Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Naughty numbers/nice numbers.

{SNIP}

Anything quantifiable in the known universe can be analyzed and
manipulated in terms of numbers, and music is just one thing.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with characterizing the
creation or playing of music as 'number games'. The numbers
occur and react in patterns, and those patterns are what give
us pleasure in listening to, creating, or even just contemplating
music.

Sarn's reply:

Yes, I have often woundered about all of this.

I read somewhere that numbers have "personalitys", a term which has struck
me as very apt, and has stayed in my mind to this day.

I have screeds of information to look through, and borrow from librarys all
over New Zealand.

I have been acused by people on the alternative tuning list of "naughty
number games" myself, in the nicest possible way, of course!!!!!!!!!!!!

:o)

It also brings to mind the question as to weather the mind creates
mathematics, or mathematics creates the mind, or both, Universe's in the
Polyverse with different mathematics, logically inconsistent, logically
consistant, or simply things we can't possibly imagine.

(Rathermatics, Lathermatics, Tathermatics, Omni-Matics, Ultra-matics,
Hyper-matics ect....).

One thing that really interested me was the effect of & 0 on n, where by
this was different for all real numbers.

We get x&0=x^(1/x), and for even numbered negative numbers:

-1&0=-1^1=-1,
-2&0=-2^(1/2)=i(2^(1/2)),
-3&0=-3^(1/3)=+/-(3^(1/3)),
-4&0=-4&(1/4)=i(4th root 4), or i(4^(1/4)),
ect......

Thus brings to mind the effect of i&0, which should be an imaginary
multiplyed by itself an imaginary number of times.

I have since been told, that there is no need to have yet another class of
numbers for these, which I had assummed would be called "Ludicrous/Lunatic
numbers", and I believe that this is called "DeMoive's theorem", but don't
quote me on this-I am "opelezz" at spelling, as you all should know by now.

Whereby, we do not have any such number as "imaginary imaginarys".

Thus (2&(1/12))&0 should not be = to 1, as I first had thought, but = to
1.154018752^(1/1.154018752)=1.32165073=
0.053909752/0.025085832=214.901 cents.

Blooming strange!!!!!!!!

{SNIP} oops!!!! (Cut an electron open, and cosmolons (pre-electrons) have
filled the screen----->+ (there's one now)) :o)

This is one of the reasons I have likened recent work in tuning
theory (including my own) to that of quantum physics and
modern astronomy. All three disciplines seem to me to be dealing
with the same kinds of concepts and perceptual/cognitive processes.

Sarn's reply:

Yes, and you may have forgotten to mention what I call the "Holy Tricotomy",

Quantum Mechanics
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Chaos (Non-Linear dynamics)----General Reletivity

BTW, I was meaning to say......

I got some misleading information from "A Breif History of Time" about the
Strong Anthroptic Principal, and I woundered if it was intentionaly done, or
an editorial blunder?

Am thinking about using Hamilton's Quarterionians in the combination with p,
j, & 0, in 4D, and was also woundering, is their non-commutative property a
necessity, not intuitively obviously grasped by me (relevant to DeMoive's
theorem)?

I mean, do NO numbers behave in such a way that a*b does not = b*a, unless
we "call the shots", so to speak?

I thought I was onto a roll with logs of negatives and imaginarys, and
Ludicrous numbers, wanting to make new numbers "willy nilly/ad hoc"-but a
mathematician I E-Mailed recently burst my bubble.

Oh yes, and finally, you know the Lambdbda matrix (spelling again, I'm
sorry.....),-as a link from Joe Monzo's really cool amazeingly neat site, I
was woundering, would it be possible to have a hexagonal version of this,
whereby:

a b
c d e f
g h

a b
c d e f g
h i

I wounder how you'd multiply them?

These may not be completely worthless-Buckminsterfuller believed that
reality was based on
60 degrees, not 90.

Any comments?

Sarn.

Naughty numbers/nice numbers.

🔗Sarn Richard Ursell <thcdelta@xxx.xxxx.xx.xxx>

🔗Azi Vajravai <vajravai@hotmail.com>