Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    That's a detailed analysis of a hopeless way to get it assessed. I do sense perverse pleasure there. I hope it's not taken from personal experience.

    So, do you have any sort of opinion of a hopeful way to proceed?
  2.  
    Make a YouTube video.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2017
     
    The experience is personal only in the sense that I have been the guy receiving crackpot mail (which might have gems in it, but is the game worth the candle?) However I do have a more germane experience through a guy who used to work for me. Or rather he was supposed to. In fact he spent all his time tiddling around with some idea he had about elliptic integrals. As far as I could make out it was a genuine discovery, but of what importance it was not for me to judge.

    He had pretty much that sort of trouble. Also with mathematical journals. I remember one that sent it out for review where it remained for something like two years, after which upon enquiry they responded that the reviewers to whom it was sent were too busy/not competent to judge/whatever.

    I would suggest doing more or less what you are doing. Find somebody who can reasonably deal with you directly. Maybe go talk to a mathematics department person in person. If you can convince him that you are a reasoning creature, and explain it on the spot so he don't have to spend any time thinking, then you might get somewhere.
  3.  
    Yep, sounds right. Thanks.
  4.  
    I'm grooving on Tensor Calculus right now, hoping that finally it sticks. This is the closest I've come to properly absorbing it I think.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0eJXttPRZI&list=PLlXfTHzgMRULkodlIEqfgTS-H1AY_bNtq
    The site is rich in maths pedagogy btw.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2017
     
    Hey good. Useful. Thanks!

    I passed the exam these many years ago without having the faintest clue what was going on. And ...oooh, those Christ-awful symbols!
  5.  
    That's the second time you've moaned about the Christoffel stuff. And I don't blame you. I tried with them (since they weren't in the undergrad syllabus) a few years after graduation and it just wouldn't stick.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2017
     
    My psyche was severely damaged by a Christoffel symbol. A little sympathy please.
  6.  
  7.  
    That was fun, but I'm afraid it is going to give me some very strange dreams.
  8.  
    But of course complex numbers are the spawn of Satan.
  9.  
    You are ahead of me, then, because I watched it while woozy before bed and I've not understood it, to be quite honest. I hope to do better with the comprehension today!

    Re. complex numbers, something innocent-looking about them had me agitated a month or so ago, and remains unresolved in my mind. It's the fact that we denote them as a PLUS i*b, and yet treat them as 2D vectors.

    It only took me 53 years to realise this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2017
     
    Why not? They are the sum of two component vectors.
  10.  
    If you believe that apples and pears can be directly added together, then fine.

    In an orthonormal basis, vector components are added along each separate axis. Orthonormality (orthogonality) ensures that separate components stay separated. One never adds an x-component to a y-component. They are separate for a good reason: they are independent.
  11.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2017
     
    That's vector nonsense. Geometrically, any two vectors can be added. You just stick the tail of the second to the nose of the first and then look at the resultant vector running from the tail of the first to the nose of the second. If we want to play around with algebraic representations of vectors we can arrive at something equivalent.
  12.  
    Of course vectors can be added. Are you suggesting what I said gainsays that? That's rubbish.

    Take a vector A with components 2 in the x-direction and 3 in the y-direction, with origin at the origin, for example. How do you write it? Most say A(2,3). Notice a comma is used. Do you write it A(2+3)?

    Of course you don't.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2017
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanOf course vectors can be added. Are you suggesting what I said gainsays that? That's rubbish.


    One may excuse my thinking so on the basis of what you wrote, given that component vectors are vectors.

    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanOne never adds an x-component to a y-component.


    I have some very slight, fleeting nuance of a quiver of sympathy with your cavil about (x,y) being a better and more consistent way of denoting a two component vector than x+jy if that is all you mean. (Notice the ee's ingrained use of j for the imaginary component). However it makes perfect sense to write it that way because all the algebra works out, it is quite consistent with the idea of adding components to get a vector, and Mr. Steinmetz was a genius to invent phasors.
  13.  
    You still haven't seen it. Best to let it stew a while.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMay 28th 2017
     
    It works for quaternions too.