DON'T UNDERSTAND, JUST SHOUT LOUDER.

[guest39538]

Ah! The British abroad! IF THE NATIVES DON'T UNDERSTAND, JUST SHOUT LOUDER.

I try to learn the present math Alan, but there isn't always math that explains what I want to try and explain.  The obvious result,  I try to devise some math using present symbols.   
It obviously reads well in my head because I devised it, I understand that you and others may not understand.

[Bored chemist]

I have expressed math based on my logic

Try using someone else's, it may work better.

[guest39538]

I have expressed math based on my logic

Try using someone else's, it may work better.

I use ''your'' symbols, it is the same words, I would happily use somebody else's math if it explains what I need to explain.

I have tried Wiki math several times and you and others say I am wrong, so of course it is quite confusing when I feel I have learnt something then you tell me I am wrong in my learning.

Please tell me , what am I describing when I say   R³ euclidean space?

Is that made up?

[Bored chemist]

Please tell me , what am I describing when I say   R³ euclidean space?

God only knows what you mean by it, but what the rest of us mean is the sort of 3 d space that a school kind would be expected to broadly understand.
A space where you can define your position relative to some "start point " by saying how much you have gone up and down, how much you have gone left or right and how much you have gone  forwards or backwards.

[guest39538]

Please tell me , what am I describing when I say   R³ euclidean space?

God only knows what you mean by it, but what the rest of us mean is the sort of 3 d space that a school kind would be expected to broadly understand.
A space where you can define your position relative to some "start point " by saying how much you have gone up and down, how much you have gone left or right and how much you have gone  forwards or backwards.

Well that is what I thought, what about a R³ Cartesian space?

[Bored chemist]

A Cartesian space is much the same.

It's possible to be euclidean, but not Cartesian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Non-Cartesian_coordinates
but it's messy.

[guest39538]

A Cartesian space is much the same.

It's possible to be euclidean, but not Cartesian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Non-Cartesian_coordinates
but it's messy.

So a R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space would be just a representation of normal space?

[Bored chemist]

Pretty much.

[guest39538]

Pretty much.

So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?

When a matrix in physics is defined:

In physics, particularly in quantum perturbation theory, the "matrix element" refers to the linear operator of a modified Hamiltonian using Dirac notation. ... Matrix elements are important in atomic, nuclear and particle physics.

[Bored chemist]

"So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?"

Would you like to try defining some of the terms you just introduced?
"define the conceptual definition "


However , when it comes down to it, matrices have two dimensions and R3 has three.

[guest39538]

"define the conceptual definition "

relating to or based on mental concepts.

However , when it comes down to it, matrices have two dimensions and R3 has three.

And why can matrices not have 3 ?   

[Bored chemist]

"define the conceptual definition "

relating to or based on mental concepts.

However , when it comes down to it, matrices have two dimensions and R3 has three.

And why can matrices not have 3 ?   

They are 2 dimensional by definition- they have rows and columns.
As I already pointed out.
The rules of maths for them are only defined for 2 dimensions.

Did you not understand that?

Also, I didn't ask you do define " conceptual definition"
I asked you to define "define the conceptual definition ".
Basically, you need to explain what you think you mean by "So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?".
To do that, you need to break it up into clauses and then define each of them.
Alternatively, you could rewrite it, but properly this time.

[guest39538]

A Cartesian space is much the same.

It's possible to be euclidean, but not Cartesian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space#Non-Cartesian_coordinates
but it's messy.

So a R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space would be just a representation of normal space?

So you understood this



 
 
 Online Bored chemist
Naked Science Forum GOD!
*******
 10746
Activity:
100%
Thanked: 147 times
View Profile  Personal Message (Online)
ACTIONS

Re: A gas problem?
« Reply #109 on: Yesterday at 17:24:10 »
Pretty much.

Then claim to not understand one word difference.

Also, I didn't ask you do define " conceptual definition"
I asked you to define "define the conceptual definition ".
Basically, you need to explain what you think you mean by "So why can I not define the conceptual definition of a matrix in being a  R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space ?".
To do that, you need to break it up into clauses and then define each of them.
Alternatively, you could rewrite it, but properly this time.

How odd.

[Bored chemist]

It's not odd that I understand well documented conventions but not rambling gibberish.

[guest39538]

R³ Cartesian coordinate system in an Euclidean space would be just a representation of normal space

You said you understood that to be just a normal space, but you can't understand rows and columns in a normal space?

[Bored chemist]

You said you understood that to be just a normal space, but you can't understand rows and columns in a normal space?

The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between 2 and 3

R3 has 3 dimensions. A matrix has 2.
(and thus R3 is not a matrix)

Why are you struggling with that?

[guest39538]

You said you understood that to be just a normal space, but you can't understand rows and columns in a normal space?

The problem is that you don't seem to understand the difference between 2 and 3

R3 has 3 dimensions. A matrix has 2.
(and thus R3 is not a matrix)

Why are you struggling with that?

You seem to be struggling with rows and columns in a 3 dimension  space, have you never played with a Rubik cube?

Have you never used CGI and coordinate grids?

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be struggling with rows and columns in a 3 dimension  space

I'm not struggling, I can count them just fine.
"Rows" That's one dimension.
"Columns" that's two dimensions.

Where are you seeing a third dimension there?
Do you understand that 2 is not 3?
Do you understand that a 2 dimensional thing like a matrix is not a 3 dimensional thing like R3?