Back to AtD Zeta functions

[Paul Mackin]

On 7/16/2012 10:25 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> A...and, adds some weight to the notion of Inconvenience in Pynchon, yes?

Which reminds me, aren't the Chums a convenience?

Or in GR, isn't Slothrop  a convenience? Created to fill a place in a 
great Bureaucratic Scheme?   A place holder in an operation?

"Only the demands of the Operation. Each of us has his place, and the 
tenants come and go, but the places remain . . . . " p 616

Comparison is made with the earlier War.

Better sex back then apparently?

P


>
>
> *From:* Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org
> *Sent:* Monday, July 16, 2012 9:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Back to AtD Zeta functions
>
> 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 mailto:mackin.paul at verizon.net
>> *To:* pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto: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/20120716/07f42662/attachment.html>