Jain Super Mart

Question

Asked 17th Oct, 2022

# How can we calculate the dimensionality of some new investigated discrete space?

How can we calculate the number of dimensions in a discrete space if we only have a complete scheme of all its points and possible transitions between them (or data about the adjacency of points)? Such a scheme can be very confusing and far from the clear two- or three-dimensional space we know. We can observe it, but it is stochastic and there are no regularities, fractals or the like in its organization. We only have access to an array of points and transitions between them.

Such computations can be resource-intensive, so I am especially looking for algorithms that can quickly approximate the dimensionality of the space based on the available data about the points of the space and their adjacencies.

I would be glad if you could help me navigate in dimensions of spaces in my computer model :-)

## All Answers (3)

Applications are made with some set of conditions only, you may design or can think your own different algorithm as per need but a perfect answer or any such applications with random choices do not exist. In short from design point of view question is false or not asked as per needs.

Saint Petersburg State University

Thank you for your answer! Did I understand correctly that my question is too general and therefore cannot have a universal answer - an algorithm for all possible cases?

Can I then ask another question: do you know any approaches (algorithms) to calculating dimensionality for discrete space, or can we talk about calculating dimensionality only for linear continuous space?

Saint Petersburg State University

Anil Kumar Jain The description of discrete spaces is found in physical works, e.g. "Discrete spacetime, quantum walks and relativistic wave equations" by Leonard Mlodinow and Todd A. Brun, https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03910. But I have not seen any attempt to quantify the dimensionality of such spaces. This is exactly what I am looking for.

## Similar questions and discussions

Real and rational number fields in physics: equality or only modeling (R~Q)

- Alexey Orlovsky

Dear colleagues, at the suggestion of Ed Gerk, we have long and quite fruitfully discussed what the R~Q ratio means for computational physics and for physics in general. And everything would be fine, only here is the final conclusion that sets of capacity greater than Aleph Zero must be completely excluded from the mathematical apparatus of physics - in my opinion, an obvious inflection. The sign ~ , as you know, does not mean equality, especially not identity (unconditional equality), but only equivalence, that is, mutual modeling under certain limiting assumptions. Doing physics, believing that R~Q⇒R≡Q. is about the same as going out into the open ocean not on a 300-meter cruise ship, but on its 3-meter model. Yes, both of these ships float, both have an engine, both are steered. But on a model, you won’t get enough sleep in a comfortable cabin, you won’t eat a delicious lunch in a restaurant, and you’ll sit on a model only on horseback, like on a motorcycle. And what will the first ocean wave do to you ...

To suggest how R can be transformed into Q, see also (just in the given consequence):

Research Proposal CONTINUOUS MODELS IN QUANTUM CONSCIOUSNESS: AMBIGUITY OF DEF...

Why focus on thermodynamics？

- Tang Suye

Can infinitesimals be eliminated from mathematics? (II) (CLOSED)

- Ed Gerck

Our answer is YES. A new question (at https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_RQ_what_are_the_consequences/1) has been answered affirmatively, confirming the YES answer in this question, with wider evidence in +12 areas.

This question continued the same question from 3 years ago, with the same name, considering new published evidence and results. The previous text of the question maybe useful and is available here:

We now can provably include DDF [1] -- the differentiation of discontinuous functions. This is not shaky, but advances knowledge. The quantum principle of Niels Bohr in physics, "all states at once", meets mathematics and quantum computing.

Without infinitesimals or epsilon-deltas, DDF is possible, allowing quantum computing [1] between discrete states, and a faster FFT [2]. The Problem of Closure was made clear in [1].

Although Weyl training was on these mythical aspects, the infinitesimal transformation and Lie algebra [4], he saw an application of groups in the many-electron atom, which must have a finite number of equations. The discrete Weyl-Heisenberg group comes from these discrete observations, and do not use infinitesimal transformations at all, with finite dimensional representations. Similarly, this is the same as someone trained in infinitesimal calculus, traditional, starts to use rational numbers in calculus, with DDF [1]. The similar previous training applies in both fields, from a "continuous" field to a discrete, quantum field. In that sense, R~Q*; the results are the same formulas -- but now, absolutely accurate.

New results have been made public [1-3], confirming the advantages of the YES answer, since this question was first asked 3 years ago. All computation is revealed to be exact in modular arithmetic, there is NO concept of approximation, no "environmental noise" when using it.

As a consequence of the facts in [1], no one can formalize the field of non-standard analysis in the use of infinitesimals in a consistent and complete way, or Cauchy epsilon-deltas, against [1], although these may have been claimed and chalk spilled.

Some branches of mathematics will have to change. New results are promised in quantum mechanics and quantum computing.

This question is closed, affirming the YES answer.

REFERENCES

[2]

Preprint FT = FFT

[3]

Preprint The quantum set Q*

## Related Publications

Modern algebraic concepts are shown to be compatible with models in physics. These abstract ideas are then used to frame a
definition of an abstract physics; the definition is then used to analyse the greater part of « ordinary » physics and to
throw light on various theories and methods of finding natural laws. In all, nine examples of the abstrac...

The analytical physical modeling of undoped electrolyte gated organic field effect transistors (EGOFETs) in the Helmholtz approximation is presented. A compact analytical model for the current–voltage (I–V) characteristics, which includes the effects of the access series resistance, has been derived and validated by means of 2D finite element numer...

General Chemistry - Part 2 includes Basics of Analytical and Physical Chemistry