Applied Math from multiply.com 
Applied Math from multiply.com 
P JayS 
Nov 13, 2012, 10:34 AM
Post
#1

DemiGod Group: Basic Member Posts: 588 Joined: Apr 04, 2012 Member No.: 34146 
Applied Mathematics (mathematics.multiply.com)
Applied Mathematics View Members (384) Invite Members Quit Group Report Abuse Home Notes Blog Photos Video Calendar Reviews Links an alternative explanation of "evolution" using applied mathematics Mar 8, '08 8:50 PM by Richard for everyone astralzenith abstraction. 'nuff said. reply 18 Comments ChronologicalReverseThreaded reply ericdred wrote on Mar 9, '08WTF reply wizzup wrote on Mar 10, '08What is this ? Someone please explain. reply astralzenith wrote on Mar 10, '08darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. we could actually think of "evolution" as a series of abstractions. reply totoytype wrote on Apr 16, '08err, am i dense or you just didnt explain it enuf? reply astralzenith wrote on Apr 19, '08sorry, i wasn't able to explain this clearly previously. actually, what i'm trying to say is that we could view his theory through a perspective of mathematical abstractions. a quantitative approach. i'm still working on this one. reply lekimnaj wrote on Nov 21, '08Read this paper, this is interesting Reference: K. Vetsigian, C.R. Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld. Collective evolution of the genetic code. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103 , 1069610701 (2006) This is the abstract and I think it is a relevant subject to evolution using Physics and Applied Mathematics A dynamical theory for the evolution of the genetic code is presented, which accounts for its universality and optimality. The central concept is that a variety of collective, but nonDarwinian, mechanisms likely to be present in early communal life generically lead to refinement and selection of innovationsharing protocols, such as the genetic code. Our proposal is illustrated by using a simplified computer model and placed within the context of a sequence of transitions that early life may have made, before the emergence of vertical descent. I heard this guy Prof. Nigel Goldenfeld gave a talk about this subject and its pretty interesting. He uses computer simulations to show that early life forms were able to use similar amino acids to replicate a protein and still it will not die. This is impossible for most evolved organism. He likened it to old vintage cars where you can repair it using parts that you can fabricate yourself but you can't do this to modern cars where each part is precisely fabricated. edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on Apr 10, '09The Principle of Productivity (60  60) + (2.4*2.5) = 6.0 discovered from simplifying 1=2425 to 2.4*2.5=6.0, where the individual single state is left behind and the married couple produces an offspring demonstrates mathematically the validity of one man and one woman created in the Garden of Eden. The same mathematical productivity principle could apply to business practices but common sense would dictate that the marital structure should not be jeopardized by the financial institution since they both stem from the same mathematical origin in my opinion. The import would be on the marital institution. It would take healthy marriages first before the numbers of people would multiply productively to introduce business dealings between each other. The Child of Productivity! PJS edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on Apr 19, '09The Productivity Principle: Applied to Creation of the Human Couple and the Garden of Eden. 1 = 24  25 (1/10) = (24/10)  (25/10) (60*0.1) = (60*2.4)  (60*2.5) 6.0 = (60  60) + (2.4*2.5) The multiplying sign from each (60*2.4) and (60*2.5) form one special bond in marriage making (2.4 * 2.5) = 6.0 A fitting symbol for a marriage of "one flesh", male and female, capable of producing an offspring. Just one multiplying sign to symbolize bonding in marriage from the two individual signs previously shown. The Child of Productivity! PJS All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on May 13, '09, edited on May 28, '09Regular Business: (60*0.1) = (60*2.4)  (60*2.5) 6.0 = 144  150 edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on May 13, '09, edited on May 28, '09Marriage: (60*0.1) = (60*2.4)  (60*2.5) 6.0 = (60  60) + (2.4 * 2.5) The state that the first couple were in first before having children. Even though the mathematical principle was only found recently it seems to fit the circumstance of the first couple mathematically between marriage and regular business dealings. Other humans to follow would be born individuals capable of levels of productivity. As single unmarried persons first with the prospects of getting married already in place in a primary consideration location with regard to orders of business. In that way marriages should last without interference from the financial institution which should serve the interests of the married couple and help sustain the union of two people and their offspring if any. The Child of Productivity! PJS All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on May 14, '09, edited on May 31, '09So for example, in a modern day application, a Marriage using the Mathematical Principle of Productivity 60*0.1 = (60  60) + (2.4 * 2.5) = 6.0 would be a Class A Order of Business whereas learning a trade or registering a business or becoming an employee etc... may qualify as a Class B Order of Business or subsection thereof in a society of people that protected marriages from suffering breakup from financial pitfalls that could occur from time to time. Of course this would include the protection of the financial interests that could happen to upset single people as well. note remainders ahead: "kg wed b )". : .!. ":". :!2.3. Advance the good news of God's Kingdom today! Matt. 24 : 14 The Child of Productivity! PJS All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on May 14, '09, edited on Jun 11, '09That Financial Institution Class B Order of Business would be 144  150 = 6.0 whereas The Marriage Institution Class A Order of Business once again would be, (60  60) + (2.4 * 2.5) = 6.0. The number 6 and the Principles of Productivity from it. All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on May 15, '09Both Class A and Class B Orders of Business stem from the Principle of Productivity using 6.0 = (60*2.4)  (60*2.5) discovered from the discussion about PJS' Favorite Puzzle found on the MSN Groups Math and Creative Pi owned by PJS (Peter Jeffrey Spencer). The Child of Productivity! PJS All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on May 29, '09, edited on Jun 11, '091 = 24  25 1 = 1 +1 + 1 = 0 1 = 24  25 (24  25) + 1 = 0 sqrt 1 = sqrt (24  25) sqrt 1 = sqrt 1  (sqrt (1)) + sqrt 1 = 0 1 + 1 = 2 +1 + +1 = +2 +1 + 1 = 0 sqrt 1 = 1 +1 + sqrt 1 = 0  (sqrt (1)) + sqrt 1 = 0  1 + 1 = 0 +1 + 1 = 0 All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer May we get on with the business of building a bridge across the Avon River without the engineers' using i with i^2 and complex numbers in that manner please in the design. If successful it would be a first for Hantsport and surrounding areas and Creative Pi owned by P.J.S.. Other construction in other places might follow the example. Thankyou! From Peter J. Spencer. PS  the "Old Post Road" is already a government road in existence on the records of the past on both sides of the Avon River. Is that not correct Mr. Scott Brison?. This road has been in dispute for possession in the Supreme Court of Canada if I am not mistaken. Who will win in the end?. Everyone, I hope!. It may be possible that a Bridge connect the Old Post Road on both sides of the Avon River or some other more suitable landing spot nearby possibly that would allow for traffic from Truro a more direct route to their destination via the Annapolis Valley instead of Halifax/Dartmouth presently. ... on the other hand ... +1 = +1 * +1 and 1 * 1 sqrt (+1) = +1 or 1 the result of a logic control switch determining 1 + 1 = 0 in an equation of some sort. eg. sqrt +1 = sqrt (1*1) = 1 (sqrt +1)^2 = (+1 or 1)^2 = (sqrt 1)^2 not = +1 ((sqrt 1)^2 not) = +1 ((sqrt 1)^2 not) + (sqrt +1)^2 = 0 (+1) + +1 = 0 sqrt 1 = 1 again (sqrt (1*1))^2 + (+1)^2 = 0^2 1(+1) + +1 = 0, note: sqrt(1*1)^2 = 1*1 = 1(+1) = (+1) 1 + 1 = 0 sqrt 1 = 1 +1 = 1 * 1 sqrt (+1) = [sqrt (1*1) = sqrt 1 = +1] or sqrt (1*1) = 1 1 = sqrt (plus or minus 1) logically then 1 = sqrt (plus or minus 1) sqrt 1 = sqrt (1 * (+1)) = sqrt (1*(1*1) = 1 sqrt (1) = 1 sqrt 1 = ? (1 sqrt 1)^2 = (?)^2 + (1) = (?)^2 1 = x^2 = 1 not, a simple logic switch. x^2 + 1 = 0, x^2 = 1 not, x^2 = (1)^2 not = +1 not = 1 x^2 = 1 not, x^2 + 1 = 0, 1 + 1 = 0. 1 = sqrt ((1 * +1) not), eg. 1 = sqrt (1*[plus 1 change to 1] 1) = 1 or +1. +1 = (sqrt (+1) not) = sqrt ((1*1) not) = 1 not = +1 or 0 quite possibly. 0 = ((plus or minus 1) not) = ((plus or minus 1) not), eg. 0 = 0 = 0 0 = ((plus or minus 1) not)  ((plus or minus 1) not), eg. 0 = +1 not  1 not = 1  +1 = 0 "not" is either positive or negative, plus or minus; 1,1 or 0 possibly. BTW can monkeys build a bridge from scratch across the Mighty Tidal Avon River? I highly doubt it! Even if they could remember how...Evolution's Memory Bridge. Built "Class A" & "Class B" Business without the use of i^2 & Complex Numbers. Please. No "Monkey Class" Business. Although Blue Beach offers rare fossil finds for the evolutionary study enthusiast on your list. All Rights Reserved! Peter Jeffrey Spencer P.j.S PJS Standing by. God knows why. P.J.S.!._:._:!.:!!:. edit delete reply school0pjs1 wrote on Jun 19, '09, edited on Jun 19, '09A current Thread Presented on Brain Meta.com Forum. An Advanced Public Interaction Site for People. BrainMeta.com Forum > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Theology > What is God? Page Location Below. http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showforum=113 What God is is a Title? Then who is God? Active Thread For To Whom It May Concern. P.j.S : P.J.S. reply definitude03 wrote on Nov 16, '09Our current standard model may appear to offer such a probabilistic tendency toward abstraction, but back in the 50's I think it was, Feynman introduced his diagrams to offset the data. Now as inconclusive as it may seem we still adhere to this model. If you wanted to use a Rudolf Steiner model you could come up with the stuff you guys have here. I am inclined to fulfill the standard model with wave dynamics due to my Theory of Wave Unity. The bridge between isolated phenomenon is bridged by the field that generates the illusion of the particulate. For this reason it would be impossible to bridge our perception of the system as it is complete before being disturbed. Renormalization may seem definitive, but it is no more relevant than quantum leaping as each leap can be the manifest of the field bridging it. This leaves no ambiguity or abstraction except in extent of reality or interaction between phenomenon. Again, I refer to the dynamics of the Feynman diagrams for the interaction between systems, but I rely on the simplicity of Euclidean Geometry for reality, which brings us back to a classical state of physics. Comment deleted at the request of the author. edit delete replyschool0pjs1 wrote on Nov 26, '09Mathematical speed of light c = 186234.5035 miles per second c^7 = a diameter of the universe at 7.77x10^36 miles Pi*d= pi*c^7=(1080/7^3)*7.77x10^36 miles = 2.446530612x10^37 miles around What was unequal to zero and infinitely small and infinitely fast and dimensionless retracted a radius of 0.5 seconds and thus time was born from a very small start which made a diameter (a line of just length only with the presense of a huge void) one elapsed second long at the start and it is taking many years (human time) for the diameter to fill up the capacity with visible matter in the void and space fabric. The spherical universe based on Creative Pi and E=mc^2 Revised by PJS where infinitely fast invisible pure energy is slowed down to become visible matter all within The Theory of Space 0/0 Dynamics. There may be more math and science to support that the universe started quickly and at a more finite point with the creation of the universal standard the earth. Peter Jeffrey Spencer (P.j.S) All Rights Reserved! 
Fox Dame 
Nov 13, 2012, 06:19 PM
Post
#2

Newbie Group: Basic Member Posts: 27 Joined: Oct 15, 2012 Member No.: 34615 
darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection.
we could actually think of "evolution" as a series of abstractions. www.xtmmo.com 
P JayS 
Nov 14, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post
#3

DemiGod Group: Basic Member Posts: 588 Joined: Apr 04, 2012 Member No.: 34146 
darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. we could actually think of "evolution" as a series of abstractions. www.xtmmo.com Perhaps if evolution were true to begin with. It is only a theory presently. For those of us that don't know what do mathematical abstractions mean? P.j.S . 
LoFi Version  Time is now: 16th October 2017  05:59 PM 