Thursday, July 28, 2011

A Deeper Code

Marcus du Sautoy is back on BBC with a three part series where he argues that mathematics is the secret code behind nature's secrets. Though Maths is apparently abstract, yet the behaviour of nature is wonderfully written in mathematical language.

Though du Sautoy confines himself to the conventional quantitative aspect of Mathematics, of even greater wonder to me at present is the realisation that nature (and indeed all life) is likewise written mathematically in a qualitative code which we do not yet even properly realise.

Indeed recently I have come to the view that the true nature of reality is indeed mathematical in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

One implication of this is that nature's ultimate physical secrets cannot be discovered merely through phenomenal investigation of reality, for these very phenomena already embody dynamic mathematical configurations with respect to both its quantitative and qualitative aspects.

One of the reasons why the qualitative aspect of Mathematics is missed is because it does not initially conform to rational investigation of the standard logical kind. Rather it conforms to an appreciation of interdependence (rather than independence) which is then indirectly conveyed through paradoxical interpretation of a circular kind.

So every mathematical symbol can be given a valid interpretation according to two logical systems that are linear and circular with respect to each other. Whereas the former corresponds with quantitative appreciation, the latter relates to qualitative appreciation (indirectly conveyed through mathematical symbols).

Put another way, whereas we now realise that numbers in quantitative terms can be both real and imaginary, the corresponding corollary in qualitative terms is that mathematical logical interpretation can likewise be both real and imaginary. So once again real in this context corresponds with linear type rational appreciation, whereas imaginary relates to circular or paradoxical type rational awareness.

One remarkable implication arising from this perspective is that qualitative type appreciation is directly of an affective kind, that indirectly can then be given a valid mathematical interpretation.

This would imply that ultimately a comprehensive mathematical appreciation implies substantial balance being maintained as between artistic (affective) and scientific (cognitive) type awareness, though the language of mathematics will be be rightly couched in cognitive terms.

In one valid sense, qualitative mathematical appreciation relates to the subtle appreciation of the the true dimensional nature of reality that - apart from some developments in string theory - is not currently recognised.

This would again imply that affective experience provides the direct means of appreciating such dimensions, which embody all phenomena with their unique qualitative characteristics.

Finally it struck me forcibly today that all this gives a new meaning to my interpretation of the Riemann Hypothesis as a statement regarding the ultimate reconciliation of both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of mathematical experience.

So before phenomena can even come into being, a crucial condition regarding the nature of prime numbers must be fulfilled guaranteeing their consistency according to two sets of logic that must necessarily diverge somewhat with respect to the phenomenal world. Therefore the subsequent manifestation of phenomena in nature is already based on deep mathematical principles that precede and ultimately also transcend their very existence in actual form. Therefore the Riemann Hypothesis can have no proof in conventional terms, for the very truth to which it relates already precedes any partial logical investigation either in standard (linear) or unrecognised (circular) terms.

Thus when we probe nature to its very limits, we must eventually leave the world of the merely physical to embrace what is truly mathematical. Indeed the very rigidity that defines phenomenal objects already implies a degree of reduction in the - ultimately ineffable - mathematical principles governing their nature. And this applies most readily to the qualitative aspect (the mathematical nature of which is not yet even recognised).

So the true nature of Mathematics - with respect to its quantitative and (unrecognised) qualitative aspects - lies at the very bridge that serves to connect the phenomenal world of physical form with the ineffable world of spiritual emptiness.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Odd Numbered Integers (9)

Unexpectedly this morning, while trying out an insight that struck me yesterday, I seemed to have detected a very interesting pattern that governs the denominators of values of the Riemann Zeta Function for negative odd integer values.

This pattern relates to divisibility of the denominator by the first two perfect numbers 6 and 28 and can be stated succinctly as follows.

(i) The denominator of such values is always divisible by 6.

(ii) in every 3rd case the denominator is divisible by both 6 and 28 (and only in such a case).

(iii) The denominator does not appear to be divisible by any other perfect numbers.

For example the 1st zeta result where s = - 1 is - 1/12 and the denominator is clearly divisible by 6.

The 2nd zeta result where s = - 3 is 1/120 and again the denominator is divisible by 6.

The 3rd zeta result where s = - 5 is - 1/252 and the denominator here is divisible by both 6 and 28.

And this trend continues. So the denominators (240 and 132) for both s = - 7 and s = - 9 are divisible by 6, whereas the denominator for s = - 11 (32760) which is the 3rd in the sequence, is divisible by both 6 and 28. Indeed in this case it is divisble by 6 * 28. However that is not generally the case!

Using zeta results compiled in Mc Gill University this trend can be verified for the first relevant 100 zeta values (i.e. up to s = -199).

It should be also stated that this numerical behavioural characteristic does not extend to denominators of the zeta function for positive even integer values of s!

However with respect to any qualitative interpretation of the meaning of such results it is perhaps too early to speculate.

Indeed even more dramatic numerical patterns exist with respect to the denominator of these zeta values (for negative odd integers).

As we have seen each successive value is divisible by 6 (i.e. 2 * 3).

Then every 2nd successive denominator value is divisible by 5; every 3rd succesive denominator nvalue is divisible by 7; every 5th successive denominator value is divisible by by 11; every 6th successive denominator value is divisible by 13; every 8th successive denominator value is divisible by 17; every 9th successive denominator value by 19; every 11th successive denominator value is divisible by 23; every 14th successive denominator value is divisible by 29 and so on.

In other words where the absolute value of s is prime, every {|s - 1|/2)th denominator value in the zeta sequence for negative odd integral values is thereby divisible by |s|.

Put another way if therefore every {|s - 1|/2)th denominator value is divisible by |s|, then |s| is prime.

For example if |- 31| is prime then every 15th value in the zeta sequence should be divisible by 31

Now the absolute value of the denominator is the first of these cases (15th value in sequence) is 85932 which is divisible 31.

Now for every further 15th value in sequence the absolute value of denominator will be divisible by 31.

For example the absolute value for the denominator of 30th value is 3407203800 which once again is divisible by 31.

Therefore we could conclude from this that 31 is a prime number!

Not alone does this pattern appear to hold unbiversally but equally for all absolute prime values of s > 3, the only time when the demominator is divisible by |s| is for the {|s - 1|/2)th denominator value in the sequence.

Therefore we could safely conclude for this value of |s| where = 31, that 31 is indeed a prime number.

And of course this would hold for all other values of |s| where the same principle applies!

Put finally yet another way if s = 2, 4 ,6, 8,....

then for zeta (1 - s), where the value of (s + 1) is prime, the absolute value of denominator will be divisible by all factors of s where with the addition of 1 are prime (and only these factors).

So one again for example when s = 36, zeta (1 - s) is zeta (- 35).

In this case s + 1 = 37 which is prime. Now all the factors of 36 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36.

Now with addition of 1 in each case we get 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 19 and 37.

However since 4 and 10 are not prime we can exclude these numbers.

Theerfore the denominator of zeta (-35) i.e. 69090840 is divisible by 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 19 and 37 (and only these prime numbers).

And what is remarkable is that when the denominator is divided by the product of all these prime factors the result is s.

Therfore 69090840/(2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 13 * 19 * 37) = 36.

Though this final result does not universally hold it does so in some cases i.e. when the denominator is divided by product of all prime factors the result is s.