# [time 976] Re: [time 975] LaTex version of my paper

WDEshleman@aol.com
Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:29:34 EST

Hitoshi,
The Nov. 5 update is now at,

I have changed f_{n+1} to f_1 and f_n to f_0 as you noted.

The equations are now numbered to help discussion.

When it comes to implications of quantum mechanics, I wish to discuss them
in section 12; section 2 may now have all that I can say about exp function.

I am still having some trouble with objective and subjective; since our
instruments
and eyes see interference patterns, does that make them objective? Or, are
the patterns caused by subjective change that we can't miss objectively?

Sincerely,

Bill

In a message dated 11/4/99 8:53:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> I saw your new version of Nov. 4. I still have a question on section 2:
>
> The second equation for f_n:
>
> df_n/dt = h f_n (2)
>
> is equivalent to
>
> f_n = c exp(th) with c an arbitrary but fixed constant. (2)'
>
> Namely this gives the general solution for (2).
>
> But unlike you say there, f_{n+1} = f_n exp(th) is not the solution of (2)
> because by (2)' we have
>
> f_{n+1} = f_n exp(th) = c exp(2th),
>
> which satisfies
>
> df_{n+1}/dt = 2h f_{n+1}.
>
> I wonder why you need subscript n, which, I assume, takes integral values
1,
> 2,
> 3, ...
>
> I think you need just two quantities, say f_0 and f_1 that satisfy, e.g.,
>
> f_1/f_0 = 1/(1-x)
>
> in the case of relativistic/objective notion of change at the bottom of
page
> 4.
> In the case of exponential function case, this would become
>
> f_1/f_0 = a constant,
>
> if f_1 should satisfy the same equation (2) as for f_0. Namely the
> exponential
> case is the extremal case where there is no substantial change between
> subjective and objective values. And you seem to attempt to find some
> non-extremal but more moderate case/view to the subjective change in your
> present paper...
>
> Best wishes,
> Hitoshi
>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:39 JST