Riemann Surfaces

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 1: Introduction]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 2: A Little History]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 3: Cardan’s Problem]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 4: Bombelli’s Solution]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 5: Numbers are Two Dimensional]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 6: The Complex Plane]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 7: Complex Multiplication]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 8: Math Wizardry]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 9: Closure]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 10: Complex Functions]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 11: Wandering in 4 Dimensions]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 12: Riemann’s Solution]

Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 13: Riemann Surfaces]

— Welch Labs

.

In case the original videos are lost, please use the Internet Archive link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170714105446/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU

— Me@2018-02-12 02:14:51 PM

.

.

2018.02.12 Monday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK

Eyes on me

dziungles 14 days ago

Hey, this is really cool to see natural eyesight topic on the hacker news.
I practice this for more than 10 years. Each day I work with computer for ~10 h., drive a car and do other things, and never wear glasses, even though the traditional ophtalmologic measures clearly indicate that I need strong glasses and I shouldn’t see even the biggest letter on the Snellen chart, but I see not only the biggest, but sometimes even the 20/20.

Doctors can’t explain this, and only congrats me on my achievement. Of course, the eyesight is not perfect. I see clearly in the daytime, but in the nighttime or low light conditions it becomes much harder to distinguish faces.

The best book I found so far is “Relearning to See” by Thomas R. Quackenbush. The originator of this theory was William Bates.

Actually, there is no clear unified theory on how to achieve this. Everyone interprets it differently and the results are inconsistent. There is also a lot of criticism from the medical establishment.

Natural eyesight improvement really works. And the unified theory, in a form of an app, or a good book, maybe including findings from neuroplasticity, would be a great gift for humanity.

.

bsder 14 days ago

Natural eyesight improvement really works. And the unified theory, in a form of an app, or a good book, maybe including findings from neuroplasticity, would be a great gift for humanity.

It SORT OF works in stable and predictable situations.

What seems to be happening is that your brain, in all of its neuroplastic glory, is learning to make better inferences from the broken information it receives.

The issue is that this works as long as the inferences are correct. That’s fine when you are reading a newspaper, using the computer, etc. as the situation is stable and predictable.

The problem is that when you are suddenly confronted by a situation where the inferences are NOT correct–such as a nighttime emergency situation while driving. Now you are relying on the “uninferenced” data coming in from your eyes and that data is subpar with all the resultant problems.

The best solution is both: fix the data coming in with corrective lenses for unpredictable situations, and train your brain to make better inferences so you can deal with predictable situations better.

.

dziungles 14 days ago

Before, I also had this theory in my mind for a year or so.
But for example, right now I’m in Thailand, traveling here for the first time. Everything is new, unfamiliar and unpredictable, daytime, nightime. I have no problems seeing things, everything is almost perfectly clear and sharp. I needed some time to adapt to a smaller screen of my laptop (I was using 24 inch before), but now I’m doing fine.

Actually, the more you look, the better you see. Like in Aaron Swartz blog post, if you want to retrain your weak legs, you need to walk more. Same with eyes.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180204094207/https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16194580

.

.

2018.02.09 Friday ACHK

Logical arrow of time, 6.2

Source of time asymmetry in macroscopic physical systems

Second law of thermodynamics

.

.

Physics is not about reality, but about what one can say about reality.

— Bohr

— paraphrased

.

.

Physics should deduce what an observer would observe,

not what it really is, for that would be impossible.

— Me@2018-02-02 12:15:38 AM

.

.

1. Physics is about what an observer can observe about reality.

2. Whatever an observer can observe is a consistent history.

observer ~ a consistent story

observing ~ gathering a consistent story from the quantum reality

3. Physics [relativity and quantum mechanics] is also about the consistency of results of any two observers _when_, but not before, they compare those results, observational or experimental.

4. That consistency is guaranteed because the comparison of results itself can be regarded as a physical event, which can be observed by a third observer, aka a meta observer.

Since whenever an observer can observe is consistent, the meta-observer would see that the two observers have consistent observational results.

5. Either original observers is one of the possible meta-observers, since it certainly would be witnessing the comparison process of the observation data.

— Me@2018-02-02 10:25:05 PM

.

.

.

2018.02.03 Saturday (c) All rights reserved by ACHK