What's Wrong with Quantum Mechanics / Apology: Existence of Proton / discussion, incl. P Noyes, T Bastin, C Kilmister (contd.)

0:00 In a certain way, certain quantities or dimension lists or dimension things go together. Build this pure mathematics and then fix the lottery. Now he's asking you if this is a real thing. Could we assign some kind of existence to these things?

2:30 Existence? I realised this was a non-question really because the matrix operators were just a way of writing things.

42:30 The problem then was the binary operation you had. This is in one of the proceedings a few years ago. I think I was answering you. Is that an answer?

45:00 Also, just a short comment. I don't think that it's a particular problem. If somebody doesn't accept your original geotopical basis, so we don't need the same kind of secondary, we don't accept the first where we don't bother about the second, and regardless how we understand, we know how it works. It's not on the carry-on.

47:30 There is a way of introducing, oddly enough, Eddington in a very muddle somewhere near. I'm quite happy to define the distributive law as holding, really asking for a bit more than that kind of fundamental theory, Ellington uses a purely formal addition, actually this is really nothing new, it's only like at the beginning of this century when better analysis was just People we've always written, E1, E2, E3, or Ex, Y, Z in practice.

50:00 About the construction of combinatorial hierarchy by two ways. One way is mathematics and mathematics that Anderson has done. Another way is the sort theory by Bucky Rogers in which he introduces twins, which are not the same but also are not very interesting. And the short answer is...