Message Boards Message Boards

1
|
8519 Views
|
2 Replies
|
2 Total Likes
View groups...
Share
Share this post:

Geometric containment for human behavior? (Project)

Can someone have a legitimate idea, or concept that is true, that also at the same time knows nothing of mathematics, geometry, or speak the language that can prove it? In short, the answer to this question does not matter to me because most of my life I have seen the world in geometric structures, even if I lack the words or technical jargon to communicate it. This is what drew me to Mathematica, and even though I lack the skills to prove it or disprove it, I hope to find some in the Wolfram Community, that although I am not well educated like many of you, allow me enough leeway to prove or disprove a model that I refer to as “The R3 Model.”

This “Model,” for lack of a better term, is something I have worked on most of my life. It’s very simple yet expands to become the most complex of systems that I am currently aware. I do not expect anyone in this forum/community to legitimize this “Model” but this will not stop or discourage me from working on it. It’s kind of been part of my life’s work. Unfortunately, before Mathematica, I have found it very difficult to work through some to the complexities of it even though at the onset, it is a very simple model. So if one can disregard or look past my lack of ability of using the proper terms or language, this is what I would like to demonstrate through a step by step process, eventually over time.

This “Model” came out of a frustration in life where people seemed to in many fields, arbitrarily assign a hierarchy way of thinking, as if that is the way the information naturally was organized. Yet I believe that there is a specific way information must be stored in order to create truly intelligent systems. And so as more and more people build better ways to query information, it seems less important how to actually store the information. Anyway, this would take too long to explain as to the reasons and calculated decision it took to come to my final conclusion. This conclusion can be summed up in the following statement; all information must be stored geometrically, but most specifically, I believe humans naturally speak and communicate in a cubed centric structure. I do not know if anyone else out there believes this or maybe it is already completely known but where else could I post this concept or idea as I aim to use Mathematica to help me show and demonstrate this.

At the onset, I can assure those who want to quickly judge this approach, it may seem over simplified or even false but I have to start in the most simplified premise that I know, and it gets much more complicated as you put more of the system to work. It is my belief that this is in fact the basis, initially as only a framework that would allow a more universal system modeled approach to structure information as it relates to individuals, companies, or entire communities.

There are three main parts; a sphere, a cube, and two tetrahedrons. The cube is the outer most layer which corresponds to any given “Behavior or System,” the sphere corresponds to “Components” (let’s just call this the product of the behavior), and the tetrahedrons correspond with “Resources” (all those identifiable items needed to run that particular behavior or system). The two tetrahedrons align themselves to the eight corners, one inverted upon the other, so that the four corners of one tetrahedron align to four of the eight corners of the cube, and the second tetrahedron aligns to the opposite four corners so the two together form a type of star within the cube. It gets much more complicated and in some ways simpler and more easy to understand after this. For now however, I will simply say if someone can help me create this initial model and be able to rotate it and possibly even separate these four elements from one another in a way, possibly I can snap them back in place, while pulling them away from each other or showing them in two views, one separated and the other together.

I will continue and explain more if I can get this portion of the model complete.

Thank you,

Brian

*I do not yet know much about 3D Printing but it is my hope to eventually be able to hold some of these models in my hand while I talk about them and explain in more detail how this model would work and benefit the user if developed.

POSTED BY: Brian Woytovich
2 Replies

Dear Daniel Lichtblau,

Actually if it were not for "Wolfram Technologies" and specifically two separate people in 2002 telling me that I should look at the book "A New Kind Of Science" I would not have even known about Wolfram Technologies and I would still be trying to prove my model with pencil and paper or making models with toothpicks and clay :).

I have actually successfully used another product to apply some of the principles found in this model, but unfortunately the software I used was always being "recreated" unlike Mathematica which prides itself in being able to use the same code in Mathematica 10 that you could use in Mathematica 1, but until now it seemed the Wolfram Language was just out of reach for someone like me that was such a late start in fields taught in main stream academia. They say on the website that hobbyists are able to use the product to try to prove their ideas. If Mathematica and Wolfram Technologies cannot help me build the following two shapes like a cube and the other shape to the right (in picture below), then I do not know what technologies to use.

This is why I gave the personal explanation and reason I might not use the right terminology. What is the shape to the right of my cube in the picture, because this shape clearly can be put in the cube. Maybe I am using the wrong term, Tetrahedron, but you have to put it diagonally as I am trying to hold up with my hand, you can see that Mathematica probably would be easier and better tool then clay and toothpicks :)

Please give me time to explain, if it does not comply then send me a message and and tell me how I can better explain it. Please be patient with me, I could not even speak when I was young and then had to later teach myself to read. My ideas are trapped and I truly believe once I can learn Mathematica and the Wolfram Language and many more of the supporting technologies I will finally be able to PROVE my model that it's not an opinion or solution but with the help of these tools I believe I can prove that it's rather a discovery, a model which explains the relationship between our behaviors and how to better interact with our environment which includes the totality of our resources, which obviously will eventually include all our current and future connected devices.

Sincerely,

Brian

enter image description here

The point of this original post is precisely because I do not yet know the code to have even the two shapes properly placed within one another and why I am turning to the Wolfram community to help me with it using Mathematica.

POSTED BY: Brian Woytovich

Dear Brian Woytovich,

As you clearly realize, your post is not really tied to Wolfram technologies and thus might be deleted (along with my response, of course). I will make a few suggestions so that you can perhaps improve it or formulate a new post that is more in line with forum expectations.

(1) You do not need a 3D printer, or the ability to program one, in order to form 3D graphics in Mathematica. There are primitives for Cuboid (your cube) and Simplex (your tetrahedron. Illustrating two tetrahedra with vertices hitting the eight vertices of a cube is straightforward (in large part because it is a minor modification of an example in documentation for Simplex).

Graphics3D[{Simplex[{{0, 0, 1}, {1, 0, 0}, {1, 0, 1}, {1, 1, 1}}], 
  Simplex[{{0, 1, 0}, {0, 1, 1}, {1, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0}}]}]

enter image description here

(2) This might not be the image you had in mind. In which cse you might try to explain it better, maybe offer a corrected picture. Maybe something like below?

Graphics3D[{Simplex[{{0, 0, 1}, {1, 1, 0}, {1, 0, 1}, {0, 0, 0}}], 
  Simplex[{{0, 1, 0}, {0, 1, 1}, {1, 1, 1}, {1, 0, 0}}]},  Axes -> True]

enter image description here

(3) Categorizing things is quite old of course. Going back at least to Aristotle, one finds categorization of sciences for example. It might be useful to consider how your proposed model departs from other work (finding similarities might also be useful)..

(4) What you propose is not at all clear. There is a very general set of statements, and some very specific three dimensional objects are brought in. But how the latter relate to the former is really unstated.

(5) Mathematica/Wolfram Language provides many capabilities for representation of networks, relationships, and analysis thereof. It would be useful at least for purposes of posting to this forum, to have some idea of how these might be brought to bear on your project. This is something you would need to consider, preferably with some code shown. This would give people a concrete idea not only of what you are trying to do. It would also to meet the basic forum standards in terms of what constitutes a viable question regarding Wolfram technologies.

I hope some of these suggestions are of use for your work.

POSTED BY: Daniel Lichtblau
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard

Group Abstract Group Abstract