## Why is it so hard to prove that e+pi or e*pi is irrational/rational?

The reason why it is so hard to prove is actually very easy to answer. **These ***constants, identities, and variations*** being referred to in this post, and others like it, all lay embedded in a far deeper substrate than current mathematics has yet explored**.

Mathematics has been, and always shall be my ‘first love’, and it has provided for me all of these years. **I am not criticising mathematics in any way.** It is my firm belief that mathematics will overcome this current situation and eventually be quite able to examine these kinds of questions in a **much more ***expansive ***and ***deeper ***way.**

We need to extend our examination of mathematical knowledge, *both in depth and in scope,* out farther and in deeper than numbers (sets and categories as well – even more below) have yet done. **I’ll introduce you to a pattern you may have already noticed in the current stage of our mathematical endeavour.**

We all know there are numbers which lay outside of *Q* which we call Irrational numbers. There are also numbers which lay outside of *R* which we call Imaginary numbers. They have both been found, **because the domain of questioning exceeded the range of answers being sought within the properties each of those numbers.** This pattern continues in other ways, as well.

**We also know there are abstractions and/or extensions of Complex numbers where the ‘air starts to get thin’ and mathematical properties start to ‘fade away’: **Quaternions, Octonians, Sedenions,…

This pattern continues in other ways: **Holors**, for example, which extend and include mathematical entities such as Complex numbers, scalars, vectors, matrices, tensors, Quaternions, and other hypercomplex numbers, yet are still capable of providing a different algebra which is consistent with real algebra.

**The framing of our answers to mathematical questions is also evolving.** Logic was, for example, limited to quite sophisticated methods that all were restricted to a boolean context. Then we found other questions which led to boundary, multi-valued, fuzzy, and fractal logics, among a few others I haven’t mentioned yet.

**Even our validity claims are evolving. **We are beginning to ask questions which require answers which transcend relationship properties such as causality, equivalence, and inference in all of their forms. Even the idea of a binary relationship is being transcended into finitary versions (which I use in my work). There are many more of these various patterns which I may write about in the future.

**They all have at least one thing in common:** *each time we extend our reach in terms of scope or depth, we find new ways of seeing things which we saw before and/or see new things which were before not seen.*

There are many ‘voices’ in this ‘mathematical fugue’ which ‘weaves’ everything together: **they are the ***constants, variations, identities,*** and the ***relationships they share with each other.*

The constants *e, π, i, ϕ, c, g, h* all denote or involve ‘special’ relationships of some kind. **Special in the sense that they are completely ***unique***.**

For example:

*e*is the(some would say proportion, but that’s not entirely correct).*identity of change**π*is the. There’s much more going on with than simply being a component of*identity of periodicity**arc*or, in a completely different context, a component of*area*…

**These relationships actually transcend mathematics.** Mathematics ‘consumes’ their utility (making use of those relationships), but they cannot be ‘corralled in’ as if they were ‘horses on the farm’ of mathematics. **Their uniqueness cannot be completely understood via equivalence classes alone.**

**They are***ubiquitous***and therefore not***algebraic***.****They are***pre-nascent***to number***,***equivalence classes, and validity claims and are therefore not***rational***.**

These are not the only reasons.

**It’s also about WHERE they are embedded in the knowledge substrate compared to the concept of number, set, category…. ***They lay more deeply embedded in that substrate.*

The reason why your question is so hard for mathematics to answer is, because our current mathematics is, as yet, unable to decide. **We need to ‘see’ these problems with a more complete set of ‘optics’ that will yield them to mathematical scrutiny. **

April 25, 2018 | Categories: Holors, Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Learning, Mathematics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: insight, knowledge, learning, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy Of Mind, understanding, Universal Constants, wisdom | Leave a comment

## Getting Hypertension About Hyperreals

(Links below)

This system is quite interesting if we allow ourselves to talk about the qualities of infinite sets as if we can know their character completely. The problem is, any discussion of an infinite set includes their definition which MAY NOT be the same as any characterisation which they may actually have.

**Also, and more importantly, ***interiority*** as well as ***exteriority*** are accessible without the use of this system. These ‘Hyperreals’ are an ***ontological*** approach to ***epistemology*** via characteristics/properties we cannot really know. There can be no both true and verifiable validity claim in this system.**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWe1BunlXI (Part1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBmJWEQTl1w (Part2)

March 29, 2018 | Categories: Big Data, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Mathematics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantics, Wisdom | Tags: insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, learning, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantics, understanding | Leave a comment

## Knowledge Representation – Fractal Torus 1

Fractal Torus 1 by Ryan Cameron on YouTube

March 11, 2018 | Categories: Fractals, Holons, Holors, Hyperbolic Geometry, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Learning, Linguistics, Mathesis Universalis, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics | Tags: knowledge, Knowledge Representation, learning, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantics, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment

## Lateral Numbers – How ‘Imaginary Numbers’ May Be Understood

First, allow me to rename theses numbers during the remainder of this post to ** lateral numbers**, in accordance to the naming convention as was

**recommended by Gauss**. I have a special reason for using this naming convention. It will later become apparent why I’ve done this.

If we examine lateral numbers *algebraically*, a pattern emerges:

When we raise lateral numbers to higher powers, the answers do not get higher and higher in value like other numbers do. Instead, **a pattern emerges after every 4th multiplication.** This pattern never ceases.

**All other numbers, besides laterals, have a place on what currently is called the ‘Real number line’.**

I qualify the naming of the Real Numbers, because even their conceptualisation has come into question by some very incisive modern mathematicians. That is a very ‘volatile’ subject for conventional mathematicians and would take us off on a different tangent, so I’ll leave that idea for a different post.

If we look for laterals on any conventional Real number line, we will never ‘locate’ them.** ***They are found there,** but we need to look at numbers differently in order to ‘see’ them.*

**Lateral numbers solve one problem in particular: ***to find a number, which when multiplied by itself, yields another negative number.*

Lateral numbers** **‘

**’**

*unify*

*the number line with the algebraic pattern shown above.*2 is positive and, when multiplied by itself, yields a positive number. It maintains direction on the number line.

When one of the numbers (leaving squaring briefly) being multiplied is negative, the multiplication yields a negative number. The direction ‘flips’ 180° into the opposite direction.

Multiplying -2 by -2 brings us back to the positive direction, because of the change resulting in multiplying by a negative number, which always flips our direction on the number line.

So, it appears as if there’s no way of landing on a negative number, right? We need a number that only rotates 90°, instead of the 180° when using negative numbers. **This is where lateral numbers come into play.**

If we place another lateral axis perpendicular to our ‘Real’ number line, we obtain the desired fit of geometry with our algebra.

When we multiply our ‘Real’ number 1 by *i*, we get *i* *algebraically*, which *geometrically* corresponds to a 90° rotation from 1 to *i*.

Now, multiplying by i again results in i squared, which is -1. This additional 90° rotation equals the customary 180° rotation when multiplying by -1 (above).

We may even look at this point as if we were viewing it down a perpendicular axis of the origin itself (moving in towards the origin from our vantage point, through the origin, and then out the back of our screen).

###### [If we allow this interpretation, we can identify the ‘spin’ of a point around the axis of its own origin! The amount of spin is determined by how much the point moves laterally in terms of *i*.

We may even determine in which direction the rotation is made. I’ll add how this is done to this post soon.]

Each time we increase our rotation by multiplying by a factor of* i*, we increase our rotation another 90°, as seen here:

and,

The cycle repeats itself on every 4th power of *i*.

**We could even add additional lateral numbers to any arbitrary point. This is what I do in my knowledge representations of holons. **For example a point at say 5 may be expressed as any number of laterals *i, j, k,… *simply by adding or subtracting some amount of* i, j, k,…:*

*5 + i + j +k +…*

Or better as:

[*5, i, j, k,…*]

**Seeing numbers in this fashion makes a point*** n***-dimensional.**

November 14, 2017 | Categories: Constants, Holons, Holors, Hyperbolic Geometry, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathematics, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics | Tags: Mathematica Generalis, Mathematica Universalis, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics | Leave a comment

## Are sets, in an abstract sense, one of the most fundamental objects in contemporary mathematics?

Yes and no.

**The ***equivalence relation*** lies deeper within the knowledge representation and it’s foundation.**

There are other knowledge prerequisites which lie even deeper within the knowledge substrate than the equivalence relation.

**The concepts of a ***boundary, of quantity, membership, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and relation*** are some examples.**

September 9, 2017 | Categories: Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathematics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Noosphere, Philosophy, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics | Tags: knowledge, Language, learning, Linguistics, Logica Generalis, Logica Universalis, Mathematica Generalis, Mathematica Universalis, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Philosophy, understanding | Leave a comment

## Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #19 (Inverse Awareness)

**Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities**

#19 **The Inverse Awareness Relation**

The Inverse Awareness Relation establishes a fundamental relationship in our universe:

```
```and

Macro Awareness =

or

```
```

```
```Which essentially state:

**The closer awareness is in some way to an entity, ***the more depth and the less scope it discerns.*

**The farther awareness is in some way to an entity, ***the more scope and the less depth it discerns.*

(Be careful, this idea of closeness is not the same as distance.)

```
```
May 15, 2017 | Categories: Discernment, Holons, Holors, Hyperbolic Geometry, Identities, Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics, Understanding, Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities, Variations, Wisdom | Tags: knowledge, Language, learning, Linguistics, LogicaUniversalis, Mathesis Universalis, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, understanding | Leave a comment

```
```

## Is Real World Knowledge More Valuable Than Fictional Knowledge?

**No.**

Here an excerpt from a short summary of a paper I am writing that provides some context to answer this question:

**What Knowledge is not:**

Knowledge is not very well understood so I’ll briefly point out some of the reasons why we’ve been unable to precisely define what knowledge is thus far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge. **Plato taught** *that justified truth and belief are required for something to be considered knowledge.*

Throughout the history of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), others have done their best to add to Plato’s work or create new or more comprehensive definitions in their attempts to ‘contain’ the meaning of meaning (knowledge). All of these efforts have failed for one reason or another.

Using truth value and ‘justification’ as a basis for knowledge or introducing broader definitions or finer classifications can only fail.

I will now provide a small set of examples of why this is so.

**Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend.**

Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because

*knowledge is the meaning of meaning*

**What about false or fictitious knowledge?** [Here’s the reason why I say no.]

Their perfectly valid structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them as something else than what they are. Differences in culture or language even make no difference, because the objects being referred to have meaning that transcends language barriers.

Another problem is that knowledge is often thought to be primarily semantics or even ontology based. Both of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the first case (semantics):

*There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know.*

The same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been assigned, such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we’re not yet aware of or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we’ve become aware of or remember them.

In the second case (ontology): collations that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to memory, initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of space, time, order, context, relation,… We build whole catalogues, dictionaries and theories about them: Triads, diads, quints, ontology charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in linguistics are examples.

Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive ‘extrinsic’ way. **An ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of the objects to which it corresponds.**

The knowledge is not coming from the data itself, it is always coming from the observer of the data, even if that observer is an algorithm.

Therefore ontology-based semantic analysis can only produce the artefacts of knowledge, such as search results, association to other objects, ‘knowledge graphs’ like Cayley,…

*Real knowledge* precedes, transcends and includes our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception, communication, reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity of acknowledgement.

In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematised; it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision.

[For those interested, my summary is found at: A Precise Definition of Knowledge – Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely: http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y

May 11, 2017 | Categories: Consciousness, Insight, Knowledge, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Big Data, Characteristica Universalis, insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, learning, Linguistics, Logica Universalis, Mathematica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metaphysica Universalis, Metaphysics, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Scientia Universalis, Semantic Web, Semantics, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment