Science topics: Mathematics

Science topic

# Mathematics - Science topic

Mathematics, Pure and Applied Math

Questions related to Mathematics

This question discusses the YES answer. We don't need the

**√-1.**The complex numbers, using rational numbers (i.e., the Gauss set G) or mathematical real-numbers (the set R), are artificial. Can they be avoided?

Math cannot be in ones head, as explains [1].

To realize the YES answer, one must advance over current knowledge, and may sound strange. But, every path in a complex space must begin and end in a rational number -- anything that can be measured, or produced, must be a rational number. Complex numbers

**are not**needed, physically, as a number. But, in algebra, they**are**useful.The YES answer can improve the efficiency in using numbers in calculations, although it

**is**less advantageous in algebra calculations, like in the well-known Gauss identity.For example, in the FFT [2], there is no need to compute complex functions, or trigonometric functions.

This may lead to further improvement in computation time over the FFT, already providing orders of magnitude improvement in computation time over FT with mathematical real-numbers. Both the FT and the FFT are revealed to be equivalent -- see [2].

I detail this in [3] for comments. Maybe one can build a faster FFT (or, FFFT)?

The answer may also consider further advances into quantum computing?

[2]

Preprint FT = FFT

[2]

Preprint The quantum set Q*

Is it mathematically justified to place negative and positive numbers on the same plane?

I noticed that in some very bad models of neural networks, the value of R² (coefficient of determination) can be negative. That is, the model is so bad that the mean of the data is better than the model.

The question is: in linear regression models, the multiple correlation coefficient (R) can be calculated using the root of R². However, this is not possible for a model of neural networks, for example, that presents a negative R². In that case, is R mathematically undefined?

Obs.: I tried calculating the correlation y and y_pred (Pearson), but it is mathematically undefined (division by zero). I am attaching the values.

1 - Prof. Tegmark of MIT hypothesizes that the universe is not merely described by mathematics but IS mathematics.

2 - The Riemann hypothesis applies to the mathematical universe’s space-time, and says its infinite "nontrivial zeros" lie on the vertical line of the complex number plane (on the y-axis of Wick rotation).

3 - Implying infinity=zero, there's no distance in time or space - making superluminal and time travel feasible.

4 - Besides Mobius strips, topological propulsion uses holographic-universe theory to delete the 3rd dimension (and thus distance).

5 - Relationships between living organisms can be explained with scientifically applied mathematics instead of origin of species by biological evolution.

6 - Wick rotation - represented by a circle where the x- and y-axes intersect at its centre, and where real and imaginary numbers rotate counterclockwise between 4 quadrants - introduces the possibility of interaction of the x-axis' ordinary matter and energy with the y-axis' dark matter and dark energy.

What is missing is an exact definition of probability that would contain time as a dimensionless quantity woven into a 3D geometric physical space.

It should be mentioned that the current definition of probability as the relative frequency of successful trials is primitive and contains no time.

On the other hand, the quantum mechanical definition of the probability density as,

p(r,t)=ψ(r,t)*.ψ(r,t),

which introduces time via the system's destination time and not from its start time is of limited usefulness and leads to unnecessary complications.

It's just a sarcastic definition.

It should be mentioned that a preliminary definition of the probability function of space and time proposed in the Cairo technique led to revolutionary solutions of time-dependent partial differential equations, integration and differentiation, special functions such as the Gamma function, etc. without the use of mathematics.

Theoretical and computational physics provide the vision and the mathematical and computational framework for understanding and extending the knowledge of particles, forces, space-time, and the universe. A thriving theory program is essential to support current experiments and to identify new directions for high energy physics. Theoretical physicists provide a great deal of assistance to the Energy, Intensity, and Cosmic Frontiers with the in-depth understanding of the underlying theory behind experiments and interpreting the outcomes in context of the theory. Advanced computing tools are necessary for designing, operating, and interpreting experiments and to perform sophisticated scientific simulations that enable discovery in the science drivers and the three experimental frontiers.

source: HEP Theoretical and Computationa... | U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) (osti.gov)

Irrational numbers are uncomputable with probability one. In that sense, numerical, they do not belong to nature. Animals cannot calculate it, nor humans, nor machines.

But algebra can deal with irrational numbers. Algebra deals with unknowns and indeterminates, exactly.

This would mean that a simple bee or fish can do algebra? No, this means, given the simple expression of their brains, that a higher entity is able to command them to do algebra. The same for humans and machines. We must be able also to do quantum computing, and beyond, also that way.

Thus, no one (animals, humans, extraterrestrials in the NASA search, and machines) is limited by their expressions, and all obey a higher entity, commanding through a network from the top down -- which entity we call God, and Jesus called Father.

This means that God holds all the dice. That also means that we can learn by mimicking nature. Even a wasp can teach us the medicinal properties of a passion fruit flower to lower aggression. Animals, no surprise, can self-medicate, knowing no biology or chemistry.

There is, then, no “personal” sense of algebra. It just is a combination of arithmetic operations.There is no “algebra in my sense” -- there is only one sense, the one mathematical sense that has made sense physically, for ages. I do not feel free to change it, and did not.

But we can reveal new facets of it. In that, we have already revealed several exact algebraic expressions for irrational numbers. Of course, the task is not even enumerable, but it is worth compiling, for the weary traveler. Any suggestions are welcome.

Category theory is a branch of mathematics that deals with the abstract structure of mathematical concepts and their relationships. While category theory has been applied to various areas of physics, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity, it is currently not clear whether it could serve as the language of a metatheory unifying the description of the laws of physics.

There are several challenges to using category theory as the language of a metatheory for physics. One challenge is that category theory is a highly abstract and general framework, and it is not yet clear how to connect it to the specific details of physical systems and their behaviour. Another challenge is that category theory is still an active area of research, and there are many open questions and debates about how to apply it to different areas of mathematics and science.

Despite these challenges, there are some researchers who believe that category theory could play a role in developing a metatheory for physics. For example, some have proposed that category theory could be used to describe the relationships between different physical theories and to unify them into a single framework. Others have suggested that category theory could be used to study the relationship between space and time in a more unified and conceptual way.

I am very interested in your experiences, opinions and ideas.

What is this mean ( ± 0.06) and How can I calculate it mathematically?

All tests doing a proof for the Riemann-Hypothesis on the Zeta-Function must fail.

There are no zeros by the so called function of a complex argument.

A function on two different units f(x, y) only then has values for the third unit

`z´ [z = f(x, y)]

if the values variables `x´ and `y´ would be combined by an algebraic rule.

So it should be done for the complex argument, Riemann had used.

But there isn´t such a combination. So Riemann only did a `scaling´. Where both parts of the complex number stay separate.

The second part of the refutation comes by showing wrong expert opinion of mathematics. This is on the false use of `imaginary´ and `prefixed multiplication´.

What are the properties of transversal risks in networks? Happy for applied examples and diffusion properties.

Project Name - Improving Achievement and Attitude through Co-operative learning in F. Y. B. Sc. Mathematics Class

Physics is a scence of representations, with mathematical aspects in them, foremost and not of naked correlations and parameter analysis.

It also has competent conceptualizaions, genious principles.

Even the innocent seeking uniform motion is a representational scheme fo motions under the theory of kinematics. (Representations are seperate from reality but are invaluable part of scientific infering, predicting, explaining etc) i.e heat is represented as a flow between subsystems. Representations change i.e Einstein found the curved spacetime one for gravity phenomena.

Physics is also the science f cosmology. It has no meaning if it bypasses the universe-i.e the sum of subsystems. This discipline has problems because we cannot take ourself out of it and study it but physics has tools for this (QM) or theoretical approximaions (more cognitively open consideration of the concept of boundary conditions).

Hello

I have an Excel file containing weather data of Missouri in U.S. The data starts from 25th July and ends on 9th September in 2014. For each day, almost 21 times data has been recorded (6 hours within solar noon time).

How can I make a type99 source file using this Excel file? I already have studied mathematical reference of Trnsys help, but that was not very helpful. Thanks

The Gamma function,

G(n)= Integral from 0 to infinity [Exp(e^-x^n)]dx

is of the great mathematical and physical importance.

It can be calculated without numerical integration (for practical purposes) via its mathematical and physical properties:

i-minimum of Gamma occurs at x = 1.4616321 and the corresponding value of Gamma(x) is 0.8856032.

ii-Gamma(1.)=Gamma(2.)=1.

iii-Gamma(x)=(x-1.) !

A simple preliminary approach that gives the value of Gamma(x) with an error less than 0.001 is the second-order polynomial expression for the factorial x,

(1.-0.46163*x+0.46163*x*x),x element of [0,1].

For example, this gives:

G(10.5)=11877478.

vs the value of 11899423.084) given by numerical integration.

and Gamma(1.4616)= 0.88527 vs 0.8856032.

Thermal stresses in applied mathematics

Dear professors and students, greetings and courtesy. I wanted to know if the real numbers are the largest and the last set of numbers that exist, or if there are sets or sets of numbers that are larger than that, but maybe they have not been discovered yet? Which is true? If it is the last set of numbers that exists, what theorem proves the non-existence of a set of numbers greater than it? And if there is a larger set than that, in terms of the history of mathematics, by obtaining the answer to which mathematical problem, it was proved that the obtained answer is not closed with respect to the set of complex numbers and belongs to a larger set? Thank you very much

As the concept comes from the Bernoulli numbers and different branches of mathematics, I have recently considered the importance of introducing the same concept, 'The unity of mathematics' within the context of the Bernoulli numbers and some special series (the Flint Hills and Cookson Hills series). I believe in the scenario of defining a balanced relationship between the effect of the Bernoulli numbers and the series of hard convergence.

I am pointing out this potential link.

For a general conclusion about what I consider should the concept of 'unity' by the Bernoulli numbers and the Flint Hills, just pay attention to this screenshot:

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16745.98402

Fermat's last theorem was finally solved by Wiles using mathematical tools that were wholly unavailable to Fermat.

Do you believe

A) That we have actually not solved Fermat's theorem the way it was supposed to be solved, and that we must still look for Fermat's original solution, still undiscovered,

or

B) That Fermat actually made a mistake, and that his 'wonderful' proof -which he did not have the necessary space to fully set forth - was in fact mistaken or flawed, and that we were obsessed for centuries with his last "theorem" when in fact he himself had not really proved it at all?

Mathematics Teacher Educators (MTEs) best practices.

I'm interesting in research literature about Mathematics Teacher Educators (MTEs) best practices, especially on MTEs' practices for teaching to solve problems.

thank you.

Good day, Dear Colleagues!

Anyone interested in discussing this topic?

How can I define histogram bins in a well define mathematical expression especially driven from data points x_i, i=1,..,n and the range or any other well define measures in the dataset.

Kindly share with me any details of Scopus indexed Mathematics conferences in India.

There are a few point to consider in this issue

Points pro current emphasis

1. Math is the backbone of a physical theory. Good representation, good quantities of a theory, phenomena but bad math makes for bad theory

2. There is a general skepticism for reconsidering role of mathematized approach in physics Masters syllabi/upgrading role of literature/essay

2. Humans communicate, learn, think & develop construct via language

Arguments Con

1. Math is the elements in theory and "physics product" that is responsible for precision& prediction. Indespensible though, it exists in the mind of some individuals & function as well, in parallel with conception, physical arguments

2. Not all models in physics are mathematical. Some are conceptual

3. Formulations of solutions to physics problems via math techniques and methods is def of mathematical physics. However, this is a certain % of domain of skills.

But syllabus focuses 100% on this

Physics continues a tradition of assesment in graduate program based on final exams and of the form of mathematized exersices with no conceptual qs or essays.

This fulfils the aim. Of. Mastering demanding nomenclature in the domain. Given slow progress in field last decades this might be a good alternative but there are also pedagogical reasons.

This form of assesment is extreme and outdated.it has further disadvantages

** Students do not develop critical research skills such as literature analysis and research.

**certain skills for future researcher are notvtested i. E ability to combine research from different Source, ability to think critically of competing thesis or theories, to discern gaps in current research

** A mixed approach should ensure all aims

I have Expi293 cell cultures (suspension). After counting them, the density turned out to be 4.26 x 10^6. I need to split them. Starting from this concentration, how can I obtain a 30ml cellular suspention at a density of 0.25 x 10^6? How many mL of cellular suspension (the one at a density of 4.26 x 10^6) and how many mL of medium do I need? I still have difficulties in understanding which kind of mathematical calculation do I need to use. Could you explain it to me?

Suggest some best topics for Experential learning

I have 'N' number of inputs (which correspond to temperature) to calculate a specific output parameter. I'm getting 'N' number output data based on the inputs.

However, my goal is to select an optimum number from all the output data and use it in another calculation.

'N' number of input data --> Output parameter calculation --> Identification of an optimized output parameter --> Use that value for another calculation.

How to find an optimal value among 'N' "number of output data. Can we employ any algorithm or process?

What digital technological techniques and strategies can multilingual PSTs prepare in their multilingual classrooms that can allow their students’ to be considered capable to learn mathematics regardless of their fluency in the language of instruction?

My Awesomest Network, I am starting my Ph.D. studies and I have some questions and doubts concerning it. Could I write them down here, pleaswe? First of them is how can I join disciplines as sociology, management, economics, mathematics, informatics and other similaer items to make a complex holistic interdisciplinary analysis and coherent study of pointed fields.

Thank You very much for all in advance

*Or, by what formal means can we comprehend and communicate the nature of Nature?*

From Mathematics: Nature and physics are “independent of mathematics”

From Physics: “We need the criteria of something that actually works, not just math rigor.”

“I appear to be caught between two successful disciplines, mathematics and science - rigor and usable results.”

[For full versions of the quotes in justice to the individuals review “What Is a Linear Representation of an Essentially Quadratic Phenomenon?” in Q&A on ResearchGate. Applied Mathematics is not specifically mentioned in the posts there.]

There exist phenomena in nature, for example kinetic energy of a mass in motion, which may be represented by the product of the mass times its present velocity times the linear average of its velocity between zero and its present value (K.E. = m*v*v/2 to clarify.) Now, ignoring the abstractions of mathematics and the accurate-enough theories of physics, what are the axes of any space in which kinetic energy may be plotted, noting that in that space energy is represented by a volume, area times length, and the area may be linearized with v as the square root of the area? Note that two axes of v and v/2 are needed to plot the area. What’s up? What are area and length in nature that are plotted in such a space? Is it significant in the natural process that v*v is an area in the plot? Is energy an essentially quadratic phenomenon of nature, or even essentially cubic? Are these matters so answered already they may be dismissed, or may some of us explore them for the insight that may bloom (flowers “blow” in some poems)?

These are questions of Natural Philosophy in the mind of a person that are not answered by the rigid explanations of the current state of ignorance that feels so knowing in each era. Aristotle’s view was great in his time, like ours is to us now. (The accepted solution is for an academic to fix the person who errs with an inoculation of facts “it is known that,” a familiar experience. In Charles Ives musical work, “The Unanswered Question,” the trumpet remained curious after the explanations.)

Looking to the 4thmillennium in the Gregorian calendar, will this inquiry have been resolved as natural processes are then comprehended? Given scales and data a number may be assigned to a measured kinetic energy that is accompanied by units to associate it with nature. The issue seems moot, but in fact, . . .

The Schrodinger Eqn. is a linear representation used in calculation that must be squared to be real, that is, the real result is a squared value, calling it quadratic will serve. The square root of two is formal, but the Schrodinger Equation produces a real value in the end after multiplication by its complex conjugate, “squaring.” The physicist is correct that in Physics it doesn’t matter “what the imaginary solution was” during calculation since only the result matters and other representations exist. Is that okay with you? I wonder, since another formal linear representation of an essentially quadratic phenomenon, the square root of two, cannot be written down as a completed decimal value, and during processing the imaginary Schrodinger expression requires representation as an area via a + bi, or (a, b), or . . ., which expressions are not real.

[Remember – ResearchGate encourages discovery, as if current knowledge could not only be incremented, but also that a new arena for thought could be discovered. “It is known that” must not be the whole answer, and exploration

*is in the charter.]*So, by what formal means can we comprehend and communicate the nature of Nature?

Happy Trails, Len

There is valid curiosity that such modifications might exist in nature.

There is research in proving mathematical results that shed light on QT in a more operational manner, motivated by quantum information theory.

There are at least 2 stands in this & issue debate.

**Scientific continuity is related to scientific change

Shebere & Kuhn are repredebtatives. The (alleged by S. ) problem of "incommensurability"(Kuhn, '60s) attempts to explain scientific change in terms of concepts of meaning and reference. Another way is through the concept of "reasons" and the issues of reasons.

The Gallilean paradigm broke meaning continuity from the Aristotelian & is inconsumerable i. E no comparison can be made between the 2

**Scientific Continuity as independent area

A more standard way, it providers factors such as mathematics continuity and causal continuity. GR for example deviated some how causal from Newtonian gravity but maintained mathematical cintinuity

Hai,

I had worked with Dr. M. Azzedine,France member of MAA and proved unsolved Beals Conjecture, FLT directly, Collatz Conjecture & Goldbachs Conjecture.( All proofs in one article)Article will get published on April.

Can I expect any career / financial benefits from that work? I also developed Mathematical Theology to bring mathematics in humanity. I had investigated the thesis of some university level mathematics professors from Kerala State India.

What are the expectations on the person who proves Collatz Conjecture? I am an ordinary research scholar from a government college, Tamilnadu, India.

It finally has occurred to me that there is a similarity between i = √-1 and √2. They are each linearized representations of essentially quadratic values. We use the former in complex numbers and include the latter in the real number system as an irrational number. Each has proved valuable and is part of accepted mathematics. However, an irrational number does not exist as a linear value because it is indeterminate – that is what non-ending, non-repeating decimal number means: it never can exist. Perhaps we need an irrational number system as well as a complex number system to be rigorous.

The sense of this observation is that some values are essentially quadratic. An example is the Schrödinger Equation which enables use of a linearized version of a particle wave function to calculate the probability of some future particle position, but

**only after multiplying the result by its complex conjugate to produce a real value.**Complex number space is used to derive the result which must be made real to be real, i.e., a fundamentally quadratic value has been calculated using a linearized representation of it in complex number space.Were we to consider √-1 and √2 as similarly non-rational we may find a companion space with √2 scaling to join the complex number space with √-1 scaling along a normal axis. For example, Development of the algebraic numbers a + b√2 could include coordinate points with a stretched normal axis (Harris Hancock,

*Foundations of the Theory of Algebraic Numbers*).A three-space with Rational – Irrational – Imaginary axes would clarify that linearization requires a closing operation to restore the result to the Rational number axis, where reality resides.

[

**Note**: most people do not think like I do, and almost everyone is happy about that: please read openly, exploringly, as if there might be something here. (Yes, my request is based on experience!) Tens of thousands of pages in physics and mathematics literature from popular exposition to journal article lie behind this inquiry, should you wish to consider that.]Could any expert try to examine the new interesting methodology for multi-objective optimization?

A brand new conception of preferable probability and its evaluation were created, the book was entitled "Probability - based multi - objective optimization for material selection", and published by Springer, which opens a new way for multi-objective orthogonal experimental design, uniform experimental design, respose surface design, and robust design, etc.

It is a rational approch without personal or other subjective coefficients, and available at https://link.springer.com/book/9789811933509,

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-3351-6.

Best regards.

Yours

M. Zheng

Perception is not the ultimate guide for knowledge but as Gallileo captured the actual and empirical, not necessarily the real, similar concerns arise.

In general, the repercussions of Reduction arise because what is actual, i.e final instantiation of underlining process, is not all the story. Further omissions come from the empirical approach since sense means are not always valid projectors of the actual.

Gallilean approach has yielded a framework that empowered our comprehension & ability to define/describe phenomena in the realm of the actual& empirical. His treatise should not be considered more than this i.e descrining the nature of the real and its dynamics.

The reduction of change to motion has been noted but little has been argued about its shortfalls in epistemic practice. This reduction is part of the reduction of the real to the actual since it omits any need to refer to the real to make its claims functional. It also removes philosophical or anthropocentric notions of growth and ultimate ends which is good in one sense but in a pure "reductionist shortfalls" point of view is still a problem dimain restriction.

The description of motion with mathematics is another point neglected. Motion can be described qualitatively or conceptual but such a framework has not been devised.

We assume that in general probability and statistics belong to physics rather than mathematics.

The Normal/Gaussian Distribution:

f(x)={Exp(-x^2/2 sigm^2)}/sigma.Sqrt(2.Pie)

can be derived from the universal laws of physics for a given number n of randomly chosen data in less than five minutes.

Accuracy increases as n increases.

Mathematics abstracted and idealized concrete mathematics, exemplified in Euclid’s The Elements. Religion around the same time or earlier, abstracted the concrete representation of deities. Are there similarities in the problem solving approaches?

I have a system of non-linear differential equations that explains the behaviour of some of the cancer cells.

Looking for help identifying the equilibrium points and eigenvalues of this model in order to determine the type of bifurcation present.

Thanks in advance.

Mathematically, it is posited that the cosmic or local black hole singularity must someday become of infinite density and zero size. But this is unimaginable. If an infinite-density stuff should exist, it should already have existed.

Hence, in my opinion, this kind of mathematical necessities are to be the limiting cases of physics. IS THIS NOT THE STARTING POINT TO DETERMINE WHERE MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE MUST PART WAYS?

In my current work on the theory of hyperbolic functions, I, as a completely extraneous observer of the turbulent debates relating to the subtlest intricacies of the Special Theory of Relativity (

**SRT**), have drawn attention to the fact that hyperbolic functions are most used not in constructing bridges, aqueduct arches or describing complex cases of X-ray diffraction, but in those sections of the SRT that are related to the name of Professor Minkowski. Since my personal interest in SRT is essentially limited to the correct application of hyperbolic functions when describing moving physical realities, I would be grateful to the experts in the field of SRT for the most concise explanation of the deep essence of the theory of space-time patterns of surrounding me reality.Naturally, my question in no way implies the translation into human language of the lecture of the Creator of the Theory, the honour of acquaintance with which in 1907 belongs to the academic/medical community of the city of Cologne and its surroundings. My level of development and my agreeableness have ensured that I not only managed to read independently the text underlying the concept of « Minkowski four-dimensional continuum », but also to formulate my question as follows:

**Which of the options I propose is the most concise (i.e. non-emotional-linguistic) explanation of the essence of Minkowski’s theory**:

1. The consequence of any relative movement of massive physical objects is that we are all bound to suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs and mammoths, i.e. extinction.

2. Understanding/describing the spatial movements of physical objects described by

**type mathematical expression implies acquiring practical skills of constructing second-order curves called «hyperbolas».***a^2-b^2=const* 3. All of us, including those who are in a state of careless ignorance, are compelled to exist in curved space.

4. Everything in our lives is relative, and only the interval between physical events is constant.

5. The products of the form

**(or***ct**z***), where***ct***is the speed of light and***c**z*is some dimensionless mathematical quantity/number symbolizes not a segment of three-dimensional space, but a time interval (or time?)**between uniquely defined events.***t* 6. The electromagnetic radiation generated by a moving massive object always propagates in a direction orthogonal to the velocity vector of the moving object.

Of course, I will be grateful for any adjustments to my options, or expert’s own formulations that have either eluded my attention or whose substance is far beyond my level of mathematical or general development.

Most respectfully

Sergey Sheludko

Our answer is YES. This question captured the reason of change: to help us improve. We, and mathematics, need to consider that reality is quantum [1-2], ontologically.

This affects both the microscopic (e.g., atoms) and the macroscopic (e.g., collective effects, like superconductivity, waves, and lasers).

Reality is thus not continuous, incremental, or happenstance.

That is why everything blocks, goes against, a change -- until it occurs, suddenly, taking everyone to a new and better level. This is History. It is not a surprise ... We are in a long evolution ...

As a consequence, tri-state, e.g., does not have to be used in hardware, just in design. Intel Corporation can realize this, and become more competitive. This is due to many factors, including 1^n = 1, and 0^n = 0, favoring Boolean sets in calculations.

This question is now CLOSED. Focusing on the discrete Weyl-Heisenberg group, as motivated by SN, this question has been expanded in a new question, where it was answered with YES in +12 areas:

[2]

Preprint The quantum set Q*

If anyone knows of a conference on mathematics education to be held in Europe from April 2023 to March 2024, especially on mathematics education for elementary and junior high school students, please let me know.

As for the contents, it is even better if there are a textbook of mathematics, steam education, mathematics class and a computer.

Please suggest some ML related research papers for Mathematics students.

Right now, in 2022, we can read with perfect understanding mathematical articles and books

written a century ago. It is indeed remarkable how the way we do mathematics has stabilised.

The difference between the mathematics of 1922 and 2022 is small compared to that between the mathematics of 1922 and 1822.

Looking beyond classical ZFC-based mathematics, a tremendous amount of effort has been put

into formalising all areas of mathematics within the framework of program-language implementations (for instance Coq, Agda) of the univalent extension of dependent type theory (homotopy type theory).

But Coq and Agda are complex programs which depend on other programs (OCaml and Haskell) and frameworks (for instance operating systems and C libraries) to function. In the future if we have new CPU architectures then

Coq and Agda would have to be compiled again. OCaml and Haskell would have to be compiled again.

Both software and operating systems are rapidly changing and have always been so. What is here today is deprecated tomorrow.

My question is: what guarantee do we have that the huge libraries of the current formal mathematics projects in Agda, Coq or other languages will still be relevant or even "runnable" (for instance type-checkable) without having to resort to emulators and computer archaeology 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now ?

10 years from now will Agda be backwards compatible enough to still recognise

current Agda files ?

Have there been any organised efforts to guarantee permanent backward compatibility for all future versions of Agda and Coq ? Or OCaml and Haskell ?

Perhaps the formal mathematics project should be carried out within a meta-programing language, a simpler more abstract framework (with a uniform syntax) comprehensible at once to logicians, mathematicians and programers and which can be converted automatically into the latest version of Agda or Coq ?

Greeting,

When I tried to remotely accessed the scopus database by login into my institution id, it kept bring me back to the scopus preview. I tried cleaning the cache, reinstall the browser, using other internet and etc. But, none of it is working. As you can see in the image. It kept appeared in scopus preview.

Please help..

How to write formally within the context of mathematics that: "given two series S1 and S2 and they are subtracted each other coming from a proved identity that is true and the result of this subtraction is a known finite number (real number) (which is valid) the two series S1 and S2 are convergent necessarily because the difference could not be divergent as it would contradict the result of convergence? I need that definition within a pure mathematical scenario ( I am engineer).

" Given S1- S2 = c , if c is a finite and real number, and the expression S1-S2 = c comes from a valid deduction, then, S1 and S2 are both convergent as mandatory."

Best regards

Carlos

I'm trying to write a java programme that will solve the system of ordinary differential equations using the Runge-Kutta fourth-order (RK4) technique. I need to solve a system of five equations. Those are not linear.

And determining all of the equilibrium solutions to this system of differential equations also requires.

Can someone help me? Thank you in advance.

Which are the implications in mathematics if the Irrationality Measure bound of "Pi" is proved to be Less than or equal to 2.5?

How can be understood the number pi within this context?

Thanks,

Carlos

I am working on meta-heuristic optimization algorithms. I would like to solve Image segmentation using Otsu’s method and my algorithm. I could not understand how to use meta-heuristic in image segmentation. Please help me in this regard. I am from maths back ground. If anybody have matlab code for the same, please share with me. I will be grateful to you.

I'm interested in the intersection of mathematics and social sciences, and I'm looking for expert opinions on ethical content in mathematical history.

Hello,

I am looking for mathematical formulas that calculate the rigid body movement of an element based on the nodal displacements. Can anyone give a brief explanation and recommend some materials to read? Thanks a lot.

Best,

Chen

Which software is best for making high-quality graphs? Origin or Excel? Thank you

How long does it take to a journal indexed in the "Emerging Sources Citation Index" get an Impact Factor? What is the future of journals indexed in Emerging Sources Citation Index?

Lockdowns due to the COVID pandemic in last three years (2020-22) has played a significant role in the widespread of online based classrooms using applications like Zoom, MS teams, Webex and Google Meet. While substantial amount of the students were happy to complete their semester classes in due time without getting hampered by the lockdowns, thanks to the online based classrooms, there are also notable amount of students and parents who were complained regarding the online based classrooms that they have drastically distracted the academic performance of students.

Overall, I would like to leave it as an open-ended question.

**Dear researchers, what you think regarding the online based classroom? Is it an advantage for students or a disadvantage?**My Awesomest Network, I am starting my Ph.D. studies and I have some questions and doubts concerning it. Could I write them down here, please? First of them is how can I join disciplines as sociology, management, economics, mathematics, informatics and other similar items to make a complex holistic interdisciplinary analysis and coherent study of pointed fields. I think personally that linking or joining et cetera aspects of artificial intelligence and computational social sciences would be interesting area of considerations. What are Your opinions?

Thank You very much for all in advance

I am a post graduate student presently writing my thesis in the department of curriculum and instructional designs.

I need mathematical full solution.. Can anyone please help me..

What is infinite? does this have any value? must there be an end or is it just our thoughts it can't imagine that there is no end to infinity! Aren't all things part of infinity? we too? is God an infinity that cannot be imagined but felt? is an infinity an energy that binds us and all things (reality and thought) together? Is there a physical explanation for infinity? Is the limitation by (infinity -1) or (-infinity + 1) legitimate or just a need to calculate it mathematically?

We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. But are comparisons between mathematics, physics, and philosophy? Can the primitive notions (categories) and axioms of mathematics, physics and philosophy converge? Can they possess a set of primitive notions, from which the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, physics, and philosophy may be derived?

Raphael Neelamkavil

I suppose so, it's true that physics is the special case of mathematics.

In physics, the existence and the uniqueness of the solution are ensured whereas in mathematics, it is the general case of physics, the existence and the uniqueness of the solution pass before all.

Assume we have a program with different instructions. Due to some limitations in the field, it is not possible to test all the instructions. Instead, assume we have tested 4 instructions and calculated their rank for a particular problem.

the rank of Instruction 1 = 0.52

the rank of Instruction 2 = 0.23

the rank of Instruction 3 = 0.41

the rank of Instruction 4 = 0.19

Then we calculated the similarity between the tested instructions using

**cosine similarity**(after converting the instructions from text form to vectors- machine learning instruction embedding).Question ... is it possible to create a mathematical formula considering the values of rank and the similarity between instructions, so that .... given an

**un-tested instruction**... is it possible to calculate, estimate, or predict the rank of the new un-tested instruction based on its similarity with a tested instruction?For example, we measure the similarity between instruction 5 and instruction 1. Is it possible to calculate the rank of instruction 5 based on its similarity with instruction 1? is it possible to create a model or mathematical formula? if yes, then how?

Hi frds,

Need a good weather probability calculator. Would like to calculate the probability of e.g. 10 degrees Celsius on a day above the average. Has anybody got good research/formulas?

Which distribution is assumed in the probability calculation? Normal one?

Physics is a game of looking at physical phenomena, analyzing how physical phenomena changes with a hypothetical and yet mathematical arrow of time in 3D space, namely by plotting that physical phenomena with a mathematical grid model (typically cartesian based) assuming that physical phenomena can be plotted with points, and then arriving at a theory describing that physical phenomenon and phenomena under examination. The success of those physical models (mathematical descriptions of physical phenomena) is predicting new phenomena by taking that mathematics and predicting how the math of one phenomenon can link with the math of another phenomenon without any prior research experience with that connection yet based on the presumption of the initial mathematical model of physical phenomena being undertaken.

Everyone in physics, professional and amateur, appears to be doing this.

Does anyone see a problem with that process, and if so what problems do you see?

Is the dimension of space, such as a point in space, a physical thing? Is the dimension of time, such as a moment in time, a physical thing? Can a moment in time and a point of space exist as dimensions in the absence of what is perceived as being physical?

I am thinking of the vector as a point in multidimensional space. The Mean would be the location of a vector point with the minimum squared distances from all of the other vector points in the sample. Similarly, the Median would be the location of the vector point with the minimum absolute distance from all the other vector points.

Conventional thinking would have me calculate the Mean vector as the vector formed from the arithmetic mean of all the vector elements. However, there is a problem with this method. If we are working with a set of unit vectors the result of this method would not be a unit vector. So conventional thinking would have me normalize the result into a unit vector. But how would that method apply to other, non-unit, vectors? Should we divide by the arithmetic mean of the vector magnitudes? When calculating the Median, should we divide by the median of the vector magnitudes?

Do these methods produce a result that is mathematically correct? If not, what is the correct method?

Any idea why the solution of the attached equation is always zero at r=0? It seems simple at first look, however, when you start solving, you will see a black hole-like sink which makes the solution zero at r=0 (should not be). I used the variable separation method, I will be happy if you suggest another method or discuss the reasons.

I also attached the graph of the solution, showing the black hole-like sink.

Thanks