- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Tom Caylor <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:41:11 -0700

I've thought of bringing up the Monster group here before, but I didn't

think anyone here would be that weird, since I even get "weird"

reactions to my ideas about the Riemann zeta function. I've noticed

the connection with the number 26 also. (By the way, for some unknown

reason in my childhood 26 was my favorite number ;)

In the past I've been drawn to the Monster group and the classification

of finite simple groups, perhaps for reasons similar to other

mathematically inclined people. There's just something mysterious

about the fact that there are only a finite number of classes of this

type of mathematical object. And yet it is a rather non-trivial

number, larger than the number of spatial dimensions, and even larger

than the number of platonic solids, or the number of faces on the

largest platonic solid. And when you look at the order (size) of the

largest of the finite simple groups (the Monster group), it is huge.

And yet it is the largest. This seems to be a signpost that something

fundamental is going on here.

On the other hand, if I recall correctly without checking, rings and

fields don't have such a classification such that there are a finite

number of some basic type of them. I'm just shooting off at the hip,

but I wonder if this has to do with the fact that groups have only one

operator (addition or multiplication, say), whereas rings and fields

have at least 2. This rings a bell with the sufficient complexity

needed for Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (and a nontrivial G/G*?). A

similar point is that there are an infinite number of primes, whereas

the number of classes of finite simple groups is finite. Another

caution is to note the failure this approach in the past, notably with

Plato's "theory of everything". We don't want to go down the path of

numerology, which is a lot of what comes up when I google "monster

group" and "multiverse". But on the other hand, this is part of the

nature of exploring.

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Wed Sep 27 2006 - 14:42:11 PDT

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:41:11 -0700

I've thought of bringing up the Monster group here before, but I didn't

think anyone here would be that weird, since I even get "weird"

reactions to my ideas about the Riemann zeta function. I've noticed

the connection with the number 26 also. (By the way, for some unknown

reason in my childhood 26 was my favorite number ;)

In the past I've been drawn to the Monster group and the classification

of finite simple groups, perhaps for reasons similar to other

mathematically inclined people. There's just something mysterious

about the fact that there are only a finite number of classes of this

type of mathematical object. And yet it is a rather non-trivial

number, larger than the number of spatial dimensions, and even larger

than the number of platonic solids, or the number of faces on the

largest platonic solid. And when you look at the order (size) of the

largest of the finite simple groups (the Monster group), it is huge.

And yet it is the largest. This seems to be a signpost that something

fundamental is going on here.

On the other hand, if I recall correctly without checking, rings and

fields don't have such a classification such that there are a finite

number of some basic type of them. I'm just shooting off at the hip,

but I wonder if this has to do with the fact that groups have only one

operator (addition or multiplication, say), whereas rings and fields

have at least 2. This rings a bell with the sufficient complexity

needed for Godel's Incompleteness Theorems (and a nontrivial G/G*?). A

similar point is that there are an infinite number of primes, whereas

the number of classes of finite simple groups is finite. Another

caution is to note the failure this approach in the past, notably with

Plato's "theory of everything". We don't want to go down the path of

numerology, which is a lot of what comes up when I google "monster

group" and "multiverse". But on the other hand, this is part of the

nature of exploring.

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Wed Sep 27 2006 - 14:42:11 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST
*