Log in

About this Community
For everyone who is intrigued by numers in nature, fractals, and co-incidental numbers.
In fact, any numerical order/phenomena that is just too cool to ignore.
Pick a number...
Dec. 26th, 2006 @ 06:41 pm What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
From the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surjection I find the definition of Surjection, Surjectivity, Superjectivity but it is in mathematical language I don't understand, all these symbols of 'functions' I don't get.

I take it to be pure or transcendental (abstract) objectivity, abstracting from Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics, where the (perhaps now unfortunately outdated) term 'Superject' means object, to Whitehead, 'eternal object' (a Subject or 'subjective form' being process, I take the other to be the product.) Is the object, using the term superject, the 'product' as in multiplication?

Superjectivity, or surjectivity seems to me to have a very precise mathematical definition, just like the differences between injectivity and bijectivity, and subjectivity.

My question, precisely put, is whether there is a more precise definition of subjectivity and superjectivity (certainly the one is just as precise as the other) from mathematics?

What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
About this Entry
Nov. 23rd, 2006 @ 10:44 am The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that?
Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?

I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.

The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?

I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."

So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
About this Entry
Nov. 21st, 2006 @ 11:07 am (no subject)
Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.

Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).

See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...

Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.

Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.

Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.

The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.

The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.

There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.

Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.

The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.

Thanks a lot,
Randy Dible
About this Entry
Aug. 8th, 2006 @ 12:43 pm Hello & Quadratic Formula Expansion
Hey, BOGWarrior89 here, just like to say I'm out of high school and going into a college mathematics major program (alongside another major in physics). I took a semester of Pre-Calculus and Trigonometry, other than that, not much more to say on that subject.

My current "work" is on the quadratic formula (I had a problem with solving asymptotes using "x approaches infinity" limits). Unfortunately, I don't have my notebook with me, but I can try to recall it offhand. I seriously need an opinion on this, so here goes (new variables in bold):
The new and improved Quadratic Formula.Collapse )
About this Entry
Jun. 1st, 2006 @ 08:14 pm prime numbers across different base number systems

Here is something I wonder about. Are numbers which are Prime in base 10 always prime in number systems of any base X system?
About this Entry
barn swallow
Nov. 2nd, 2005 @ 06:31 pm math problem
here's a challenge for all you math people out there. Bonus points to whoever can tell me where it came from.

f(1) = 7182818284
f(2) = 8182845904
f(3) = 8747135266
f(4) = 7427466391
f(5) = xxxxxxxxxx
About this Entry
dark knight
Oct. 31st, 2005 @ 04:05 pm If You Enjoy Pi Like I Do...
You should enjoy this rap.
About this Entry
Ninja Pirate Bunnies
Jun. 30th, 2005 @ 01:17 pm Question
Feeling: contemplativecontemplative

I hope this is not out of place for me to ask, but I am having a small debate with someone on apologetics. I just want to make sure that I am understanding something correctly that has to do with mathematical place values. I want to make sure I am explaining it correctly.

Ok, let's say I have the number 29.71. This is used to represent a certain date. Would this number not be able to be divided into 29 full days (full 24-hour periods) and .71 of another day, bringing the date to the 30th?

I know this seems rather elementary, but I just want to make sure I am understanding it correctly and have not somehow gotten that confused (especially since I've been tutoring 4-6th graders in stuff like this and myself being several years into my education).

Any further explanation that I may use or confirmation or whatnot is greatly appreciated. Thank you!
About this Entry
Jun. 16th, 2005 @ 08:40 pm Hex Pi?
Feeling: geekygeeky
What would decimal fractions be like if we didn't count in Base 10?

I'm guessing 1.5 in decimal would be equal to 1.8 in hexadecimal, but what about with numbers that have more than one digit after the decimal point?
0.125 decimal would be about 0.2 hex I think?

Also, how do you say "five and a quater" in binary; 101.01?
About this Entry
Ven Ra
Jun. 12th, 2005 @ 05:37 pm Hi everyone.
Just thought I'd say hi. I love math, put π in my little interests box, clicked on it, and I found this wonderful community. I guess that's all.
About this Entry