In the previous post, I said that we are taking generation at the limit of the open 4-vertex TPPT graph. What this means is NOT at infinity or anything silly like that, but from the zone where its not possible to tell anymore what generation your at.

Have a read of the following: clifford-algebra-a-visual-introduction

Especially the part about the inverse function. As with Clifford I also share the problem with infinities. In my blogs I certainly do not invoke the need for infinity, its enough to say that the core iterator is there and its still there. Without iteration you don’t move, think or read, so it’s there BUT it’s not an infinity.

Have a read of the following Maths Stack Exchange posting here

It seeks to calculate the fractal dimensionality of the TPPT, and I think it succeeds rather well, apart from the fact I wrote the original post and Ricardo Buring was good enough to work through the proof.

But, you ask where did I get this crazy idea that the fractal scale would be anything like 3(3 – 2√2) in the first place. To understand this read my as yet unpublished paper, as follows:

Octahedral Graph Scaling

The main result it that the fractal scale is the same for both the TPPT (a open 4-vertex graph) and the octahedron (a closed 4-vertex graph). Because they have the same fractal scaling factor the direct implication is that at its limit the TPPT produces a notion of spatial separation, and the things being separated are closed 4-vertex graphs. This is the first instance where we can be at last allowed to view the octahedral graph as a spatial octahedron.

I think in this post I can say that I have a rival derivation of the concept of 3-space.

### Like this:

Like Loading...