- 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 15:16:27 -0700

Tom Caylor wrote:

*> 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
*

i.e. "some amount of weirdness" (where have I heart that phrase before?

Ah, yes, Bruno's UDA paper) is to be expected as part of the nature of

exploring.

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

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 - 18:17:25 PDT

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:16:27 -0700

Tom Caylor wrote:

i.e. "some amount of weirdness" (where have I heart that phrase before?

Ah, yes, Bruno's UDA paper) is to be expected as part of the nature of

exploring.

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

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 - 18:17:25 PDT

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