Return to Answer

**Reopened, reclosed**, deleted, undeleted, reopened

I have edited the question it shouldn't cause any trouble now. Need one more reopen votes.

A space more fundamental than Euclidean space

Update: The question has been revised again.

Second update (from the editor of the post): I feel I must respond to the criticism (from Nick Alger and others) that I have changed the OP's intent. The title of the post was (and is) "A space more fundamental than Euclidean space" and, to my mind, the OP's intent was to ask what this space is, and how it is more fundamental. This is borne out by the text of the original post

I have heard that the space of the 0-vector is more fundamental then euclidean space, that euclidean space is more complicated. Could someone explain what is the space of the 0-vector? Google couldnt find anything. And how is it more fundamental?

The phrase "Weierstrass minimial surface" was added in revision 4, an hour later, presumably in the hopes that someone might recognize it and that that would help to answer the original question. Unfortunately, it probably made things worse, since there apparently is no such thing as a Weierstrass minimal surface.

Based on all this, my reading question is: I heard a physicist talk about a geometry more fundamental than Euclidean geometry. What is this geometry, and how is it more fundamental? I feel that my revision is in the spirit of the original question, and is more likely to get an answer, as it clarifies what the speaker meant.

The factors that made the original post difficult to answer, which are no fault of the OP, are that

1. the question is based a conversation in a video, and the speaker is difficult to understand, resulting in some key phrases being mistranscribed. (My belief is that the speaker didn't actually say "Weierstrass minimimal surface".)

2. the speaker misspoke at several points, saying "zero vector" when he meant "null vector". (One can verify this by looking at the speaker's publications on this topic.)

3. the speaker may have have conflated the issue of a fundamental, underlying geometry with the issue of minimal surfaces, as one is wont to do when summarizing a large research area in brief extemporaneous remarks. (This is not my area, so I am uncertain on this point, but many of the speaker's papers talk about a fundamental geometry without mentioning minimal surfaces.)

The result of these confusions was that mathematicians reading the question saw the nonsense phrase "zero-vector space generated by Weierstrass minimal surfaces" (which is not in the video) and said to themselves "must be some of that gibberish that physicists are always spouting. Go ask one of them." (Disclosure: I am trained as a physicist.) In fact, after all the misunderstanding is stripped away, there is a mathematical question here, and I wanted to make that clear.

I'm sorry that the question now comes across as an impenetrable wall of text. One mistake I may have made was including the term "pure spinor", which comes up often in the publications, and relates to null vectors in, I think, a somewhat involved way. I'd be happy if someone can pare it down to something more reasonable.

**Reopened, reclosed**, deleted, undeleted, reopened

I have edited the question it shouldn't cause any trouble now. Need one more reopen votes.

A space more fundamental than Euclidean space

Update: The question has been revised again.

Second update (from the editor of the post): I feel I must respond to the criticism (from Nick Alger and others) that I have changed the OP's intent. The title of the post was (and is) "A space more fundamental than Euclidean space" and, to my mind, the OP's intent was to ask what this space is, and how it is more fundamental. This is borne out by the text of the original post

I have heard that the space of the 0-vector is more fundamental then euclidean space, that euclidean space is more complicated. Could someone explain what is the space of the 0-vector? Google couldnt find anything. And how is it more fundamental?

The phrase "Weierstrass minimial surface" was added in revision 4, an hour later, presumably in the hopes that someone might recognize it and that that would help to answer the original question. Unfortunately, it probably made things worse, since there apparently is no such thing as a Weierstrass minimal surface.

Based on all this, my reading question is: I heard a physicist talk about a geometry more fundamental than Euclidean geometry. What is this geometry, and how is it more fundamental? I feel that my revision is in the spirit of the original question, and is more likely to get an answer, as it clarifies what the speaker meant.

The factors that made the original post difficult to answer, which are no fault of the OP, are that

1. the question is based a conversation in a video, and the speaker is difficult to understand, resulting in some key phrases being mistranscribed. (My belief is that the speaker didn't actually say "Weierstrass minimimal surface".)

2. the speaker misspoke at several points, saying "zero vector" when he meant "null vector". (One can verify this by looking at the speaker's publications on this topic.)

3. the speaker may have have conflated the issue of a fundamental, underlying geometry with the issue of minimal surfaces, as one is wont to do when summarizing a large research area in brief extemporaneous remarks. (This is not my area, so I am uncertain on this point, but many of the speaker's papers talk about a fundamental geometry without mentioning minimal surfaces.)

The result of these confusions was that mathematicians reading the question saw the nonsense phrase "zero-vector space generated by Weierstrass minimal surfaces" (which is not in the video) and said to themselves "must be some of that gibberish that physicists are always spouting. Go ask one of them." (Disclosure: I am trained as a physicist.) In fact, after all the misunderstanding is stripped away, there is a mathematical question here, and I wanted to make that clear.

I'm sorry that the question now comes across as an impenetrable wall of text. One mistake I may have made was including the term "pure spinor", which comes up often in the publications, and relates to null vectors in, I think, a somewhat involved way. I'd be happy if someone can pare it down to something more reasonable.

**Reopened, reclosed**, deleted, undeleted

I have edited the question it shouldn't cause any trouble now. Need one more reopen votes.

A space more fundamental than Euclidean space

Update: The question has been revised again.

Second update (from the editor of the post): I feel I must respond to the criticism (from Nick Alger and others) that I have changed the OP's intent. The title of the post was (and is) "A space more fundamental than Euclidean space" and, to my mind, the OP's intent was to ask what this space is, and how it is more fundamental. This is borne out by the text of the original post

I have heard that the space of the 0-vector is more fundamental then euclidean space, that euclidean space is more complicated. Could someone explain what is the space of the 0-vector? Google couldnt find anything. And how is it more fundamental?

The phrase "Weierstrass minimial surface" was added in revision 4, an hour later, presumably in the hopes that someone might recognize it and that that would help to answer the original question. Unfortunately, it probably made things worse, since there apparently is no such thing as a Weierstrass minimal surface.

Based on all this, my reading question is: I heard a physicist talk about a geometry more fundamental than Euclidean geometry. What is this geometry, and how is it more fundamental? I feel that my revision is in the spirit of the original question, and is more likely to get an answer, as it clarifies what the speaker meant.

The factors that made the original post difficult to answer, which are no fault of the OP, are that

1. the question is based a conversation in a video, and the speaker is difficult to understand, resulting in some key phrases being mistranscribed. (My belief is that the speaker didn't actually say "Weierstrass minimimal surface".)

2. the speaker misspoke at several points, saying "zero vector" when he meant "null vector". (One can verify this by looking at the speaker's publications on this topic.)

3. the speaker may have have conflated the issue of a fundamental, underlying geometry with the issue of minimal surfaces, as one is wont to do when summarizing a large research area in brief extemporaneous remarks. (This is not my area, so I am uncertain on this point, but many of the speaker's papers talk about a fundamental geometry without mentioning minimal surfaces.)

The result of these confusions was that mathematicians reading the question saw the nonsense phrase "zero-vector space generated by Weierstrass minimal surfaces" (which is not in the video) and said to themselves "must be some of that gibberish that physicists are always spouting. Go ask one of them." (Disclosure: I am trained as a physicist.) In fact, after all the misunderstanding is stripped away, there is a mathematical question here, and I wanted to make that clear.

I'm sorry that the question now comes across as an impenetrable wall of text. One mistake I may have made was including the term "pure spinor", which comes up often in the publications, and relates to null vectors in, I think, a somewhat involved way. I'd be happy if someone can pare it down to something more reasonable.

**Reopened, reclosed**, deleted, undeleted, reopened

I have edited the question it shouldn't cause any trouble now. Need one more reopen votes.

A space more fundamental than Euclidean space

Update: The question has been revised again.

Second update (from the editor of the post): I feel I must respond to the criticism (from Nick Alger and others) that I have changed the OP's intent. The title of the post was (and is) "A space more fundamental than Euclidean space" and, to my mind, the OP's intent was to ask what this space is, and how it is more fundamental. This is borne out by the text of the original post

I have heard that the space of the 0-vector is more fundamental then euclidean space, that euclidean space is more complicated. Could someone explain what is the space of the 0-vector? Google couldnt find anything. And how is it more fundamental?

The phrase "Weierstrass minimial surface" was added in revision 4, an hour later, presumably in the hopes that someone might recognize it and that that would help to answer the original question. Unfortunately, it probably made things worse, since there apparently is no such thing as a Weierstrass minimal surface.

Based on all this, my reading question is: I heard a physicist talk about a geometry more fundamental than Euclidean geometry. What is this geometry, and how is it more fundamental? I feel that my revision is in the spirit of the original question, and is more likely to get an answer, as it clarifies what the speaker meant.

The factors that made the original post difficult to answer, which are no fault of the OP, are that

1. the question is based a conversation in a video, and the speaker is difficult to understand, resulting in some key phrases being mistranscribed. (My belief is that the speaker didn't actually say "Weierstrass minimimal surface".)

2. the speaker misspoke at several points, saying "zero vector" when he meant "null vector". (One can verify this by looking at the speaker's publications on this topic.)

3. the speaker may have have conflated the issue of a fundamental, underlying geometry with the issue of minimal surfaces, as one is wont to do when summarizing a large research area in brief extemporaneous remarks. (This is not my area, so I am uncertain on this point, but many of the speaker's papers talk about a fundamental geometry without mentioning minimal surfaces.)

The result of these confusions was that mathematicians reading the question saw the nonsense phrase "zero-vector space generated by Weierstrass minimal surfaces" (which is not in the video) and said to themselves "must be some of that gibberish that physicists are always spouting. Go ask one of them." (Disclosure: I am trained as a physicist.) In fact, after all the misunderstanding is stripped away, there is a mathematical question here, and I wanted to make that clear.

I'm sorry that the question now comes across as an impenetrable wall of text. One mistake I may have made was including the term "pure spinor", which comes up often in the publications, and relates to null vectors in, I think, a somewhat involved way. I'd be happy if someone can pare it down to something more reasonable.

**Reopened, reclosed**, deleted, undeleted

I have edited the question it shouldn't cause any trouble now. Need one more reopen votes.

A space more fundamental than Euclidean space

Update: The question has been revised again.

**Reopened, reclosed**, deleted, undeleted

I have edited the question it shouldn't cause any trouble now. Need one more reopen votes.

A space more fundamental than Euclidean space

Update: The question has been revised again.

Second update (from the editor of the post): I feel I must respond to the criticism (from Nick Alger and others) that I have changed the OP's intent. The title of the post was (and is) "A space more fundamental than Euclidean space" and, to my mind, the OP's intent was to ask what this space is, and how it is more fundamental. This is borne out by the text of the original post

I have heard that the space of the 0-vector is more fundamental then euclidean space, that euclidean space is more complicated. Could someone explain what is the space of the 0-vector? Google couldnt find anything. And how is it more fundamental?

The phrase "Weierstrass minimial surface" was added in revision 4, an hour later, presumably in the hopes that someone might recognize it and that that would help to answer the original question. Unfortunately, it probably made things worse, since there apparently is no such thing as a Weierstrass minimal surface.

Based on all this, my reading question is: I heard a physicist talk about a geometry more fundamental than Euclidean geometry. What is this geometry, and how is it more fundamental? I feel that my revision is in the spirit of the original question, and is more likely to get an answer, as it clarifies what the speaker meant.

The factors that made the original post difficult to answer, which are no fault of the OP, are that

1. the question is based a conversation in a video, and the speaker is difficult to understand, resulting in some key phrases being mistranscribed. (My belief is that the speaker didn't actually say "Weierstrass minimimal surface".)

2. the speaker misspoke at several points, saying "zero vector" when he meant "null vector". (One can verify this by looking at the speaker's publications on this topic.)

3. the speaker may have have conflated the issue of a fundamental, underlying geometry with the issue of minimal surfaces, as one is wont to do when summarizing a large research area in brief extemporaneous remarks. (This is not my area, so I am uncertain on this point, but many of the speaker's papers talk about a fundamental geometry without mentioning minimal surfaces.)

The result of these confusions was that mathematicians reading the question saw the nonsense phrase "zero-vector space generated by Weierstrass minimal surfaces" (which is not in the video) and said to themselves "must be some of that gibberish that physicists are always spouting. Go ask one of them." (Disclosure: I am trained as a physicist.) In fact, after all the misunderstanding is stripped away, there is a mathematical question here, and I wanted to make that clear.

I'm sorry that the question now comes across as an impenetrable wall of text. One mistake I may have made was including the term "pure spinor", which comes up often in the publications, and relates to null vectors in, I think, a somewhat involved way. I'd be happy if someone can pare it down to something more reasonable.