Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Fully discretized physics, my discrete damped oscillator
It was back in 2002 when I discovered a discrete damped oscillator as an accident as it was the heart of a prime counting function that I was actually looking to find.
Here is the damped discrete oscillator:
With natural numbers, if y<sqrt{x} then
P(x,y) = x-1-\sum_{k=2}^y {((P([x/k],k-1)-P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))\Delta P(k,sqrt{k})}
else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}) where
Delta P(k,sqrt{k}) = P(k,\sqrt{k})-P(k-1,\sqrt{k-1})
whenever k is not prime Delta P(k, sqrt{k}) equals 0, while it equals 1 if k is prime, so you get this oscillation, and program it and you can watch it drop as you iterate from k=2 up to sqrt{x}.
Oh yeah, it happens to also count primes but that is secondary here.
Now it turns out that discrete mathematics can be really, really hard, which is one of the reasons that continuous functions are so big in physics—they're easier.
But quantum mechanics brought in a discrete viewpoint, and I think it's just a matter of time before physics is fully discretized.
Now I've known about this for years without emphasizing it a lot, partly because I've been mulling it all over, but also because I'm a curious person, and THIS result allowed me to test the mathematicians with something relatively simple, where I could see how they operate.
Which gave me time to mull the questions over, and I've taken a few years and now feel like it's time to point out that, hey, here might be a key function in a fully discretized physics.
But don't expect help from mathematicians because they've been heaping scorn on me for years.
Ok, so yeah, I admit it, I have a thing against mathematicians. I remember back when I was an undergrad I had a professor who just ragged and ragged against them, and you know what?
He was right.
They don't understand science.
They go on and on about being "pure" but while this idea of mine was just a "pure" prime counting function, they ignored it, or on Usenet, ripped on it.
These people have lost touch with reality, so they've finally lost touch with mathematics as well, as mathematics as we know it is a tool we need to figure out reality.
Without a reason beyond what makes them feel good, mathematicians today are lost.
There is no other known way to count prime numbers using a discrete summation of a partial difference equation.
How could they just act like it doesn't exist?
I contacted a guy named Odlyzko who is like tops in this area, and he told me my research was of no interest after I pushed him a bit when he dumped me on a colleague who programmed that prime counting function in C. I posted his program later on the newsgroup sci.math and was not surprised when it was ripped upon by nasty posters.
That was just fun, but it was telling fun. Math people are disconnected from reality.
If these people actually gave a damn about anything other than pretending to actually care about the pursuit of knowledge they'd have been all over this years ago.
Mathematicians are not scientists. There are mathematicians who call themselves physicists who are NOT scientists, and some of them probably babble about primes and relating them to physics because of some muddled nonsense they trot out about the Riemann Hypothesis.
I don't expect them to give a damn either about my find as it's too simple for such people.
Who wants a partial difference equation that picks out prime numbers and sums to also give a count? I mean, like, what intellectually minded person could be interested in such a thing?
What intellectually minded person could not?
These people are not very bright. They are pretend bright.
They cannot find real theories that work in the real world, and they cannot help with the next physics revolution, when discrete mathematics takes over the field, and the easier continuous functions are only used maybe to teach or when people just want a quick rough guess.
The demonstration is in front of you. Brilliant mathematics reviled by mathematicians, where the ace I had to play was to point out that it is actually a discrete damped oscillator.
For years I've made my disdain of mathematicians known. If these people had an ounce of sense they'd have expected this sort of gambit, where I'd let them show their contempt for purity for years, so that I could come in and checkmate them on the physics.
To them "pure math" is whatever makes them look prettier or gives them money, like with a prize or a some fat federal grant.
They are NOT very bright. They are just pretenders, who fool a lot of the people, most of the time, including many of you who probably naively look up to mathematicians who cannot do physics, even to save their own skins.
Here is the damped discrete oscillator:
With natural numbers, if y<sqrt{x} then
P(x,y) = x-1-\sum_{k=2}^y {((P([x/k],k-1)-P(k-1,sqrt{k-1}))\Delta P(k,sqrt{k})}
else P(x,y) = P(x,sqrt{x}) where
Delta P(k,sqrt{k}) = P(k,\sqrt{k})-P(k-1,\sqrt{k-1})
whenever k is not prime Delta P(k, sqrt{k}) equals 0, while it equals 1 if k is prime, so you get this oscillation, and program it and you can watch it drop as you iterate from k=2 up to sqrt{x}.
Oh yeah, it happens to also count primes but that is secondary here.
Now it turns out that discrete mathematics can be really, really hard, which is one of the reasons that continuous functions are so big in physics—they're easier.
But quantum mechanics brought in a discrete viewpoint, and I think it's just a matter of time before physics is fully discretized.
Now I've known about this for years without emphasizing it a lot, partly because I've been mulling it all over, but also because I'm a curious person, and THIS result allowed me to test the mathematicians with something relatively simple, where I could see how they operate.
Which gave me time to mull the questions over, and I've taken a few years and now feel like it's time to point out that, hey, here might be a key function in a fully discretized physics.
But don't expect help from mathematicians because they've been heaping scorn on me for years.
Ok, so yeah, I admit it, I have a thing against mathematicians. I remember back when I was an undergrad I had a professor who just ragged and ragged against them, and you know what?
He was right.
They don't understand science.
They go on and on about being "pure" but while this idea of mine was just a "pure" prime counting function, they ignored it, or on Usenet, ripped on it.
These people have lost touch with reality, so they've finally lost touch with mathematics as well, as mathematics as we know it is a tool we need to figure out reality.
Without a reason beyond what makes them feel good, mathematicians today are lost.
There is no other known way to count prime numbers using a discrete summation of a partial difference equation.
How could they just act like it doesn't exist?
I contacted a guy named Odlyzko who is like tops in this area, and he told me my research was of no interest after I pushed him a bit when he dumped me on a colleague who programmed that prime counting function in C. I posted his program later on the newsgroup sci.math and was not surprised when it was ripped upon by nasty posters.
That was just fun, but it was telling fun. Math people are disconnected from reality.
If these people actually gave a damn about anything other than pretending to actually care about the pursuit of knowledge they'd have been all over this years ago.
Mathematicians are not scientists. There are mathematicians who call themselves physicists who are NOT scientists, and some of them probably babble about primes and relating them to physics because of some muddled nonsense they trot out about the Riemann Hypothesis.
I don't expect them to give a damn either about my find as it's too simple for such people.
Who wants a partial difference equation that picks out prime numbers and sums to also give a count? I mean, like, what intellectually minded person could be interested in such a thing?
What intellectually minded person could not?
These people are not very bright. They are pretend bright.
They cannot find real theories that work in the real world, and they cannot help with the next physics revolution, when discrete mathematics takes over the field, and the easier continuous functions are only used maybe to teach or when people just want a quick rough guess.
The demonstration is in front of you. Brilliant mathematics reviled by mathematicians, where the ace I had to play was to point out that it is actually a discrete damped oscillator.
For years I've made my disdain of mathematicians known. If these people had an ounce of sense they'd have expected this sort of gambit, where I'd let them show their contempt for purity for years, so that I could come in and checkmate them on the physics.
To them "pure math" is whatever makes them look prettier or gives them money, like with a prize or a some fat federal grant.
They are NOT very bright. They are just pretenders, who fool a lot of the people, most of the time, including many of you who probably naively look up to mathematicians who cannot do physics, even to save their own skins.
# posted by James Harris @ 23:47 
