N-space and M-space expressions

[think]

dimensional travel

I am greater then you myth...

I am you - experiences ...

I am less then you mythos..

//preview N-space includes all dimensions even those eleven dimensions or so that make up the universe of people who can only think eleven things at one time. preview//

1. In higher orders of differential equations beyond say the second or third orders ,, so we solve the forth order difference problems by post experiential non-real meanings of values that have never been ... 000

-//even parallels of thought have no idea of one of the perhaps happenstances vary in vary out performance motivations or still N-lisp inside the M-lisp versions recreate these paraphysicals//-

2. Now with probability post a fft conversions of continuously rounded values of third order difference complexes or data structures finding what is the answer becomes temporary to the time period of the earth/universe and/or the meanings of time.

3. When is the difference between new and now begins as one letter e and the letter o that looks like e but is completed in its appearance as a single loop compared to possibly a spiral like structure that has no beginning or end ... maybe?

4. Time manifolds and origin manifolds are combined for easier solutions and may not be concurrent to now or then or even later then future values or past future balanced concurrences that have been deleted due to ... maybe problems with understanding who and why histories were written this way and at length the way it was. (to be., sometimes)

5. By running said verbal ideas thru several meme-monical devices that have influxes of temporary transitions into these things... in general as it is the changes are temporary and/or not real at all.

6. is like 28 or so.

 

[Metryq]

So...the Sci-Tech forum is now the James Joyce on drugs literary origami haiku club. (Watch the step.)

 

[think]

So...the Sci-Tech forum is now the James Joyce on drugs literary origami haiku club. (Watch the step.)

sometimes I feel So is not the correct word to use at anytime. but even still ... so what.

I guess you would rather talk about this stuff instead? here.?

http://neurosciencenews.com/lymphatic-system-brain-neurobiology-2080/

I use this "style" of writing "freely" and I am always developing it further I am sorry you do not see this as a my personal style of writing but as a club you are not ... a part of.

I want to put an excuse here for why I typed that ... except you have already done so.

1. Expressions are meant to mean idea forms if the idea "signals" are not symbolic in the way they are interpreted then the their subsequent logic does not work no matter what one tries to create for them.

2. Simple symboles have an almost universal definition across the language barrier like the peace symbol and the anarchy symbols the possible combinations from combining these two ... symbols is altogether voided in direct and indirect symbolic proofs.

3. Step to step the mono and stereo / direction and volume with interesting frequency harmonics can change not just what it touches with the sound but the individuals that the sound is heard by. The tree is soundless but we know it fell in the woods.

4. If the one tree were to clap and the next tree also clap who is listening and how many possible hands are used to create this meaning to the zen hand and the non~zen hand making sounds 2500 years before the tree fell .. at all

5. So because we know something does not mean we have to tell, explain, or teach that. In life, there is no game called know and tell just the game hide and seek. -if ,, If jack and jill are both out of water then can not just one of them go up the hill? Why is water up the hill when water seeks the lowest possible level to fill?

6. is like 28 perfect numbers are whole in time and place when studied for their continuity of being. some perfect numbers are more perfect then others ... this is just a basic given idea.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I should probably close this but... this is abstract art about science. So it's kind of relevant, right?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Until the big bang questions come in, I guess. This is abstract, but hardly science. Unless, we plan to take a few tabs of acid and commune with the dolphins on the wisdom of Timothy Leary?

 

[Melakon]

I should probably close this but... this is abstract art about science. So it's kind of relevant, right?

I don't know. But concepts of the inter-relationship of time, thought, and perception possibly do have a grounding in scientific theory.

 

[think]

I should probably close this but... this is abstract art about science. So it's kind of relevant, right?

I don't know. But concepts of the inter-relationship of time, thought, and perception possibly do have a grounding in scientific theory.

In a sense, during high School Like 9th grade I started a focused studies of Fermat's final equation a^n + b^n does not equal c^n.,,with whole numbers- since I had just finished learning proofs in geometry I knew it was possible. I studied that mathematics and trying to use what Fermat's time would use,.. I thought if .,, I used variations of the values just a small amount dx changing their values by one it would carry on to any value for n,.. That doesn't work,.. In 1993 or four they were saying that solving the problem would cause a new kind of number theory,, this excited me,.. So I decided I would prove the problem,... On my own,. I also knew the answer was to be easily done in just like ten lines of proof working and I figured it out solved it an memorized the proof in my head for myself,.. So as a result of this I continued to "grow" based on the new mathematics.. To things that are well beyond what is,..

So back on earth things became quite dull,..(sorry again). I used the fact of numbers that explains how x^3+y^3+z^3 does equal r^3 for groups of four whole numbers with factoring out and distribution of the powers one can understand and use a^3+b^3. Is not equal to c^3 to prove that is true for all whole numbers greater then 3. QED,..

X=3 y=4 and z=5 with r=6 for example.

Where do these things go?,.. I knew in 1995 that they proved it but there were no new mathematics that occurred? The said it was a group that solved this all about the world,..,..

Our mathematics to this point is based on abc. Not xyz and r even difference equations are using the abc' in two dimensions then extending to three ,, this is wrong but we can say certain spaces (spaces based on two dimensional mathematics) this is true,. Still solving third order differential equations is impossible with abc mathematics it don't work,..

Quitely writing things down that are new was quickly changed to incrypted shorthand codes I could enjoy at my leisure like,.. You know like so what,.. right?

1. Pythagoras-was.,,

(I have to clean the apartment now). BBL to explain,..

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So back on earth things became quite dull,..(sorry again). I used the fact of numbers that explains how x^3+y^3+z^3 does equal r^3 for groups of four whole numbers with factoring out and distribution of the powers one can understand and use a^3+b^3. Is not equal to c^3 to prove that is true for all whole numbers greater then 3. QED,..

X=3 y=4 and z=5 with r=6 for example.

Although it is true that 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3 (check it!), I'm afraid that the rest of what's written here doesn't make any sense.

I also knew the answer was to be easily done in just like ten lines of proof working and I figured it out solved it an memorized the proof in my head for myself,..

And this is really quite the extraordinary claim.

 

[Melakon]

I'm totally in the dark about it, I had to take college Algebra I three times to get a C.

 

[think]

So back on earth things became quite dull,..(sorry again). I used the fact of numbers that explains how x^3+y^3+z^3 does equal r^3 for groups of four whole numbers with factoring out and distribution of the powers one can understand and use a^3+b^3. Is not equal to c^3 to prove that is true for all whole numbers greater then 3. QED,..

X=3 y=4 and z=5 with r=6 for example.

Although it is true that 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3 = 6^3 (check it!), I'm afraid that the rest of what's written here doesn't make any sense.

I also knew the answer was to be easily done in just like ten lines of proof working and I figured it out solved it an memorized the proof in my head for myself,..

And this is really quite the extraordinary claim.

it is thru factoring and substitution back into the factored equation that the solution occurs. a=a+1 b=b+1 and c=c+the value of the solution.. that occurs and cancels out and leaves the addition to c a value that has the proof proven.

yes extraordinary.. and such.. I had memorized pi to 86 digits senior year at high school this was ten years after that.

I am trying to reconstruct these memories correctly so as it would make sense to people who know that there is something after right triangle to solve, problems. I did loose all the paper work in trying to keep it from being stolen somehow. I was very protective of my process and my products.

If we can combine the questions you have to the solution I need to recreate then there might be more N and M space expressions for everyone. I destroyed the papers back in 95 and such... when they claim to have solved the problem without inventing new number theories and such. I have waited and thought what or when would recreating the proof be useful? so now I am trying the recreation of the maths. ~ this is because although not completely caught up to my math skills my language skills are somewhat better then high school and college levels I was at --- (I was very worse at English then...) I was worse at English and my English grammer skills were very bad.

 

[HIjol]

<respectful snip>

You wrote:

1. Expressions are meant to mean idea forms if the idea "signals" are not symbolic in the way they are interpreted then the their subsequent logic does not work no matter what one tries to create for them.


2. Simple symbols (FTFY) have an almost universal definition across the language barrier like the peace symbol and the anarchy symbols the possible combinations from combining these two ... symbols is altogether voided in direct and indirect symbolic proofs.


5. So because we know something does not mean we have to tell, explain, or teach that. In life, there is no game called know and tell just the game hide and seek. -if ,, If jack and jill are both out of water then can not just one of them go up the hill? Why is water up the hill when water seeks the lowest possible level to fill?

N-space, M-space, and Consciousness


think, you queried, among other things above (Number 5) that if water was the goal, why didn't just one of the two (Jack and Jill) go up the hill?

Because it rhymes
with both of them going!
NO, I am not being facetious.

Attend: Your Number 1 and 2 above speak of symbols and meaning and interpretation and logic.

If only one of them goes, the 'Understanding" of the symbolism and meaning are lost. Everyone knows they both went! It is what we know about them. Not one, two!

It is supposed to "Rhyme"

If they do not both go, we have illogic and chaos.

Here is what happens if Jack goes:

Jack went up the hill.
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown.

Here is what happens if Jill goes:

Jill went up the hill.
To fetch a pail of water.
Jill came tumbling after

That's it!

Not "complete"....not "right"...symbolism is "wrong"..."meaning" incomplete.

the "Tree in the Forest"
the "More perfect, Perfect Number"


This next, taken from a Blog by:

Michael Prescott
NY Times Best Seller


N-space, M-space, and Consciousness

"...the underlying reality of our world is a field of pure information, a cosmic database combined with a vast information processing system. By analogy, this informational substrate is similar to the code that underlies a virtual-reality environment in a computer game. Just as the virtual reality of the game reduces ultimately to ones and zeros – pure information – so the apparently real world around us in all its dimensions may reduce ultimately to pure information."

"By what means do we render our world?"

"...our minds. Not our brains, please note; our brains are physical objects and thus are part of the rendered, multidimensional, multisensory imagery we call reality. It is our minds that (just possibly) translate the informational code into the world of experience."




You have solved the "Communiquation"!!!



Our communications to each other have to "rhyme"...be in sync...make sense to all..."speak the same language", even as we do not.

 

[Shaw]

So back on earth things became quite dull,..(sorry again). I used the fact of numbers that explains how x^3+y^3+z^3 does equal r^3 for groups of four whole numbers with factoring out and distribution of the powers one can understand and use a^3+b^3. Is not equal to c^3 to prove that is true for all whole numbers greater then 3. QED,..

I noticed that you are still thinking about x^3+y^3+z^3=r^3 and that you had asked a geometric question about it in one of my threads. I figure you deserved a well thought out response and provided it there as it would have been off topic in this thread.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

With respect to think's question concerning non-Euclidean geometry in the other thread (which was closed because it was too old to revive), and regarding the equation x^3+y^3+z^3=r^3 introduced in this thread:

1) When using that equation to define distance in three-dimensional space, the resulting norm is classified as a p-norm with p=3 (p=3 coming from the third power, not the three dimensions). Wikipedia article on L^p spaces.

2) Because x^3+y^3+z^3 is not a quadratic form, metric spaces defined using the p-norm with p=3 are not Riemannian spaces. So, that well-known flavor of non-Euclidean geometry is out of the picture, and you're looking at something that is not as widely applied.

3) With respect to drawing things in the space, such as unit spheres, there are examples on the wiki page of unit circles (in two dimensions) for a few different values of p, but unfortunately not p=3. This person was kind enough to have drawn a unit circle for p=3 (you can see the progression of circles for p=1,2,3,4 already clearly approaching the axis-aligned square for p=infinity).

 

[Dryson]

I wouldn't even post something that is obviously super semantically silly like it is. Meme-monicals? Sounds to me like the Op is trying to make himself believe that he is projecting himself like a toon character and that his magnificence is super excelerated through his fraggle like mind.

Ludicrous and Ridiculous speed to the big X please. With a side of Uh Oh Speed as well.

Here is something else to think about. 1/ 1 does not = 1 it equals 2.

 

[sojourner]

The lack of self awareness in the previous post is staggering.

 

[Silvercrest]

I wouldn't even post something that is obviously super semantically silly like it is.

um ....

 

[think]

Shaw: Spheres and symmetry in sphere form,.. I would like to see that discussion thread of yours as I had just searched the threads I had started not all my comments for things I had discussed here about this.

///
The equation I used as part of the proof that would explain how varing the parameters in L^p, p=2, interact with p=3 As one of the varied parameters,.. And as such there are values left unaccounted for that in turn negate the problem and prove the proof,.. I am planning to write this out and post the images of this here,.. Right now it is just a matter of what paper or where on such paper to do so. And then posting here for more discussions of it,..
///

I wouldn't even post something that is obviously super semantically silly like it is. Meme-monicals? Sounds to me like the Op is trying to make himself believe that he is projecting himself like a toon character and that his magnificence is super excelerated through his fraggle like mind.

Ludicrous and Ridiculous speed to the big X please. With a side of Uh Oh Speed as well.

Here is something else to think about. 1/ 1 does not = 1 it equals 2.

Of course 2/2=1? This is a simple indeterminate equation idea you are referring to? Dryson?

 

[137th Gebirg]

I wouldn't even post something that is obviously super semantically silly like it is.

um ....

 

[HIjol]

 

[publiusr]

So back on earth things became quite dull,..(sorry again).

As per here
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=60509

There is a discussion over here about a way pi can be a rational number.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?156972-An-alternative-universe-where-Pi-is-exactly-3

This might interest you
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8144
http://titaniumphysicists.brachiolopemedia.com/2012/10/29/ia-ia-cthulhu-fhtagn/