# Recipes and Functions

Originally posted by author:

russian spiral

http://suzannecooper.com/classroom/spiral.html

Just some practical examples of Links and Rules, and it is clear that these are classed as Instructions and  a particular type of Instruction would be a Recipe the finished product is a Construction. So doesn't that sound better than "function"?   :over:  What do you think?

Instructions of a more general nature, then applied to a specific construction.

Rule guided automatic machine  This is an automatic machine so it has an algorithm that links the elements of the parameter and produces the construction. Algorithm then is just another way of saying Rule.

So i guess i can use more accessible language to talk accurately about mathematical ideas.

Originally posted by author:

There is a certain set of numbers/numerals/polynomial  power series expansions/ratios- which are  fundamentally linked to rotational motion in spaciometry. These ratios are called logarithms. These logarithms are on a curious base which is called e the Euler constant.

The relationship was first devised by John Napier using a projection of a surd line onto a parameter line. Napier, interestingly describes these ratios in terms of motion along the parameter line. He describes the whole interaction in terms of variable speeds along the parameter line. He was indeed an admirable fellow!  :-*

Originally posted by author:

Soo ! i was thinking about my Instruction anaology for mathematical functions and procedures, and my ingredients were parameter elements? so what did i mean by that? Does that make a parameter a set of elements?

A parameter is a dimensional fractal quantifier, that is a fractal employed as a standard reference for measurement or quantification purposes. Spaciometrically things are quantifiable but the measure is totally relativistic, that is dependent on the person, the standard, the temperature and pressure and location relative to other regions etc.

So the parameter is the ingredient and it is a fractal withe named distinctions. The named distinctions are not elements as in set theory, although there is a one to one correspondence with the elements in an abstract set like the set [tex]R*[/tex].

The abstract sets of number theory treat the elements as reified mathematical objects while procedurally instructing their use according to the circumstance, for example as marks along a number line, as a counted out quantifying and or ordering process (the cultural iteration +1) and often as both or flitting between the two. Culturally the rule is our only visual referent and the count our only auditory referent. This is why mathematics and music seem so intimately linked.

So what do i mean by dimensional? Merely that each use of the parameter is strictly related to a measurement of a dimension of a spaciometric form I have opined before on the confusion between this use of the word dimension as in dimensional analysis of physical quantities and the more science fiction use of the term! Dimensions derive from the practice of categorizing process of measurement and distinguishing it from a different process of measurement. These differences can be as simple as orientation differences to spaciometric form and mass and density differences. Thus the spaciometry and the cone of orientation and my own sensory sampling systems and procedures are what underlie a dimension. I therefore find it hard to subscribe to "other " dimensional objects except in the sense that the parametrisation of these spaciometric forms requires more than the standard 2/3 dimension description.

It is often hard to see that xyz are as much parameters as r and ø,as are any other parameter in maths. For example the angle is a parameter of the ratios sin cos tan. i can call them an Instruction using the ingredient "the angle" but it has to be in a right angled triangle. So the specific ingredients in my sin cos tan cake would be a whole bunch of juicy right angled triangles. mmmmm! Delicious!