Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
After reading a bit on the web, I assumed that you had invented this stuff at a time when you were incredibly young, but gotten no credit. The sufferings of genius.

  • "'A lot of quantum mechanics' omits squaring the result to get a probability." Fair enough, but with a chemical mindset in this diary, one would miss having wavefunctions and amplitudes. On the other hand, given the vast amount of quantum mechanics, I suppose that omitting lot leaves a lot that is not omitted. Just not the sort of QM that I crunch on this machine.

  • "There are more Rigs than just the nonnegative reals..." Indeed, and some of them are, well, cheesy. (To speak non-technically for a moment.) At the bottom of the barrel, "The simplest example of a semiring which is not a ring is the commutative semiring B formed by the two-element Boolean algebra," and nearby are other lame Rigs mentioned in Wikipedia

  • "Where do you keep reading..."? TWF, of course, for starters!

  • "No, I intend to say..." What you say is, I expect, entirely correct and, in principle, enlightening.

Re. your e-mail: Did you get my response? After the conversation I promised, she suggested considering citizen sector options, and minimizing the gap, on strategic/marketing grounds.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 02:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
  • You still get "diffusion of states" and "probability densities", just not wave propagation (you need i for that, I think).
  • What can I say, mathematicians tend to use lame examples when asked to make arcane structures concrete. I think matrices or nonnegative reals are a better meta-example, with the advantage of being universal.
  • TWF? I can't be held responsible for that.
  • "You expect" and "in principle"? Ask some questions!
I replied to your e-mail.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Technically, you could do away with i entirely in QM and not lose generality. But then you'd be stuck with 4th order differential equations. At least that's what one of our Optics profs claimed. I never checked myself, because you do not want to do 4th order PDEs anyway, unless you're a mathmatician or some (other) kind of masochist.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Mar 25th, 2008 at 02:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, a complex differential equation can always be written as a real differential equation of twice the order.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 at 03:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series