Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Subject: Re: mirrors: two or more?
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 11:56:56 +0530
From: Abhishek Roy <fingerslip@YAHOO.COM>
I follow your argument below but you assume the property of
involution (A*A = I) which John Denker has chosen to ignore.
The physical
mirror with which we are all familiar has this property of course, but
needless to say the whole exercise is precisely a hypothesis on the
(mathematical) existence of others.
Enantiomorph prop. 1 : Enantiomorphs in n dimensions are are identical in
n+1 dimensions. Please show exactly how this is dependent on mirrors. As I
said in my previous post, IMO an independent definition is possible, because
of statements like the one above.