Gennady,

Doubters may suggest that in comparison with energy conservation law, Hawking's law of information conservation (The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized( 2005 )) can be violated ? Moreover, there is no such thing as physical measurement of bits of thermal information in physics .

( copy of comment for Gennady Gorelik )

Dear Helmut,

I have some doubts on 'In physics everything is basically bi-polar energy '? As is known, Levi-Strauss, founder of French structuralism ,showed that the whole structure of primitive thought is binary as well. However, tendency to operate with binary counters in all situations in physics could be understood also as taking simplification seriously ?

( copy of comment for H.A.von Schweizer )

Dear Jan,

my remark :

Shannon and Other Structuralisms

In comparison with Wheeler Structuralism ( 0-1 structure underpins all of our data and all our sciences ) and Category Structuralism ( by Roman Jakobson, Levi-Strauss, Burbaki, Abramsky and Coecke ) where the universals of human culture exist only at the level of structure,'culinary triangles' or other intuitive ordered things ; Shannon bits mathematics is pure mathematics. Shannon mathematical assumption is based on elementary algebra of common logarithm logax, where the logarithm of x to the base 2 is defined by the equation y = log2 x. This definition is of course applicable only when y is RATIONAL NUMBER. Beyond Shannon rational bits there exists new world of real, irrational, imaginary and complex bits, the world of Weierstrass theorem and the world of real lines contained infinitely many imaginary bits.

Thus, it could be difficult to find real differences between Wheeler binarism and Alternative Gospel of structures , indeed. In fact, similarity between Wheeler and Topos Gospel by Doring & Isham philosophies are obvious.

(Copy of comment for Jan Durham ).

Dear Michael Alexeevich Popov,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

Yes!

I agree with you Bit from it.

Enjoy your Mathematical Clarification,

so my essay may interest you, which have less math than yours

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1906

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

    Dear Michael,

    Your essay deserves more attention, I think.

    It seems to me that the bit is a pure (but very convenient) classical convention to manipulate information (after all the electrical current has only two ways). Similarly qubits are conventions, but with a more convenient mathematical structure. In the past years we (me and coauthors) worked a lot on (multiple) qubit and qudit algebraic and geometrical properties and, as you like mathematics, I suggest you have a look at

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1009.3858

    In my essay,

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1789

    bits (0 or 1) arise from qubits 'in dessins d'enfants', that are graphs on orientable surfaces such as the Riemann sphere.

    May be this is even closer to what you have in mind in your search of a mathematical definition of the bit.

    But I agree that Shannon's log function yet does not play a role here.

    Best wishes,

    Michel

      Dear Popov,

      thanks for useful article which you gave us.

      regards

      Branko

      Dear Michael,

      Thanks for your particular approach to the BHIP. The metaphor of an encyclopaedia works in my case too. Here, the difference with Hawking's approach is that the emitted radiation is not strictly thermal. Now, the encyclopaedia is not more burned. Instead, one can think as its internal pages have been cut and cut and cut.... an enormous number of times. In other words, the encyclopaedia becomes an enormous puzzle. My mathematical solution permits to reconstruct the puzzle. Thus, it also a final solution of your pseudo-problem.

      I have just read your pretty Essay, I am going to comment it at the end of this page.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Dear Michael,

      As promised in my Essay page, I have read your pretty Essay. It is well written, fascinating and a bit provocative. I appreciated your going beyond Shannon - Hartley Assumption through complex numbers. I encourage you to further develop studies in this direction. As your Essay give a lot of fun to me, I am going to give you an high score.

      Cheers,

      Ch.

      Dear Michael,

      I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

      Regards and good luck in the contest,

      Sreenath BN.

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        Michel,

        I count myself fortunate to find your recent arXiv articles on Riemann conjecture and its quantum simulations.I try to make something similar but merely in the context of post - quantum cryptology. My initial result ( published in 1999 in France )is connected with introduction of periodic perfect numbers(Bull Sci math 1999,123,29-31),hence, new definitions of prime number theorem, cubic groups and quantum one-way function( Cryptology ePrint Archive, 653/2010 ) are arising. I had found that your attempt to formulate Riemann hypothesis as a property of the low temperature Kubo-Martin-Schwinger states is very original. Your last articles also suggest that beyond very popular Wheeler delusion there exist new world of unknown mathematics and unexpected physics.

        best

        Michael

        Dear Michael,

        I have not be able to get your 653/2010, may be you can send it to me.

        I already checked that the fourth case in your conjecture is not perfect and the fifth case seems out of reach.

        There is non-zero interesection between number theory and quantum information processing as you already noticed. May be the perfect numbers are important here, I don't know. Where do you connect your conjecture and RH?

        'unknown mathematics and unexpected physics'; yes, a lot of interesting results to appear.

        Best wishes,

        Michel

        Dear Michael,

        I just read your well constructed essay and rated as such. Although a bit technical for me but I will like to know,

        1) What is the difference between an imaginary line and a real line?

        2) What is the difference between a real bit and an imaginary one?

        3) Does line have breadth or zero breadth?

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

          Michel,

          P e r f e c t s. It's correct. But it is only a beginning of mystery- Plato ( Euler who made reference to this puzzling place in Republic ) predicted an existence of merely three perfect periodic numbers at all, Ramanujan ( note books ) developed more general technoque using similar assumption and recieved somothing fundamentally different ( he had surprisingly quantum "taste").My new definition of "perfectness" in Bul Sci math is based on elementary proof of impossibility of Euler odd perfect numbers as well.

          C u b i c ( already sent ) One - way function in cryptology is another definition of P is not NP solution.

          R H . An attempt of Latorre-like superposition of all odds ( 2013 )in quantum computations of pi(x) and the Mangoldt's function.

          Best

          Hello Michael Alexeevich,

          I think you are refering to the excellent preprint

          "Quantum Computation of Prime Number Functions" Jose I. Latorre, German Sierra

          http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6245

          I have recently published papers in prime number theory

          "Chebyshev's bias and generalized Riemann hypothesis"

          http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1112.2398

          and

          "Efficient prime counting and the Chebyshev primes"

          http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1109.6489

          No essay about "It, bits and primes" here, it is a pity!

          May be pi(x) \sim x/log x has to with information after all

          http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/NTentropy.htm

          Best wishes,

          Michel

          Dear Akinbo,

          Shannon was a mathematician and it is logical to follow his context ( not Wheeler brave speculations ) to understand bit.

          In arithmetic we start from the positive integers ( 1,2,3,4,5,6,...) and from the ideas of addition, multiplication,substraction and division. It is easy to test that these operations are not always possible ( 4 - 29, 5 - 7, 2 - 8, 4/29,5/7,... etc )unless we admot new kind of integers ( negative numbers, or more generally, rational numbers )If we include root extraction and the solution of equations, we can find some operations are not possible also unless we admit a new kind of numbers. Mathematicians had found that the extraction of the square root - 1 is not possible unless we go further and admit the complex numbers ( as is known, following mathematicians Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger introduced the square root of - 1 in physics ).Thus,it is practical and productive everywhere ( even philosopher Immanuel Kant made an attempt to introduce negative numbers in philosophy ...)

          Complex numbers are sometimes called imaginary.Complex number is not number in the same sense as a rational number ( used by Shannon for bits )It is a pair of numbers (x,y), united symbolically in the form z = x + yi . Hence, it is easy to see, that when y = 0 we say that z is real ( special term for 'post-rational numbers' ), correspondingly, when x = 0 then z is pure imaginary.

          Next step.

          let ax + by +c = 0 be an equation with complex numbers ( coefficients ). If we give x any concrete complex value , we can find the value of y. Set of pairs of real and complex values of x and y which satisfy the equation is called imaginary straight line, the pairs of them usually are called imaginary points and are said to lie on the line. When x and y are real, the point is called a real point; correspondingly, when a, b, c are all real, the line is defined as real line.etc Hence, we can easy deduce answers for questions 2 and 3.

          Hello Alex

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

          (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

          Good luck and good cheers!

          Than Tin

            Dear Than,

            I suppose that Physics as a science tries to establish truth but not poetics and political sense of argument.R.Feynman also suggested that physicists have a way of avoiding the politics and subjective tastes in science : if you have an apparatus which is capable of telling how many bits of information given thermal energy ( "termal information" )must contain in the terms of physical measurement, then you can say scientifically about entity information, indeed. Because there is no such thing as physical measurement of the bits of thermal information, then Hawking-like law of information conservation (' The information remains firmly in our universe. Thus, If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which contains the information about what you were like but in a state where it can not be easily recognized '( Hawking ,2005 )) and its consequences might be considered, unfortunately,as popular illusion.

            respectfully

            Michael

            5 days later

            Dear Antony,

            Thank you for high rank. Let me imagine a continuation of your n-dimensionality logical game. If rational n-dimensionality ( n = -1,0,1,2,3 and we assume that n is rational number ) is accepted ( i.e. there is a mathematical proof ) we can go further and we may admit a new kind of possible dimensionality, expressed by the square root -1 and complex numbers ( why not ? Einstein and Hawking use the square root - 1 as an imaginary time / complex time variable u in physics ).Hence, new unexpected physical generalizations are deduced.

            ( copy of my comment for Antony Ryan by 1 Aug 2013 )

              Indeed Michael,

              I've posted this and it applies to you!

              I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

              I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.

              I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

              Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

              Best wishes,

              Antony

              Dear Michael,

              I think your essay is very good indeed. Top marks from me! Hope it helps. Interesting approach - I'd not thought about investigating logarithms further - seems very logical. You've presented your worked very nicely. Anything around numbers interests me.

              I have found a Fibonacci link in my theory which partly unifies the four forces and resolves the three paradoxes of cosmogony. I explored this around Black Holes in my essay, extending to the negative sequence and based on observation and space pathways. Also there's a touch of entropy. I'd be delighted if you had time to look at it.

              Best wishes,

              Antony