This paper is probably going to be released either tomorrow if I am going to continue on my fit of mathematics tonight, or later this week as I have some AP classes XD All hail Kirchkoff!
The concepts here I have not looked up. I have not actually called these concepts these terms-I have only used them intuitively.
The reason for making the terms is so these intuitive concepts may be explained to other fellow geeks.
Poles gives the most descriptive term to the concept.
Within certain cases computatioonal mathematics, integers cannot go higher than 65535 despite the definition of integer within other branches. And if the integer goes is as large as 65535, it cannot be less than 0.
We also have “Clopen” sets because the defiintion of closed and open sets allowed for a set to be both open and closed. And that depending on the branch 1 + 2 + 3 +4… either is divergent or -1/12. You also have different types of infinity-all which have an endless amount- that could be ordered based on size.
A more familiar example of different meanings is that the square root of a negative number can either be “undefined” or result in an “imaginary number” depending on the definition you are using.
And using the word “imaginary” for those numbers do not help at all in describing the concept. Sure, they might have not been thought of as “real”, but negative numbers were dissed. Even ancient mathematicians questioned if 0 was a number.
I copied and pasted you spelling of dimensionality, which also got the squiggles. “Squairification”, a not so conventional term also has many red snake friends
I believe my computer’s dictionary does not have dimensionality as a word lol.
Wait, it was spelled correctly the whole time?? Even if it was then you’ll want to remove those red squiggles before you send the paper to get peer reviewed (I recommend this product for squiggle removal.)
It looks like you’ve defined “range” to be “pole”, which seems silly. If you’re going to use proper mathematical jargon, “domain” or “range” seems more appropriate here depending on whether it’s a function input or output.
Did you forget to write the conclusion to your argument here? Seems like a non sequitur.
You didn’t explain how this is relevant. Please stop throwing around random mathematics without making it clear how it connects to your main point.
The poor naming of one mathematical concept is not justification for poorly naming your own mathematical concept. My main issue with your use of “pole” is that it already has a meaning, and that meaning has nothing to do with what you’re using it for, which is actively making your paper more confusing for people with a background in mathematics.
Attempting to come up with new terms for well-known concepts like domains and discontinuities isn’t helping anyone. Reference “VM tanks”.
The square root of a negative number is perfectly well defined. It may not be able to be uniquely represented in some particular scheme, such as n-bit integers, but that represents a problem in the embedding of mathematics in some particular architecture (digital computers) rather than ambiguity in the math itself.
I feel like “square circle problem” has to do with the problem of turning a circle gate of a controller into two inputs [-1, 1], but it also sounds like he’s trying to solve the problem of squaring the circle, which given that it is known to be impossible, is not a particularly great title. Not really sure what squarification means, but it sounds like “squarifying” a circle would accomplish the aforementioned conversion.
It does. In a Simple Continuous Input Set, there are two ends of the range. Being “Poles” in a sense. Since poles do imply opposite I will probably modify the terminology, but at the moment, that’s the closest term I can think up of.
It…doesn’t. Did you read the description of a mathematical pole in @calcmogul’s post? Mathematical poles are most commonly singularities of complex functions, or a few other very specific mathematical terms. You can call them endpoints, limits, range ends, or basically anything else that isn’t already defined mathematically.
I’m still not really sure what this paper is about. You (confusingly) defined some terms in the part you sent, but never really made any points about them. Is there more of the paper that we haven’t seen yet?
Maybe they’re thinking of pole as in the endpoints of an axis through a sphere, like north and south pole? Still doesn’t seem like a correct application of the term.
The screenshots are dispersed, the real paper is currently around 14 pages
A continuous input set is a range of values. So like how a joystick’s axis can go from [-1,1], the “poles” would be -1 and 1. Or now using better terminology, the endpoints will be -1 and 1
Yes, these are screenshots of isolated parts, the paper walks though the basics and explains it better, but I didn’t have time to screenshot all the pages and didn’t want a pdf being shared around of a non-final version.
The current draft has 14 pages going through the stuff step by step.
