(Complaint 1) Calling them killing vectors is absolutely obnauxious: It’s not killing anything: no lives, …. There’s no ethical implication. So…. It’s not different than annihilating: this is where the developing use of ethical words to describe mathematics begins. (Complaint 2) Scale invariance implies conformal invariance: Of Time or space …. ‘Scale’: this is unhelpful according to a spiritual interpretation of the concepts of electric and magnetic. The montonen olive concept of ‘duality’ Is not something that’s immediately ‘isomorphic’ with the concept of magnetism ‘vs. electricity’ implied by New Age spirituality: This has to do with the Shakti-Kundalini, A ‘fluid’ (Complaint 3) This is ‘d’ the exterior derivative on forms…. I still haven’t come to terms with concept of a 1-form being the literal derivative of a function over real affine space. If this is to imply (in a backwards way) that df/dt For a function of ‘time’, …. As it were, a one-parameter group action of some sort…. It’s not immediately clear to imply that, distinctly, an operator, Applied to this (operator) function : The derivative, IS The 1-form …. df . To imply ‘dividing’ another 1-form that indeed, in an explicitly metric sense, is the exterior differential/derivative of a Geometry Quotiented by another 1-form Parameterized by arc length, as it were, Can be compared to dividing by 1: This ignores the infinitesimal nature of this ‘Finite element limits’: ϵ is not zero. So I’ll make sure to take a good look at any ‘Infinitesimal symmetries’ this guy claims to be studying. N=1 supersymmetric string theory. One of these studies the hybrid string. That vibrates. The wave operator: This has a specific spot in this kind of theory…. And why would I be using my intuition on that: Removing all association this has with an actual WAVE.
@5:40 This kind of vocabulary: ‘ small distances, big distances’ I personally find extremely misleading, because this religious construct: About 1-manifolds vibrating…. The discipline of taking local mathematical spaces that may also be talked about as a point: It’s not going to translate correctly in this mathematical regime where all of one’s sense of What’s local, and what’s global: As a sub-manifold, held taught, by the 1-manifold that is Time: in human consciousness, Is taking place in a zoomed in feature of space-time that is defined by the mathematics. One’s work in life won’t correspond to anything correct, if the question is Is string theory Just full of shit? So this isn’t an empirical science: this definition of empirical domain.
![Fermat's Last Theorem - The Theorem and Its Proof: An Exploration of Issues and Ideas [1993]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6ymTZEeTjI8/mqdefault.jpg)
ホログラフィー・モノポールブラックホールとモノポールブラックホールによるタイムワープ。タイムマシンは実現できる可能性があります!!
(Complaint 1)
Calling them killing vectors is absolutely obnauxious:
It’s not killing anything: no lives, …. There’s no ethical implication.
So…. It’s not different than annihilating: this is where the developing use of ethical words to describe mathematics begins.
(Complaint 2)
Scale invariance implies conformal invariance:
Of Time or space …. ‘Scale’: this is unhelpful according to a spiritual interpretation of the concepts of electric and magnetic.
The montonen olive concept of ‘duality’
Is not something that’s immediately ‘isomorphic’ with the concept of magnetism ‘vs. electricity’ implied by New Age spirituality:
This has to do with the Shakti-Kundalini,
A ‘fluid’
(Complaint 3)
This is ‘d’ the exterior derivative on forms….
I still haven’t come to terms with concept of a 1-form being the literal derivative of a function over real affine space.
If this is to imply (in a backwards way) that df/dt
For a function of ‘time’,
…. As it were, a one-parameter group action of some sort….
It’s not immediately clear to imply that, distinctly, an operator,
Applied to this (operator) function :
The derivative,
IS
The 1-form …. df
.
To imply ‘dividing’ another 1-form that indeed, in an explicitly metric sense, is the exterior differential/derivative of a
Geometry
Quotiented by another 1-form
Parameterized by arc length, as it were,
Can be compared to dividing by 1:
This ignores the infinitesimal nature of this
‘Finite element limits’:
ϵ is not zero.
So I’ll make sure to take a good look at any
‘Infinitesimal symmetries’ this guy claims to be studying.
N=1 supersymmetric string theory.
One of these studies the hybrid string.
That vibrates.
The wave operator:
This has a specific spot in this kind of theory…. And why would I be using my intuition on that:
Removing all association this has with an actual WAVE.
@5:40
This kind of vocabulary:
‘ small distances, big distances’
I personally find extremely misleading, because this religious construct:
About 1-manifolds vibrating….
The discipline of taking local mathematical spaces that may also be talked about as a point:
It’s not going to translate correctly in this mathematical regime where all of one’s sense of
What’s local, and what’s global:
As a sub-manifold, held taught, by the 1-manifold that is Time: in human consciousness,
Is taking place in a zoomed in feature of space-time that is defined by the mathematics.
One’s work in life won’t correspond to anything correct, if the question is
Is string theory Just full of shit?
So this isn’t an empirical science: this definition of empirical domain.