# Re: All-Zero-Sum Counter

Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Fri, 19 Jun 1998 03:30:56 -0400

Ian Goddard <igoddard@netkonnect.net> wrote:

> IAN: Both -C (each individual measure of
> foreshortened length) and -2C (their sum)
> are derived by relation to 0 (the 0 point
> of measure, being the observer's ship) and
>
> 0 - (-2) = +2
> -2 - 0 = -2
>
> the net difference between -2 and 0 is zero;
> and thus the inverse matrix is equally true:
>
> A B
> A 0 -
> B - 0
>
>
> A B
> A + 0
> B 0 +
>
> Because size is relative, A appears to in-
> crease in size when measuring B. As A looks
> at B, observer A could equally assume he had
> increased in size just as the observer in one
> train looking at another train next to him out
> the window seeing motion and may assume either
> his train or the other is in motion, and either
> assumption is equally correct. Observer B also
> assumes he may have increased in size. So net
> difference is found in the sum of the matrices.
> One size-matrix doesn't contain all difference.

IAN:One size-CHANGE--matrix doesn't contain all
difference. If size is static, one matrix covers
all difference, but if size changes, 2 matrices
cover all difference. This seems to be because
a static-size relation between A and B where
A is larger has only two possibilities:

1. (A larger)
2. (B smaller)

But a measure of all possible relations in the
changing sizes of A and B must map twice the
number of relative measurements of the change:

1. (A larger)
2. (A smaller)
3. (B larger)
4. (B smaller)

A and B may assume they themselves got larger,
or A & B may both assume the other got smaller.
It seems to be the inclusion of time/change
into matrix-identity format that results
in the requirements for additional data
and thus opens another data dimension.

**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________