Abstract: Here I introduce concept sharing. In uncovering extended space, I show a new way of understanding knots.
Overlapping Shadows:
An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:
Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.
The Concept Sharing of a Number:
Numbers are exact concepts. In the above case, we can think of them as the number of shadows at the center. They have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two there or three there, ect.
Then borrowing from the notion of overlapping shadows we should be able to hide numbers together and they would be “two hidden as one” as well. (concept sharing) if the mathematical objects represented by the numbers had the same boundaries, like the shadows at the center.
Other than the further darkness of the overlapping shadows, we cannot see or imagine that there are two separate shadows there. Two or more numbers can be hidden as one since natural numbers represent exact positions. Similarly with two numbers hidden as one we can not see or imagine them together. Yet our logic tells us this can be so.
Then to this end let us create another number dimension, a dimension of number of numbers. This must already exist since it should be possible to put two or more numbers together at a beginning. Let the usual case be that the number of numbers is only 1. But now let us expand into the next dimension and allow the number of numbers to be 2.
So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 (since we have another underlying dimension, we can do this) and replace it with two new numbers 1’(1) and1’(2). These are together like the two shadows but do not form one number.
The two numbers together can be notated ((1’(1)((1’(2)). 1’(1) is “peeking out” from behind 1’(2). Shown by the use of a half parentheses. Seen more clearly here: (a(a).
Keep in mind that these numbers are different. They do not represent two obviously separate objects, but represent two mathematical objects, also concept sharing, hidden as one.
The objects are concept sharing as well and are somehow different from each other. We give the two hidden objects two new numbers 1’(1) and 1’(2).
In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system. Then we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many objects we wish to be there.
A New Plane:
Points are also exact concepts. In the Euclidean plane they are places, with the notion of no extent, in the plane. We should be able to place two together using two new numbers 0’(1) and 0’(2) identifying that we have two points. (0 is indicating an origin)
An object of no extent created together with another object of no extent, would still have no extent- but there could be two objects here, under another mathematical system.
The two points 0’(1) and 0’(2) can be different by first uncovering a new place dimension, a place of places. This must already exist because there must be some way to have two points exist together and still be two points.
In a similar way as we uncovered the new number dimension (the number of numbers) we can uncover the new place dimension.
Take the original point out (we can do this since we have a new underlying dimension of place, a place of places) and replace it with the two new points. This can be done for the whole plane of points.
That is, there is nothing special about the origin, so each point of interest of the usual plane can be removed and we can replace it with a “sharing” of two points. So that we have a subset of sharing points co-existing with a plane of places of places.
One of the new points can be fixed, while the other one is capable of “shifting” away in this new dimension of place. In this way these two can be different. Then all of the sharings in the new plane can become new origins-one point being fixed while the other point is capable of shifting away.
Here I introduce concept sharing. In uncovering extended space, I develop new ways of understanding knots. While it’s so that one has to understand grade 2 level math to do calculus, that is, mathematics builds on itself, it might also be so that some basic math is missing from our current structure. Here I am putting something basic in which did not exist before. Since this is new basic knowledge, I can describe it in basic terms. I find an application for these ideas in the theory of mathematical knots.
Overlapping shadows:
An interesting notion can come about from something observed in nature, the overlapping of shadows. Consider a cup of tea placed on a table and lit with two lights from above, one from the left and another from the right, as illustrated below:
Three areas of shadows are formed. The one in the center is the overlapping of two shadows.
The concept sharing of a number:
A natural number is a mathematical concept. They are represented by the set of natural numbers {1,2,3,….}. In the above case, we can think of the number of shadows at the center. The shadows have exact boundaries and some way of showing we have two there or three or more there.
Numbers are further like the shadows in that they are ideas, they are positions only and not physical objects or even shadows or waves of light. They could exist as two or more, similar to the overlapping shadows but truly hidden as one, instead of the usual singular case.
Imagine a tower of such overlapping shadows. That is, one set of overlapping shadows on the first level, then a second level also with a set of overlapping shadows then a third, and so on. At the third level, for example we might have two overlapping shadows. We could label these 3(1) and 3(2). Now imagine that the shadows are positions with no physicality to them. Then we cannot tell that there are two there, but we can tell there could be two there. In order to have two there, we must first take out the usual notion of coincidence. So this means we have to be able to take out the number 3. Meaning there must exist another number of numbers level as this is possible.
Two or more of the same number (in the sense that two new numbers are in the position occupied by the first number, but the first number is removed) can “fit into” each other (concept sharing). As long as we state how many we want and that we know there could have been more or less there, this is possible.
Before you say, yes but this is just the same number, consider the possibility that we can take that solution out. Then the statement “two or more of the same number” can make sense as I remove the original number and the two new numbers both share this original position but are otherwise different in that they represent different concept sharing objects.
Then borrowing from the notion of overlapping shadows we should be able to hide numbers together and they would be “two or more hidden as one or two fitting into each other” as well. We could then number mathematical objects which have the same boundaries, like the shadows at the center. These other objects would also be concept sharing.
Because concepts are like the overlapping shadows, they could fit into each other, there needs to be a number of concepts to allow us to put a number on how many ideas we wish to be present. This must be different type of number from a number of separated concepts. Starting with a number(natural) imagine a race where we can have a tie for first or a tie for second, etc. We need to be able to say how many are tied for first. So number this 1(1) and 1(2).
But suppose that the racers are indistinguishable and also that we can’t tell how many are there. In order to proceed, assuming we can pick a certain race, we can at least give a list, a certain number of racers for a race. Since we can’t tell externally how many numbers are fitting into each other with have to designate it with a number of numbers.
These numbers can be used to number shared concepts, since there is no way to otherwise distinguish them from a single concept, similar to the racers (if they were together like the overlapping shadows). Yet we can give ahead of time a certain number of shared concepts, similar to picking a certain race.
Then there must be another number level, a level of number of numbers. Let the usual case be that the number of numbers is only 1. But now let us expand into the next, lower level and allow the number of numbers to be 2.
So for example with the number 1, let us take away the original number 1 so the set becomes {2,3,4,5…}and replace it with two new numbers 1(1) and1(2). These are together with the same position as 1 and are like the two shadows but do not form one number since they refer to two different mathematical objects. In this way they are different.
Concept sharing of a number can be thought of as a kind of race where the numbers are in a tie for a certain place. So for example two ones tied for first place, as above.
So here I am talking about removing the number 1, itself and not an object that the number could represent. This necessitates a another level of numbers of number 1. Usually there is only 1, but now we have 2 numbers which are not 1, but both have the position of the missing number 1.
Together they can be notated (1(1)(1(2)). Two brackets around the final number and only one bracket in front of the first number. This is to indicate one is hidden within the other-but revealed by the notation. It can be more clearly seen here: (b(a).-b is moved away from a, sharing the same position as b-b is “peeking out”, from fitting into a.
Additionally, they are different in that the number in the full parenthesis is still, whereas the number in the half parenthesis can move. This can be seen later in the case of a separable space where the numbers are representing two concept sharing objects which are connected by a continuum (seen later below).
In the case of the shadows, we can tell that there are two shadows there and give one the number 1 and the other the number two.
In the case of mathematical objects there is no external way of telling how many objects there are, previously it was assumed it was only one. We can state how many we wish at the onset thus fixing a certain mathematical system.
Thus we need the concept sharing of a number to indicate how many objects we wish to be there and that we are aware that it could have been a different number.
A new plane:
Points are also exact math concepts. In the Euclidean plane they are places, with the notion of no extent, in the plane. We should be able to hide two together and number them using the two new numbers 0(1) and 0(2) identifying that we have two places. (0 is indicating an origin)
Two objects fitting into each other of no extent would still have no extent- but there could be two objects here, under another mathematical system.
The two places 0(1) and 0(2) can be different by first removing a place and replacing it with (0(1)(0(2)). I am talking about removing the place itself and not removing a place from a set of places.
In a similar way as we uncovered the new number dimension (the number of numbers) we can uncover the new place dimension (the number of places and also the place of places).
This can be done for the whole plane of places. That is, there is nothing special about the origin, so each place of the usual plane can be removed and we can replace it with a “sharing” of two places. So that we have a whole plane of doubled places.
One of the new points can be fixed, while the other one is capable of “shifting” away From the fixed point. In this way these two can be different. Then all of the sharings in the new plane can become new origins-one place being fixed while the other place is capable of shifting away. Now we can see that this new plane is a plane of places of places.
Then labeling the places 0(1) and 0(2) we can “shift” them apart, keeping 0(1) fixed and moving 0(2) into the plane of places and of places of places. This can be done by shifting space itself (the space of one place). See below:
We are shifting away from an origin in place of place space. This is not a movement as usual as these are not two distinct points in the usual plane indicated by a distance apart. This is the movement of one part of a sharing pair away from another by shifting it over a co-existing space of places of places.
In order for two different sharings to move away from one another, we have to bring 0(1) and 0(2) back together. Then we can treat the sharing as a single item, similar to the usual concept of a single place.
Then have another sharing a small distance away from the usual sharing. Then the sharings can move apart. The sharing takes up doubled locations as it moves away.
Then there is this combination between what we already know about space and this new knowledge for each individual sharing.
Then when we have two points at two places of places. We can have a unit of shift between them which is equal to the unit of distance in the usual plane.
Measure shift (another type of distance-this can be thought of as negative distance) between the center and 0(1) and 0(2) if we expand out in space. Also we can have the same value considering distance or shift (if we keep the unit the same for distance and shift). Then we can have a “mixed” space with both usual space and new space overlapping. (Some points doubled and separated, other points still together).
A connected and possibly knotted loop:
We can create a loop of these doubled points in places of places space in three dimensions of place and place of places space. Let the basic topology of this be the same as it is in the usual space. That is, we allow space to shift by isotopy, to expand or contract, to form crossings, etc. As we have another level of place, let it act basically as another dimension to space.
We can have a basic topology of space in places of places, mirroring the topology of points or closed curves, in the usual space. Additionally, there are other things we can now do.
I can shift the copy of the points away from the original loop. In this way I can compare two loops which might be knotted. Start with a knot in the space, form the doubles, then shift one
copy . This may then be manipulated to see if we can form a congruence between the moved copy and the inverse or mirror image knot. If these can be shown to be congruent then so are the original knots. Also we can seek other diagrams with a different order of crossings/joinings.
Creation of shifted diagrams:
Diagrams have crossings in R^3 or S^3 (usual space). Consider the trefoil.
Label these crossings Z(1), Z(2), Z(3),ect. The locations of Z-crossings/sharings (mixed space).
Place a, b at each Z. An a or a b is an extra moving point (which can be called a “part”-as in part of a whole) which keeps track of the crossing/sharing.These can come from the surrounding space..
A moving crossing is now a crossing/sharing as we are capable of having 2 parts at a vertex with a and b always moving along with the moving crossing/sharing.
There is a new type of Crossing/sharing possible. A Q-type. This is a crossing/sharing of two points which do not cross in the original diagram. Additionally r and s parts which make up the joining can also pass through each other. This is not allowed for a and b parts. So the knot keeps its knottedness.
Z(1), Z(2), ect. Are representing moving crossings/sharngs in P^3 where “placement space” is the name I give the larger space.(places of places). But in the shifting diagram they have some freedom. They can travel along as they are moving sharings/crossings, reachable through shifts of the diagram (that is, all shifts are reversible) or they can stop at a specific placement and the a, b pairs (joinings) example (a(1)(r(1)) can shift on forward by rotation. This is still reversible as I can get back to this Z, as I can reverse from forward shifting. At the end, after I go all the way back I come back to the same location.
Then all these diagrams are equivalent and complete as long as we don’t cut the diagram.
Then R0, R1,R2,R3, have their equivalents as well. (call them S0,S1,S2,S3) If I create a new sharing, not already present at the beginning as a crossing, I call it a Q-sharing. This is a different kind of crossing/ sharing from a Z-sharing. I have rotation of the locations, creation of labels, joinings, movements of joinings and labels through sharings.I can move a joining through a sharing too. And that’s all (this is a complete list of what’s possible).
Let there be another diagram D(2) in R^3 and we wish to compare this to the original diagram. Move it to mixed space. Concept share its connected parts and one part of it shifts off. If we can make a congruence between this and the other diagram in mixed space then the two diagrams in the usual space are also congruent.
So we need to look for a match of the sharings, joinings when we simplify the diagrams.
If they are the same, then the information should be contained in one diagram. That is, shifts of one diagram should be able to produce the second one. So we need to look at one diagram to see if we can produce another(using all shifts available).
The new shifts are rotation by S0 (which isn’t usually considered) and movement of joinings through sharings.
So for the diagram set for the Trefoil:
Start with the Trefoil positively oriented in R(3) or S(3) fig1
Realize the new space with concept sharing of a point (creation of parts, placement space)
Label the sharings/crossings with a(1),b(1), Z(1),…ect. fig.2
Double up the parts, move one copy away.
Move from positive space to mixed space (presence of placement space). Creation of Q sharings/crossings. Z(a,b) exists in both spaces Q(r,s) exists in only mixed space.
S0,S1,S2,S3 can be made leading back to a final diagram. Fig. 5. I can put back the joining pairs to reform the sharings only in a specific way
There is an invariant of the Trefoil shown. Fig. 6a. We can compare it to itself using S0 looking to see if we can have an inverse or a mirror image of the knot.
There may be a more direct way to compare two knots. Fig 6b.
We can look for a different shape as joinings can move past other joinings.
In the Trefoil, in particular, there are no other shapes, as well we cannot change any orientations, as shown.
Therefore the Trefoil is knotted and chiral.
In conclusion, we can use concept sharing to understand knots better. We can compare any two knots using new shifts of space in an uncovered dimension of place of places.
Label 1+,1-,ect. The locations of D-joinings/crossings (mixed space)
Place a, b at each D.
Move to negative space: move crossing now a sharing as we are capable of having 2 parts or more at a vertex with a and b always moving along.
1+,1-,ect. Are the specific locations in R^3 where we put the other concept sharing diagram back together.
But in the moving diagram they have some freedom. They can travel along as they are labels, reachable through moves of the diagram (that is moves are reversible) or they can stop at a specific pair of locations and the a, b pairs move on forward. This is still reversible as I can get back to this D, as I can reverse from forward motion. At the end, after I go all the way back I come back to the same location.
So 1+ and 1- label the crossing 1, where the original locations can be traced back from. I am placing the labels on specific locations. I mean that this is where the crossing is so that I can trace back to the original location which matches moves in this space then are fully reversible and take full advantage of the new freedoms. Then all these diagrams are equivalent and complete as long as we don’t cut the diagram or change the order of locations.
Then R1,R2,R3, isotopy have their equivalents as well. I have rotation of the locations, creation of labels, joinings, movements of joinings and labels through sharings. And that’s all (complete).
Let there be another diagram D(2) in R^3 and we wish to compare this to the original diagram. Move it to mixed space and then to negative space. Concept share it and one part of it moves off. If we can make a congruency between this and the other diagram in negative space then the two diagrams in positive space are also congruent.
So we need to look for a match of the labels, joinings when we simplify the diagrams.
If they are the same, then the information should be contained in one diagram. That is, movements of one diagram should be able to produce the second one. So we need to look at one diagram to see if we can produce another(using all moves available)
Let’s look at T. To cut down a lot of the moves, let’s apply a simplifying method.
Now I only need to apply S1,S2,S3 and isotopy(2) and I can obtain any diagram of T. Then reform the diagram to go back to R^3.
But the only new diagrams I can obtain will be through the application of the new moves to the T-invariant. That is all possible moves of the invariant. None yield the unknot or any achirality.
The new moves are rotation (which isn’t usually considered) and movement of labels and joinings through sharings.
