Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:01:07 +0000
Subject: Re: No true relativist!
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <89ea9e0a4ddc271a7bc16200c6a5dbb4@www.novabbs.com>
 <uC6dnQAond6lYLP6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <3c273ef12b9952ba62097af7c82733a1@www.novabbs.com>
 <89a6d08110a99bf650447fa73d9bd658@www.novabbs.com>
 <bc3734f4647fe68a89ceab454dc5c6f5@www.novabbs.com>
 <ba6dnaMefPZvdK36nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <33a4658c01ada4d7d23c8c423cc02906@www.novabbs.com>
 <rCKdnf502rsG36_6nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:01:08 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rCKdnf502rsG36_6nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <lfCdncZTTfn-26_6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 264
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EsljlldWu8epVYDScBj16W/PGMa8JBDDOchOGdh0F5m3R99Ib8nZutFgeFelbqv8O326elqsBlc4eIq!4cvu6LzdXY8H3laHJhvOUn51eExPhWnpFnzi2EZhicsjESF3qERMjtHnD2UPFokdjLN5nWwZmbtd
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 14138

On 11/11/2024 09:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 11/10/2024 04:57 PM, rhertz wrote:
>> Can you clarify this text?
>> ChatGPT said:
>>
>> Of course! Please share the text you'd like me to clarify.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> You said:
>> The complex numbers, are, not real numbers.
>> Yes I know there's much for modeling reflections
>> and rotations and including for the hypercomplex
>> as the Lie algebras are so ubiquitous, yet,
>> getting into Zariski and Kodaira after the
>> algebraic geometers after Lefschetz and Picarad
>> and into revived "integral analysis" besides
>> "differential analysis", has that the Eulerian-Gaussian
>> after deMoivre "complex analysis", has sort of
>> reached its limits, and you know, not reached its
>> infinite limits.
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ChatGPT said:
>>
>> This text seems to be a stream of thoughts on the limitations and
>> ongoing developments in certain areas of mathematics, particularly
>> related to complex analysis, algebraic geometry, and their historical
>> development. Here's a clearer breakdown of the key points:
>>
>> Complex Numbers vs. Real Numbers: The text starts by distinguishing
>> complex numbers from real numbers, implying that the world of complex
>> numbers is broader and not confined to real numbers alone.
>>
>> Modeling Reflections and Rotations: The author acknowledges that complex
>> numbers are widely used in modeling transformations such as reflections
>> and rotations, especially in areas like geometry and physics.
>>
>> Hypercomplex Numbers and Lie Algebras: The mention of "hypercomplex"
>> refers to numbers that generalize complex numbers, such as quaternions
>> or octonions. Lie algebras are mathematical structures that arise in the
>> study of symmetries and are found in many areas of mathematics and
>> physics. The author hints at their ubiquity and importance.
>>
>> Zariski, Kodaira, Lefschetz, Picard: These are references to key figures
>> in algebraic geometry and complex analysis:
>>
>> Zariski: Known for his work on the Zariski topology in algebraic
>> geometry.
>> Kodaira: Known for his contributions to complex geometry and the theory
>> of complex manifolds.
>> Lefschetz and Picard: Mathematicians associated with key concepts in
>> topology and algebraic geometry, particularly related to the study of
>> algebraic surfaces and varieties.
>> Revived Integral vs. Differential Analysis: The author points to a shift
>> or a renewed interest in "integral analysis," contrasting it with
>> "differential analysis." This could refer to the ongoing interplay
>> between different areas of mathematical analysis, such as integral
>> equations versus differential equations.
>>
>> Eulerian-Gaussian and de Moivre: This likely refers to classical results
>> in complex analysis:
>>
>> Eulerian: Referring to Euler’s work, especially on the Euler’s formula
>> relating complex exponentials to trigonometry.
>> Gaussian: Referring to the Gaussian distribution or possibly the work of
>> Carl Friedrich Gauss, who made foundational contributions to complex
>> analysis.
>> de Moivre: Referring to de Moivre's formula, which links complex numbers
>> and trigonometry.
>> Complex Analysis Reaching Its Limits: The author seems to feel that
>> complex analysis, especially as developed through Euler, Gauss, and de
>> Moivre, may have reached a point of saturation in some sense — it has
>> limits, but these limits are not infinite.
>>
>> In summary:
>> The author is reflecting on the evolution of mathematical theories,
>> especially in the areas of complex analysis, algebraic geometry, and
>> transformations, noting how these fields have developed over time and
>> acknowledging that, while rich and important, certain aspects (like
>> classical complex analysis) may be approaching their limits. However,
>> there's an underlying suggestion that these fields are still evolving,
>> with new directions like "integral analysis" emerging alongside more
>> traditional "differential analysis."
>>
>> Does that help clarify the text?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Not completely. The author seems confused.
>>
>> ChatGPT said:
>>
>> You're right—upon closer inspection, the author seems to be grappling
>> with some complex ideas and their intersections, but the writing itself
>> does feel somewhat disjointed and unclear. Let's break it down further
>> and reframe it to get a clearer sense of the confusion:
>>
>> ************************************************
>>
>> Text Breakdown
>> "The complex numbers, are, not real numbers."
>>
>> The author begins by stating that complex numbers are different from
>> real numbers, but the phrasing is awkward. They're likely trying to
>> emphasize the distinction between complex and real numbers, which is
>> true, but the sentence structure is off.
>> "Yes I know there's much for modeling reflections and rotations and
>> including for the hypercomplex as the Lie algebras are so ubiquitous..."
>>
>> The author acknowledges the utility of complex numbers (and perhaps
>> "hypercomplex numbers" such as quaternions) in modeling transformations
>> like reflections and rotations. This part isn't too unclear, though it
>> could be worded more smoothly.
>>
>> The reference to Lie algebras is a bit strange here, though. Lie
>> algebras are indeed ubiquitous in modern physics and mathematics, but
>> their connection to complex numbers and hypercomplex numbers isn't fully
>> elaborated here. This could be the source of some confusion for the
>> author.
>>
>> "Yet, getting into Zariski and Kodaira after the algebraic geometers
>> after Lefschetz and Picarad and into revived 'integral analysis' besides
>> 'differential analysis'..."
>>
>> The author is jumping between topics: Zariski, Kodaira, and Lefschetz
>> are all names associated with algebraic geometry. But they’re mixed in
>> with the idea of integral versus differential analysis.
>>
>> The "revived integral analysis" could refer to a renewed interest in
>> areas like integral equations, which might be contrasted with
>> differential equations, though it's not clear why this is brought up
>> here, since it's more of a modern mathematical distinction rather than a
>> clear part of the historical narrative.
>>
>> "Has that the Eulerian-Gaussian after deMoivre 'complex analysis', has
>> sort of reached its limits, and you know, not reached its infinite
>> limits."
>>
>> Here, the author seems to be reflecting on the limits of traditional
>> complex analysis, particularly after Euler, Gauss, and de Moivre.
>> The phrase "reached its limits" suggests the author feels that classical
>> complex analysis might be exhausted in terms of new insights, but
>> they’re also hinting that this doesn't mean the field has run out of
>> room for growth entirely ("not reached its infinite limits").
>>
>> The reference to Eulerian-Gaussian and de Moivre feels disconnected. The
>> "Eulerian" part might refer to Euler’s contributions to complex numbers,
>> while "Gaussian" could refer to Carl Gauss, who made foundational
>> contributions to complex analysis. But this part seems muddled.
>>
>>
>> The Confusion
>>
>> The author seems to be trying to tie together several deep and complex
>> mathematical concepts, but the ideas aren't connected in a coherent way.
>> Here's why the text feels confusing:
>>
>> Jumping Between Topics: The author shifts between several high-level
>> topics (complex numbers, Lie algebras, algebraic geometry, integral vs.
>> differential analysis, Eulerian-Gaussian complex analysis) without
>> clearly explaining the connections. The sentence structure doesn’t help,
>> making it hard to follow the thread of the argument.
>>
>> Overloaded Concepts: Terms like "hypercomplex," "Lie algebras,"
>> "Zariski," "Kodaira," and "revived integral analysis" are all heavy
>> concepts, and it feels like the author is trying to pack too much into a
>> short passage. They don't explain why these ideas are important
>> together, which makes it harder to see the point they're trying to make.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========