What is a tensor?

Jon everything over your head is a spoof, so shut the fuck up about "reporting".

Tensor: "a mathematical object analogous to but more general than a vector, represented by an array of components that are functions of the coordinates of space"...is the Google answer.

In wiki: "mathematically it is the linear mapping of one set of algebraic objects to another."

Looking at both those definitions one can see similarities. An "array of components (with the components being coordinates in space of specific functions (ie a dog as a position in space composed of other movements))" can be broken down to "a cluster of objects" to a "set of points" to strictly points connected by a line.

The mathematical analogy is similar.

And both of these can be connected in definition.


So a tensor can be broken down to a line between two points, with the line being composed of points and the points being composed of lines.

It is a loop.

Well, yes that's the first part of the question.

But regarding Occam's razor, why is it meaningful to add jargon like 
'tensor' and 'geodesic' to the simple fact that an object has a position and velocity?
There is no added information if we simply use the words 'vector' or 'variable'.

In relativity we can add, for example, the formula for reducing the velocity
as the object approaches the speed of light. But using the words 'tensor'
and 'geodesic' simply reduce to sophistic semantics. We can add this
formula quite simply without the jargon. The jargon simply confuses the
issue for students. And that is the express purpose of the relativists: obstruction.

This is why I discuss it in philosophy, because its the context of the terms,
and their meaning in terms of method that are being addressed.

Not necessarily.  While tensor may be applied to different fields of knowledge and these different fields of knowledge have respectively different terms, each time one term is applied in a new field of terms it must joint itself to that context as a nee context.

"Synthesis" as a word in itself is strictly an empty circular context that is grounded in assumption.  It differs little from (P=P) which is a circular statement.

Now the word "sythesis" has different meanings in accords to any new context.  It means one thing in biology. Another in Chemistry.  Another in Theology.   Another in Philosophy (specifically hegelian dialectic). 


This goes on an on as each field of knowledge is strictly a set of symbols with each symbol pointing to a different phenomenon.  These symbols are words.  Thus when on symbol is applied to one context, it acts as an underlying context for the symbols in that field of knowledge.

It applies again when a new field is introduced.
And again.
And again.
Each field is a revolving set of symbols (y)

So when the symbol of "synthesis" is used, it as both assumed and empty of intrinsic value, assumes the nature of the field ot is presented in...thus becoming a new symbol while maintaining older properties.

(S(y1))
(S(y2))
(S(y3))
...


These older properties necessitate that each symbol contains another symbol in itself thus while inherently empty on it's own terms...does not exist on its own terms.  "Synthesis" or (S=S) may be composed of the words "joining" and "seperating"...or a variety of other words where:

1. Synthesis is an  loop: (S=S)

2.  Composed of other empty loops: (J=J)

3. As loops with loops: ((J=J)=(J=J))=S

4.  Where each loop as intrinsically empty of meaning assumes itself into a new loop which we call progression. 

This Would Be The Same As Saying 1 Is Empty Of Meaning, But In Assuming Itself (1->1), Self Directed By A Void Of Void, It Becomes Both 1 And 2....1 as An Empty Loop And 2 As Both An Empty Loop As An Extension Of That Empty Loop.

5.  So each new symbol is a looping context within it identity.  But This Loop Is Containing Further Loops That Are Simulatenously Empty.  

6.  This Point Now Will Be Further Confusing, The Repitition Pf These Loops...Is A Looping Containing The Emptiness Between There Supposed Seperation Much In The Same Manner A Repeating Row Of Walls Contains Nothing.  The Loop Thus Exists Simulaneously As Linear Space...And This Occurs In Language.

7.  Thus Any Language Which Progresses From One Word To Another, Does So Through The Repitition Of That One Word Through A Variety Of Words...All Around An Intrinsically Empty Assumption.


Each Word As An Empty Context Is One And Many Words Where:

1. The Many Words Are The One Word Dynamically Changing and formless.

2. And The One Word Is A Continuum Of The Many Words And Form.

3.  Each Word, Or Rather Symbol As Context, Is Thus Both One And Many, Static And Dynamic And In These Respects Each Words Is A Variable.  Words Are Variables And As Variables Are Subject To Equivocation.

4.  As Variables We Sense, Words Or "Symbol As Context", Is Thus An Image Or Negative Dimension That Effectively Cuts Out Reality Into Onservable States.  In These Respects Each Word Is Imaginary.



This Is The Inherent Nature Of Language.  It Is Constant Context And The Answer To Occam's Razor.

It is more complicated, that is the inherent nature of language "games": they are recursive...one term exists through many.

Wittgenstien observed a fraction of this (recursion) in his statement about everything being a tautologie.

If you want to understand language, or at least its "problems", you may want to meditate on "recursion".

In these respects language is horribly simple and you can spin a word to mean anything with no contradiction while following its basic rules.

Recursion, recursion, recursion...no different than practicing a sport or skill and understand the nature of repitition and sets (repetition of repition). 

The same applies for the repition of letters producing a word (set of repeated letters) and the word repeated into a sentence (set of repeated words with words as repeated letters).

Counting also applies to this and can be observed in the "fallacy of counting thread".  It is revolving symbols as sets and sets as symbols...it is all "spinning" at the end of the day:  the Divine Plan of The Socratic Logos Which Is Observed Within The Circle As A Divine Archetype The Is Cross Cultural And Universal.

Man Kind, Emersed In This Dialectic Game, Is Stewarding Divine Will Whether He Intends It Or Not.

Some principles are just universal and so simple people look over them.