So it is as I suspected. I had a sense that the very nature of math and how it has evolved was flawed in its definition. When a system is devised to comply with a process and the process is not understood, any method is as good as any other. Scientists once believed that all matter was composed of Air, Earth, Fire, and Water and that people were ruled by the position of the stars in relationship to the translation, rotation and revolution of the Earth with respect to them. Some even believed in spontaneous generation of life. I assume that very few people would still accept that scientific perspective. Sometimes when I create code, I realize that I have started with a concept that can't work with the goals I have set for the software or new information is revealed in the creation itself. It is then necessary to take what you can from the work that has been done and start all over again.
So I am devising a math that models the universe as I understand it. Basically a shorthand rule set and principles that can be applied by an infine ( new name to imply infinite integer length ) computer. Some of the principles came clear when considering the representation of numbers and I have no complete idea of how this will end, I will just try it and see if it works.
I think that the first step is just adding two infines.
A[1][1:∞][1:5]+B[1][1:∞][1:5]=C[2][1:∞][1:5].
It may seem overly complicated, but the universe is complex and describing it is bound to also be a complex descriptor. While I am at it, I might as well clean out some of the ambiguity and symbol overloading. I would think that NaN certainly would not actually be a number. :)
It isn't as bad as it looks and in fact I like this concept as it has already yielded some results. Using the right method makes things much clearer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment