|
|
|
|
x that is fully 7 dimensional:((((((x)x)x)x)x)x)xNumber springs from noticing things. There's a first thing, a second . . . Then we call it 1 or 2 . . . of something, as a short hand or "summarizer" (or a coefficient to a variable that is a "something".) Notice that "5" might be the same things as "4", except a 5th thing is added. Number's existence is in itself recursive. One primary grasp of number is in seeing accumulation of numbers both as creating numbers and as an accumulation process that names numbers the xth number. Grasp of number means knowing that noticing accumulation both causes and applies to numbers. Since there is likewise much interchangeability and sometimes confusion between the elements of dimension, dimensional realities may much resemble initial concepts of number. What is a dimension? It is a manifestation of accumulation level AND power level. In numbers, figurate series describe the proportions of powers. All possible orderly and disorderly permutations of n things (given in Euler Triangle rows) is the strength of a power. "Finite or symbolic" (Zeilberger) integers, through their orderliness, are both the expressers and the translators of powers. Having such triple coordinates or working from one of three assumed "directions", given less coordinates, defines power/accumulation/order levels yet only places a number value in a context. Perhaps "dimension" is a lexicographic example of an (intentionally?) ambivalent concept. Grammatically, there can be a difference when saying "I've been born" in comparison to saying "I've had a life". A numerical parallel of that grammar difference might be: 5^2 is 1+3+5+7+9 accumulated once in comparison to 1,1,0,0,0 recursively accumulated three times. (Both statements may be farther away from "5", by which the 5^2 is named, than is imagined.)
In a world with "1's" grouped everywhere and every which way, thinking in groups that are larger than one can be ellusive, illusive, illustrative, and perhaps always illusory.
Questions about dimension expressed with number are interesting questions because we operate with a feeling that we know what we are talking about. The relativity of dimension may be so obvious that we don't even notice it. Perhaps dimensions are usually assumptive proposals within communications. Perhaps we ask each other to ground discussion on understandings of counted things about "things that count". With round-about, circular types of dimensional "foundations", our chosen pretensions may effect "the whole of creation":
Indeed, From "The Heart of Awareness: A Translation of the Ashtavakra Gita," by Thomas Byrom, 1990
__________________
Eye maximum. Minimum I.
Both.
[Versus . . . in verse: a singularly poetic line (--one story up against nothing (the (inverse (onion (larger inside)) union) universe)).] - Cecilia |
Send mail to
Cecilia@noticingnumbers.net with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
