• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Math idea.

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#1
I ran this by serac (and he hasn't replied to the 2nd (or 3rd, I forget) PM), but I want to know what more people think of this.

The idea is that an unknown quantity could be literally anything. Anything includes things that either change or are a representative of infinity in some way.

I got this idea going over some old math skills in algebra. I had also previously watched 2 math documentaries titled "Dangerous Knowledge" (pt. 1 & 2) and "Einstein's big idea."

The idea is basically that you don't get to manipulate an equation for free. There is a cost to everything. So if you have to multiply X by 3 (3X) then if X is a quantity that is dynamic, changes, or is assigned random values at random, then in having X + X + X all three X's could potentially be different values.

Naturally, if this is assumed, someone would have to prove that there are integers that are in fact dynamic, change, or assign random numbers. It could very well be assumed that these have to be irrational numbers, but I don't think that is necessarily the case. Take for example that we cannot predict the movement of an electron going around a group of protons and electrons, for example. That is an example of what could be theorized as one of these dynamic integers.

Going back to the idea that manipulating an equation isn't free, if you were to take one of these unknown variables that do have a dynamic, non-repeating range (in other words a fruition of some sort of infinite dimension) then this means that time within the equation actually passes while manipulating the equation (at least the parts where the unknown variable is involved). This idea comes from Einstein's first theory of relativity in that his calculation assumed things would remain a constant speed instead of accounting for changing speeds of a particular thing. Einstein ofc later rectified this theory which is the theory of relativity we have today.

What are people's thoughts on this? Is it a sign that my mental illness is a variable that I am not considering? Is what I am saying make any sense at all? If I am being irrational, I would appreciate some evidence as to why I am wrong.
 
Local time
Today, 04:52
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,850
Location
subjective
#2
Do not know much about set theory but how is this:

m = {X, X, X, n...}
f = {m, m, m, n...}

F may actually be better represented by Aleph. (I forgot)
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#3
Do not know much about set theory but how is this:

m = {X, X, X, n...}
f = {m, m, m, n...}

F may actually be better represented by Aleph. (I forgot)
Interesting perspective.

I wasn't going with the idea that X is an infinite representation of itself, but that X may or may not be defined by an ever changing sequence.

So you could say X+X+X = 21 + 47 + .527 depending on the range and the space and time that you are adding the variable to itself.
 
Local time
Today, 04:52
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,850
Location
subjective
#4
Since X can be infinite and you can have an infinite number of X's, only if the number of X's is finite and no single X is infinite, you will add up always to a finite number. But for is a finite number of X's are not zero and the rest are zero can the number of X's be infinite (3 + 5 + 8 + 9 + 0 + 0 + 0...infinite X as zero) = 25 + infinite zeros.

(X can a random number but then you have a set of all sets of possible numbers)
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#5
Since X can be infinite and you can have an infinite number of X's, only if the number of X's is finite and no single X is infinite, you will add up always to a finite number. But for is a finite number of X's are not zero and the rest are zero can the number of X's be infinite (3 + 5 + 8 + 9 + 0 + 0 + 0...infinite X as zero)

(X can a random number but then you have a set of all sets of possible numbers)
Yeah, that is where I am at as well. X here could be a quantity of infinity. If you watch the documentaries that I said I watched, this will make more sense. I qualified that here:

(in other words a fruition of some sort of infinite dimension)
Basically, this idea supposes that there needs to be a qualifier to X that states that X is static as opposed to the possibility that it could be dynamic.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 21:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,254
#6
I'm not a maths guy, so this is a question not an answer.

Why would you say 3x instead of X+Y+Z? What are you gaining from representing it so ambiguously?
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#7
I'm not a maths guy, so this is a question not an answer.

Why would you say 3x instead of X+Y+Z? What are you gaining from representing it so ambiguously?
I already attempted to cover this. Basically, it's because there are things out there that are not static at all. If that is true then the predictability of that quantity is pretty much zero and as such, anything even remotely relating to such a thing can't be quantified at all.

Think about it like a wabbajack from Skyrim. It's a staff that whatever you use it on, you get a random result. In this case, you wouldn't even be able to say that the staff that has this power is even a staff or anything you would even be able to recognise.
 
Local time
Today, 04:52
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,850
Location
subjective
#8
Computers can hold numbers in arrays (multi-dimensional) that can change (be dynamic) and be displayed on screen.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#9
Computers can hold numbers in arrays (multi-dimensional) that can change (be dynamic) and be displayed on screen.
If you watch the documentary "Dangerous Knowledge" in Pt. 2 they talk about a mathematician that proved that there are some problems that computers will never be able to solve, and what this means for us humans means that there are problems that we will never be able to solve because we are computers as well.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 21:22
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,254
#10
I understand that the variable is randomised on each instance, what I don't understand is the utility of treating it as the one variable mathematically if you're going to refer to it in multiple instances.

If math is a language, what are you communicating by saying "literally any number"?

It's like if you were reading a science article and rather than referring to a specific thing, the scientists kept writing "maybe it blew up I dunno lol and stuff".

Wouldn't there just be a single character to denote fluctuating variables since there's no point in demarcating between it and other fluctuating variables?

Again, I'm not a maths guy.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#11
I understand that the variable is randomised on each instance, what I don't understand is the utility of treating it as the one variable mathematically if you're going to refer to it in multiple instances.
Yeah, that's basically it. The utility is in being aware that more qualifying statements have to be made.

If math is a language, what are you communicating by saying "literally any number"?
The crazy part of this is that it doesn't even need to be a number. It could be a pineapple or the word bananas and we really don't know one way or another.

It's like if you were reading a science article and rather than referring to a specific thing, the scientists kept writing "maybe it blew up I dunno lol and stuff".
In my mind it's more like saying "if we know something about this variable, we are probably able to solve it. If we don't know anything about this variable, who knows what we are getting ourselves into?"

Wouldn't there just be a single character to denote fluctuating variables since there's no point in demarcating between it and other fluctuating variables?
ok, so consider that one of the unknown variables is like 4, 7, .245, ect. Then you have another that is 1,247, 28, .5, ect. Are these the same thing or are they different? They have different reference points so there are probably an infinite amount of these infinities. It talks about this in the doc "Dangerous Knowledge." What you are suggesting is a simplification catch all term because they are not known. In a way I can see that this does simplify things, but on the other hand, it cuts off any inquiry of what these infinities could be.

Again, I'm not a maths guy.
That is perfectly alright, I am not either.
 
Local time
Today, 04:52
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,850
Location
subjective
#12
I understand that the variable is randomised on each instance, what I don't understand is the utility of treating it as the one variable mathematically if you're going to refer to it in multiple instances.

If math is a language, what are you communicating by saying "literally any number"?

It's like if you were reading a science article and rather than referring to a specific thing, the scientists kept writing "maybe it blew up I dunno lol and stuff".

Wouldn't there just be a single character to denote fluctuating variables since there's no point in demarcating between it and other fluctuating variables?

Again, I'm not a maths guy.
n is not a placeholder,
it demarcates every integer.
n4 can only be the number 4
X = a placeholder for 1 - ∞
then the demarcation (X1, X2, X3, Xn...)
X2 can be a box that holds the number it is holding like computer memory.
Variables are numbered (S1, S2, S3, Sn...) or (P1, P2, P3, Pn...)

Think of it as 3D space coordinates XYZ

(X1, X2, X3, Xn...)
(Y1, Y2, Y3, Yn...)
(Z1, Z2, Z3, Zn...)

X3 = 6
Y9 = 5
Z12 = 13

X3 + Y9 + Z12 = 24

Any number can fit in any coordinate and XYZ variables can be used more than once in demarcation.
 

Haim

Worlds creator
Local time
Today, 14:52
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
696
Location
Israel
#13
The crazy part of this is that it doesn't even need to be a number. It could be a pineapple or the word bananas and we really don't know one way or another.
some programming languages such as JS do this, I don't like it, in a proper language you rightfully get an error for this, what the point of unnaming things?.

What you suggest is just math with other configuration, you could easily implement it in a programming language, making + operator do something else or a variable change its value every time you read it(by making reading a variable a function)
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#14
What you suggest is just math with other configuration, you could easily implement it in a programming language, making + operator do something else or a variable change its value every time you read it(by making reading a variable a function)
And that is kinda where we are in our process of working on string theory atm, as far as I know.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#15
So I figured out (from some help) that what I was thinking is along the lines of continuous random variables. Dynamic integers came up as well.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 11:52
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,633
Location
Stockholm
#16
QT, based on your last pm, your confusion might be cleared up if you consider the fact that



x = x


is always true. So if you have 3x = x + x +x, each x must necessarily refer to the same object. If any one of them can satisfy x != x (i.e. x is not equal to x) then your math doesn't make sense at all. It is true that x can take any value within a set of numbers, but since you always have x = x, all these symbols will always refer to the same number simultaneously.



If x is a random variable, you're in quite a different realm altogether. In probability theory, there are different notions of equality. E.g. equality in distribution, almost sure equality, equality in probability, etc. For example if x = y and both are random variables, it might be true that with probability 1 they never take the same numerical value, but they are equal in the sense that they come from the same probability distribution.


But as mentioned earlier, your observation is a very good one. Most people are content with just manipulating symbols without any consideration for what they represent. Keep learning more and you will discover a lot of cool shit.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#17
I kinda figured out a way to encapsulate what it was that I have been considering.

Consider this:

Let's say you have a circle. This circle represents all possible outcomes (infinity). Within the circle, is another circle. What is within the inner circle represents the mean of all the possibilities (reality). That is the only thing that is within the inner circle.

This theory assumes you can only add possibilities and cannot subtract them.

Now suppose that the space in between the two circles is to be split up into different sections. Each section is a different possibility.

Now suppose that the number of possibilities are symmetrical, and the solution to explain this model must follow occam's razor.

If the possibilities are symmetrical, then the amount of different possibilities there are would be 12. Let me (try to) explain.

You would have to assume that the possibilities must be symmetrical from all angles, otherwise it would not be a pure model. This requires that you have to be using perfect numbers. Perfect numbers are ones that are prime numbers that can be represented logically and wholistically.

Let's assume that the mean of all possibilities is a 1. That is the first part.

Let's assume a perfect number isn't actually one number, but several numbers because 1 number isn't enough to contain more than 1 possibility.

Since there are multiple variables that make up what the mean of all possibilities is, the sum of all possibilities is 2 because it is a duality of 2 parts of a whole. This is the second part.

But the possibilities are compounded based on this number of 2 parts because 1 possibility for the number of all possibilities and 1 possibility for the mean of all possibilities isn't enough to explain the totality of the system since the mean of all possibilities and all possibilities are 2 different things. So you have to add another number to quantify that the sum of all possibilities and the mean of all possibilities is greater than the sum of its parts, which is 3. This is the third part.

3 is the total number of parts that we are assuming make up every possibility and the mean of all possibilities.

3 can't be the total number of possibilities just by itself because it only accounts for representing 3 parts and it excludes the duality of all possibilities, and the mean of all possibilities. So 3 doesn't satisfy the perfect symmetry of all possibilities because 3 is asymmetrical.

So the duality that should be represented by the lowest common denominator of what is symmetrical is a perfect square number. That number is 4. This is the fourth part.

But 4 doesn't satisfy the essence of the totality of the system (3) because it is limited to being static because it lacks the integrity of totality, so more possibilities must be considered.

In this way, 3 represents the totality of the system and 4 represents the pattern we can see as symmetrical. So we have to find the least common denominator of 3 and 4, which is 12. This is the fifth part.

12 works because it satisfies both the symmetry of all possibilities and the totality of the system we are using to determine what is the sum of all possibilities and the mean of all possibilities.

Some interesting things about how 12 relates to 3 and 4: if you plot 12 points in space symmetrically as a parameter in the shape of a square, if you follow from a place that connects one side to another, you get 3 points that are independent of the other points and 1 point that is a joining point between the 3 points and another set of 3 independent points and this happens 4 times. If you multiply 2 (duality) by 4 (symmetry) you get 8. If you multiply 2 (duality) by 3 (totality) you get 6. If you then put a symmetrical 8 point circumference in space parallel with a symmetrical 6 point circumference in space, you get 12 points. I say all this to say that 12 satisfies the least common denominator of a perfect unison between totality and symmetry.

[Edit] Actually 12 doesn't work because it doesn't satisfy the perfect symmetry.

So what we have to do is make 12 a perfect square, which is 144. 144 satisfies all conditions! This is part 6 which is the product of 2 and 3.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#18
Serac (or anyone who knows their way around a calculator),

Do you know what this means:

Compute
$\int_{-\infty}{\infty} \frac{sin(x)}{x2 +2x+2}dx$
and
$\int_{0}{2\pi} \frac{1}{3-2cos(x)+sin(x)}dx$
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#19
I kinda figured out a way to encapsulate what it was that I have been considering.

Consider this:

Let's say you have a circle. This circle represents all possible outcomes (infinity). Within the circle, is another circle. What is within the inner circle represents the mean of all the possibilities (reality). That is the only thing that is within the inner circle.

This theory assumes you can only add possibilities and cannot subtract them.

Now suppose that the space in between the two circles is to be split up into different sections. Each section is a different possibility.

Now suppose that the number of possibilities are symmetrical, and the solution to explain this model must follow occam's razor.

If the possibilities are symmetrical, then the amount of different possibilities there are would be 12. Let me (try to) explain.

You would have to assume that the possibilities must be symmetrical from all angles, otherwise it would not be a pure model. This requires that you have to be using perfect numbers. Perfect numbers are ones that are prime numbers that can be represented logically and wholistically.

Let's assume that the mean of all possibilities is a 1. That is the first part.

Let's assume a perfect number isn't actually one number, but several numbers because 1 number isn't enough to contain more than 1 possibility.

Since there are multiple variables that make up what the mean of all possibilities is, the sum of all possibilities is 2 because it is a duality of 2 parts of a whole. This is the second part.

But the possibilities are compounded based on this number of 2 parts because 1 possibility for the number of all possibilities and 1 possibility for the mean of all possibilities isn't enough to explain the totality of the system since the mean of all possibilities and all possibilities are 2 different things. So you have to add another number to quantify that the sum of all possibilities and the mean of all possibilities is greater than the sum of its parts, which is 3. This is the third part.

3 is the total number of parts that we are assuming make up every possibility and the mean of all possibilities.

3 can't be the total number of possibilities just by itself because it only accounts for representing 3 parts and it excludes the duality of all possibilities, and the mean of all possibilities. So 3 doesn't satisfy the perfect symmetry of all possibilities because 3 is asymmetrical.

So the duality that should be represented by the lowest common denominator of what is symmetrical is a perfect square number. That number is 4. This is the fourth part.

But 4 doesn't satisfy the essence of the totality of the system (3) because it is limited to being static because it lacks the integrity of totality, so more possibilities must be considered.

In this way, 3 represents the totality of the system and 4 represents the pattern we can see as symmetrical. So we have to find the least common denominator of 3 and 4, which is 12. This is the fifth part.

12 works because it satisfies both the symmetry of all possibilities and the totality of the system we are using to determine what is the sum of all possibilities and the mean of all possibilities.

Some interesting things about how 12 relates to 3 and 4: if you plot 12 points in space symmetrically as a parameter in the shape of a square, if you follow from a place that connects one side to another, you get 3 points that are independent of the other points and 1 point that is a joining point between the 3 points and another set of 3 independent points and this happens 4 times. If you multiply 2 (duality) by 4 (symmetry) you get 8. If you multiply 2 (duality) by 3 (totality) you get 6. If you then put a symmetrical 8 point circumference in space parallel with a symmetrical 6 point circumference in space, you get 12 points. I say all this to say that 12 satisfies the least common denominator of a perfect unison between totality and symmetry.

[Edit] Actually 12 doesn't work because it doesn't satisfy the perfect symmetry.

So what we have to do is make 12 a perfect square, which is 144. 144 satisfies all conditions! This is part 6 which is the product of 2 and 3.
This is basically what the model would look like assuming 12 possibilities:


But there should be 144 possibilities and not 12, I just don't want to draw that many lines because I am lazy.
 
Local time
Today, 04:52
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,850
Location
subjective
#20
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12

12 dodecahedrons have together in sum 144 pentagons.
A sing dodecahedron has 13 points, one point at the center, twelve points at the pentagons. (144 * 5 = 720) (720 / 360 = 2 circles)

12 is the number of dodecahedrons that can envelope one dodecahedron. making 13 dodecahedrons in total.

A hexagon has 6 sides. 6 hexagons can fit around one hexagon making 7 hexagons just as 13 dodecahedrons exist in 3D space a perfect enveloping. This creates an infinite tiling effect. A flat plain can have infinite hexagons tiled together in 2D. And 3D space can have an infinite 3D tiling of dodecahedrons.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#21
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12

12 dodecahedrons have together in sum 144 pentagons.
A sing dodecahedron has 13 points, one point at the center, twelve points at the pentagons. (144 * 5 = 720) (720 / 360 = 2 circles)

12 is the number of dodecahedrons that can envelope one dodecahedron. making 13 dodecahedrons in total.

A hexagon has 6 sides. 6 hexagons can fit around one hexagon making 7 hexagons just as 13 dodecahedrons exist in 3D space a perfect enveloping. This creates an infinite tiling effect. A flat plain can have infinite hexagons tiled together in 2D. And 3D space can have an infinite 3D tiling of dodecahedrons.
Thanks for sharing. This means what I am thinking about is not completely crazy.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 11:52
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,633
Location
Stockholm
#22
Serac (or anyone who knows their way around a calculator),

Do you know what this means:

Compute
$\int_{-\infty}{\infty} \frac{sin(x)}{x2 +2x+2}dx$
and
$\int_{0}{2\pi} \frac{1}{3-2cos(x)+sin(x)}dx$
It's Latex code for some integrals. Put them into any online latex editor and it'll be clearer.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#23
It's Latex code for some integrals. Put them into any online latex editor and it'll be clearer.
Yeah, it's this:

How do you compute

∫∞−∞sin(x)x2+2x+2dx∫−∞∞sin(x)x2+2x+2dx

and

∫2π013−2cos(x)+sin(x)dx

Too bad the forum can't handle it, it seems. Would like to see this upgraded when the software for this site upgrades.

What does it mean tho Serac?
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 11:52
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,633
Location
Stockholm
#24
Well, for example the first integral is from negative infinity to positive infinity of sin(x) / (x^2 + 2x + 2).


Those are difficult integrals, though. They would require complex-analysis techniques, e.g. residue theorem.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 05:52
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,948
Location
...
#25
Well, for example the first integral is from negative infinity to positive infinity of sin(x) / (x^2 + 2x + 2).


Those are difficult integrals, though. They would require complex-analysis techniques, e.g. residue theorem.
Yeah, that math is way over my head.
 
Top Bottom