Back to AtD Zeta functions

[Paul Mackin]

On 7/16/2012 8:36 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> The Annie Liebowitz reminder was wonderfully ironic about a solid 
> woman thinker/writer who was NOT as ironic as TRP, imho.
> And, short Wittgenstein answer is we need a longer answer and time but 
> that TRP might use the ideas creatively, metaphorically, as
> he does the concepts of entropy and other concepts is still possible.

Prashant's characterization of "i" as a "convenience" reminds me that's 
how Poikler describes delta t to Leni.

"The important thing is taking a function to its limit.  Delta t is just 
a convenience, so that it can happen."

Leni thinks it's just his way of removing all the excitement from things 
. . . .

p 159

P
> *From:* Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2012 6:57 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Back to AtD Zeta functions
>
> On 7/16/2012 12:08 AM, Prashant Kumar wrote:
>> So actually the imaginary numbers used in representing voltage don't 
>> represent real or /measurable/ quantities. It's just a mathematical 
>> convenience. The salient point is this: we can't directly measure 
>> anything with an /i/.
>>
>> Strangely, physical entities with imaginary components do exist, such 
>> as the wavefunction of a quantum mechanical system. There was a 
>> result in Nature recently that proved that the wavefunction is not 
>> just a statement of knowledge, it represents more than just 
>> probabilities. If anyone is interested I can go into this, but the 
>> short answer is Witt was wrong
>
> Thanks, Prashant.  I withdraw my voltage example.
>
> Luddy wrong too.  I'm in such good company.
>
> P
>>
>> On 16 July 2012 11:01, Lemuel Underwing <luunderwing at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:luunderwing at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     As someone who suffers from an inability to properly understand
>>     maths I thank you, 'twas certainly helpful.
>>
>>     It is hard for me to imagine who any of this has to do with Annie
>>     Leibovitz... I take it some folks have a hard time figuring out
>>     what is just /White Noise/ in Pynchon...?
>>
>>
>>     On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Prashant Kumar
>>     <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         First we're gonna need complex numbers, made of a real part
>>         (normal numbers) plus an imaginary part. Imaginary numbers
>>         are defined by multiples of /i/=squareroot(-1). Imagine a 2D
>>         graph, the vertical axis marked with multiples of /i/ and the
>>         horizontal axis with real numbers. So on this 2D graph we can
>>         define a complex number as a point. Call such a point s =
>>         \sigma + \rho, \sigma and \rho being real and imaginary
>>         numbers resp.
>>
>>         Since it takes real and imaginary inputs, and we plot the
>>         output in the third dimension, the Riemann Zeta function can
>>         be visualised as a surface sitting above the complex number
>>         graph; that's what you saw, Mark (see here
>>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function for the
>>         same thing with magnitude represented as colour).  If I have
>>         a RZ function, writing R as a function of s as R(s), the
>>         zeroes are the values of s for which R(s)=0.  The Riemann
>>         Hypothesis (unproven) states that the zeroes of the RZ
>>         function have real part 1/2. Formally, R(1/2 + \rho) = 0.
>>         This gives you a line on the surface of the RZ function
>>         (known as the critical line) along which the zeroes are
>>         hypothesised to lie. That wasn't too bad, right?
>>
>>         Verifying this hypothesis is notoriously hard.
>>
>>         On 15 July 2012 21:27, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com
>>         <mailto:markekohut at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             "Except that this one's horizontal and drawn on a grid of
>>             latitude and longitude,
>>             instead of rel vs imaginary values---where Riemann said
>>             that all the zeroes of the
>>             Beta function will be found."
>>
>>             p. 937 Don't know enough math to have a feel for Zeta
>>             functions but Wolfram's
>>             maths guide online shows Beta functions kinda graphed in
>>             three dimensions,
>>             with raised sections, waves, folds etc....
>>
>>             And all I can associate at the moment are the raised
>>             maps, showing land formations,
>>             and the phrase
>>
>>             History is a step-function.
>>
>>             Anyone, anyone? Bueller?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120716/b3f19e4f/attachment.html>