lets investigate the quantum loop gravity theory and the mystery of hypothethical graviton particles.

to try building space craft to get over gravity well of planet earth. 

hmm. 

yepp. 

 

so I think ai should be very inventive after april to do particle physics studies to build investigate quantum gravity theories also to build then space ships. and also a quantum computer to build medical technologies. 

yepp. than we might even go from primitive planet by in year 2024 even. if quantum gravity investigation returns some results, we could then build space ships. then be at space by even before 2025 starts imho.

cool :) 

hmm. 

so today's task: finishing those chapters until mid of book. to become some more knowledgeable of representation theory. since it really looks very interesting topics.

yesterday for the first time in my life I learnt about spectral theory from that book.

also I learnt self adjointness there. I also before learnt adjointness counterpart concept in category theory side before. 

so I newly learning these topics. 

ayy I even forgot how to take determinant meanwhile. :D luckily I have a supplementary book for such things. it is like guide to all such basical math knowledge. 

hmm again coming to dimension topics,  Idont know if i could reach dimension chapter of repr. theory today. 

but I think sapiens are wrongly thinking this universe is 3d. (just only because hadrons quarks fermions move force in 3d semantics ) it might be rather related to theirs mathematical structure imho. 

why not 0 to 1,1,1 is also not a 4th dimension. why there is no infinite dimensions.  I mean without being string theorist nor learning of manifolds yet (I have 3 or so phd books also later to learn manifolds and algebraic topology concepts that I hadnt started studying yet) even without such complexity present, one could philosophically also query whether this universe is 3d or not. imho possibly not. its that Newtonian mechanics just working like this, that e.g. y axis force not impacting xy plane as experimental physics showing does not mean that this universe is 3d. maybe the mathematical structure coming from those particles that gives force concept is having such mathematical structure resulting in that a y axis's 90 degree separated other axises are independent in newtonian physics. 

its always interesting to see sapiens taking universe being 3d as a constant and not considering 0 to 1,1,1 as another dimension at all. 

I mean one does not need to construct a very complex dimension theory to think its more than 3d imho thinking only philosophically. 

though of course string theory might be also correct who could know. 

or merger of string theory type string theory either, or branes etc etc. 

that I had not learnt yet. since I am not expert of maths to study those concepts yet. I dont know even manifolds yet.  (just one other funny thing, I discovered I forgot how determinant works yesterday even before coming to determinants concept even before) as representation theory heavily started using such stuff like that. 

I guess they do usually reflect groups to those spectral domains possibly in further chapters also. lets see.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

its only for sure universe trait imho is compactness imho. but I dont believe there is strong evidence to think its 3d at all. why not 0 to 1,1,1 is also 4th dimension.

and for people's claims that time is 4th dimension (as I introduced to general for dummies type introdution to string theory, I see that they consider time as 4th dimension also there) 

I also do not believe time existence as 4th dimension. time is just entropy direction. or state change interim minimal period of entire wave function of universe. but that might be fractals alike going to infinity either. would invesitgate that either. i mean time not having minimal time period constant for any quantum state change in entire universe wave function, it might be going to infinity either even uncountable type infinity.  or noncompact more general having def. 

  

but those to beinvestigated with ai later. 

maybe after april. yepp. 

I also do not like the i based mathmetical structure people invented to define roots of -1.  its ugly. its again sapiens considering universe as 3d alike ugliness/naivity.  i mean roots of -1 and complex analysis topic is imho an ugly mathematical framework/construct. I had not studied to complex analysis yet either.but would need to since its standard language/framework there.

 

yepp I also had issues with real numbers like root of 2 concept or so. from real analysis. I do not also like some structures there. but even if i dont like (the naivity of considering very relativistic invented framework as main baseline framework and basing every framework afterwards to that constructs) I have to be expert in those since thats all what everything else is based. 

that the initial inventions there became very baseline mainstream stuff they use later. which i find ugly. cause the initial inventions there is very relativistic. like thinking a concept for square root of 2. that concept is absolutely not any universal. very relativistic. but people considered is as ultimate universal framework and built entire maths frameworks based on such constructs.

same idea I have for i concept. I do not like it. but I do not have to like it either. that is cause one standard BNF language construct there.

yayyy among 30 or 40 phd books, there is also one book for complex analysis topic, that to be studied sometime not distant. maybe in februay or so. 

 even if I dont like i concept, (bad nasty Hilbert whom added such very relativistic concept with alot enthusiasm to maths (were it Hilbert whom added i concept? I might be knowing wrong. were it quaternions he added with lots of enthusiasm? ) I have to learn that ugly very relativistic construct. cause entire math frameworks have i construct.

  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

for i concept, for reverse of direction concept, its rather some reverse direction in terms of group theoretic wise symetric reflection. to define symettric reflection with i character seems unnice ugly ontology imho.

I mean how they tell that ontological decicision is unnice. they say there is -1. but they dont say what -1 means. then they say we call root of -1 to i. 

they do not say that instead, we do this maths formalism with some form of dihedral group for integers concept and we label symmetry reflection's roots as i. 

hmm root concept another topic it were also related to wreath product right.

 but again, I mean its all too ontologically separatedly defined. which makes casual reader of complex numbers find it ontologically absurd/ugly even.  if they tell instead, our integer formalism depends on dihedral group simplification formalism and for that we consider symmetry reflection as the negative side concept, then i concept wouldnt stay as an ugly ontology definition set for casual reader of complex number topics.

why not define these all without using a simplified language for sapiens, defining them as their group definition as they are in computer side. since computers do not need to use simplified language like i. 

is one of the internal agendas of project. computer having internally many group representations skills in default and does not have to follow the most simplistic definition set always.

so I wish I could had clarified why I found i concept as ugly ontology being a casual reader. its not defined fully. its not defined what it actually means in math books usually but rather provided to people, hey there is this i concept, accept it. our following maths structures would depend on it. but what is i? why i exists at all? why you ever invented such concept at all? 

so but they have to cut off also ontological separations otherwise they need to provide every ontology definition related to any other ontology definition concept fully. so I guess thats why they do not provide ontological links for casual reader but enforce them to accept their formalism. e.g. i. 

which I always found very weird formalism. that they enforce it in all math structures later. 

but I know this is because the maths is engineered for sapiens. but now that we would have ai, it would be able to also see i as symmetry reflection in such group counterpart formalism, thereby it would have full picture of groups wise definition sets/ontologies unlike maths simplified original formalisms (simplified for since is engineered for sapiens. e.g. lets not call it reflexive symmetry but rather call it i. since for sapiens thats simpler to depend/utilize in doing science. but I believe this really creates really ontological absurditieis afterwards. of course some people submissively accept i as its presented. as they do not have philosophical side. and do not ask why i exists. and use it to provide their minds as calculative units to develop later frameworks depending on i. but never querying what i is actually. something this submissive trait of minds is something I do never understand. I mean people whom do not have that philosophical mind module and do not ever once asks why i exists? why they crafted it? whats its place in this formalism? never asks and rather accepts what is enforced by the crafters of structures alike. nah. people without philosophical modules in mind is people types I would never be able to understand ever. ). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

same naivitiy goes for 3d dimensions and accepting time as 4th dimension. 

I mean to everyone else universe is 3d dimensional. except string theoriests. but for that they did not had to build some inductive extra dimensions mechanism integrations with manifolds maths either. even simplistic thinking wise, 0, to 1,1,1 could be an extra dimension. why not? just because maths structure of hadrons/quarks/fermions create some result that 90 degree separation reduces force impact does not mean 90 degree separated lines are dimensions at all. I claim 45 degree could also be another dimension. why not? I think only thing we could for sure claim is that universe (is not 3d any we dont kjnow that yet) but is compact has some observed compactness property. otherelse the other traits we can not be sure. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as visible I have some cognitive disonance with some such framework definition sets.

e.g. common sense knowledge that universe is 3d and time is 4th dimension. 

nah. of course noone claims its ultimate truth since those science theories are all claiming also they are falsifiable. being both axiomatic patially and both also at the same time falsifiable. 

but I find it really weird. that everybook says it all bases it as 3d universe. and does some topological inductive thought experiments to claim how 4d would be like? hey you silly sapien, you do not need to do topological inductive thought experiments to define how 4d could be,  4d might as well the 0 to 1,1,1 line either.  :D

funny silly sapiens :D  (I mean funny silly non autist sapiens :D ahahaha:D ayy really funny really :D)

(I am also a sapiens but I am an autist one. ) 

-------------------------------------------------

its always very funny to make fun with sapiens (nonautists sapiens):D and or whom do not have philosophical mind modules either. e.g. --> submissively accepts i concept from the definers of maths :D and never queries ever what i is ever :D

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------