Presenting Research

[VURG]

I have been working hard on a mathematical theory that I believe has huge potential. I am not sure if it is better to present my research on an informal basis or a formal basis.

I have developed a theory and have a mathematical basis to justify the theory. If I am right, there are a lot of related keywords that may be underated and hence I think that presenting my theory to the Namepros general discussion section is a good way to put the theory out in the open.

However, I don't want to offend people. I'm not sure if people think Namepros is a place to present research. I am also not sure if it would be better to present it in the General Discussion area or the Break Room. I assume that if I present it in the break room, it could be later moved to the general discussion area if it gained momentum.

I believe that my theory has large enough potential that there is domaining potential associated with the theory. If the Namepros community think that I am on to something, then I expect that there should be a spill over effect in spreading the information to the internet.

The other option is to present my theory is through university contacts. I think that this option has potential but I think that it is a bit slow.

My theory has a strong mathematical foundation. It is the spin off theories that are most interesting.

Please help me work out where to present my research.

 

[lachlandv]

Could you please send me a PM so I can learn more about this theory or is it somewhat similar to your 'direction and focus' theory either way I would like to learn more!
cheers

 

[VURG]

I did embarrass myself last year by talking about direction and focus. What I was exploring last year was related but I got too caught up in the moment and got confused with some wierd theories.

My theory is related to sensory perception but I have now narrowed it down to a mathematical theory that can potentially be used to analyse sensory perception more efficiently. As it is a mathematical theory, the theory in it's current form stands in its own right without the distractions of interpretations of sensory perception. It might instead have practical applications in other ways. It also can be debated about in a logical format and hence not presented in the trippy way I was talking last year.

I am thinking that I should probably talk to my accademic contacts. I just have to wait 6 weeks until I will see any of them. I'm not a huge telephone person and so I don't want to talk to people that way. Thanks everyone who has offered feedback.

 

[johname]

what you do is find the lowest level of scientific journal (hopefully in mathmatics)and submit it for consideration to be published. If that doesnt work then try a magizine article. Keep going down the chain until your inviting neighborhood kids to see your power point presentation. good luck

 

[VURG]

Thanks for your feedback everyone. I am now getting advice from University contacts on how to deal with my theory. They put a lot of time aside to listen to me and so it seems like the initial reaction is that there maybe something to it.

It is an interpretation of how to approach the problem:

What is 1 + 1?

The controversial side to this theory is working out if that is how the brain operates. If so, it could have huge implications.

There has already been a lot of extensive research into working out how to approach the problem and the mathematics experts I talked to had a more extensive knowledge on how to factor in variables that I hadn't really considered. Since talking to them, I have realised that my research is quite simplistic and some of my assumptions may have serious weaknesses. That said, I got the impression that my earlier work in the problem has some unique features about it that the experts seemed to show signs that they hadn't seen before. There are also a lot of questions that have been raised based on this angle to the problem. It seems to raise more questions than it answers.

I have learned that there has been a lot of extensive mathematical research over the last 100 years into working out what 1 + 1 is and so it is not new to question the legitimacy of the answer being 2. Linking the question to Anatomy is something that may be a new approach and so I will continue to work with the University contacts to see where it will take me.

 

[Domainace]

Now I'm curious. Can we get a rough idea of where you are going? What is the angle, and a couple of the questions raised by it?

 

[liquidcherry]

Now I'm curious. Can we get a rough idea of where you are going? What is the angle, and a couple of the questions raised by it?

He is just questioning the theory of 1+1=2...and i agree, sometimes 1+1 is not always 2...just think about 1 dog+1 cat...= 1......1 big mess since the dog tries to eat the cat and usually prevails.... LOL, need 2 sleep hehehehhe

Cheers

Liquid

 

[VURG]

Now I'm curious. Can we get a rough idea of where you are going? What is the angle, and a couple of the questions raised by it?

OK, I have a mathematical proof to disprove that 1 + 1 = 2

This proof is based on the following assumptions.
1 is defined using 4 dimensions.
= is defined using the legal definition: the probability is less than 50%

My proof involves simulations and deductive reasoning and so pure mathematicians may want more maths than I am interested in giving.

I am having a bit of a hard time convincing the mathematicians that 1 is defined in 4 dimensions. They are willing to consider that it has more than 1 dimension but prefer a more broad approach that the number of dimensions is unknown and hence all values of n could be considered.

I guess you can use the common physics style approach to defining the 4 dimensions based on the 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. I prefer a more traditional justification of using 4 dimensions based on chaotic logic that was more commonly accepted from the pre Galileo era. Maybe talking about snail tentacles would be a good place to start. They use 4. I could also use Psychology examples of where 4 dimensions are used. I could also use examples based on belief systems.

However, in this post Galileo era we live in, statistical logic is considered scientific and recognised by academics and chaotic logic is considered to be unscientific. Personally, I think we should be using all parts of our brain when approaching science and not discrediting chaotic logic as unscientific. Hence, I am concerned that I won't get a fair hearing to my theory. I think that the mathematics is convincing enough but the justification for choosing 4 dimensions to the definition of 1 is hard work. That said, when you look at an example of a theory like string theory, the number of dimensions to use is highly controversial. Maybe I would be better off stating that I don't know how many dimensions 1 has and if it greater than 2, then 1 + 1 does not equal 2.

Chaotic logic may be a good reason to pick a starting point but not as a basis for a premise to an argument. What do you think about using chaotic logic?

On the mathematics side there is a lot of rounding as I believe that the brain may be forced to use a lot of rounding to function correctly.

There are heaps of questions it raises. Are you talking about mathematical questions or questions related to the theory that this is how the brain functions?