You messed with me~

Name | |
---|---|

Email | |

Subject | |

Comment | |

File | |

Password |

File: 1626650987959.png (1.75 MB, 1424x895, 2021-06-19-192001_1424x895….png)

Math Thread

Talk about Math and shit like that

Talk about Math and shit like that

File: 1626651024989.png (213.11 KB, 1319x778, 2021-07-18-192621_1319x778….png)

my obsession with curvature continues

imagine we have some big lumpy shape and we don't like big lumpy shapes, we like circles

how would we go about forcing this shape to assume the shape of a circle with the same arc length, centered about the centroid of the original shape?

haven't really thought much about how this can be done but I'm thinking maybe there could be some error function that shows the difference between any given point on the curve and the corresponding point on the circle that point would assume. Then we can ??? to minimize that error allowing the shape to asymptotically approach the circle.

Or we can do some hocus pocus with trying to minimize the instantaneous curvature of the shape to a constant, since the circle is the shape with constant curvature (IIRC)

I'm kinda wishing I'd paid just a little bit more attention in vector calculus right now

imagine we have some big lumpy shape and we don't like big lumpy shapes, we like circles

how would we go about forcing this shape to assume the shape of a circle with the same arc length, centered about the centroid of the original shape?

haven't really thought much about how this can be done but I'm thinking maybe there could be some error function that shows the difference between any given point on the curve and the corresponding point on the circle that point would assume. Then we can ??? to minimize that error allowing the shape to asymptotically approach the circle.

Or we can do some hocus pocus with trying to minimize the instantaneous curvature of the shape to a constant, since the circle is the shape with constant curvature (IIRC)

I'm kinda wishing I'd paid just a little bit more attention in vector calculus right now

>>3620371

I feel like this would have something to do with solving the heat equation in polar coordinates

I feel like this would have something to do with solving the heat equation in polar coordinates

There are no such thing as curves you are looking at spikes hastily scrawled as a direct correalated ratio to many other spikes. The idea of curves is nonsense

If a system x of knowns equitable to a system y of unsolved constraints may contrive a system of z then in z1 can be equalized throughout it's own systems of x and y. Then z2 acomparitive model interact in a contrived measure that both compensate for z3 a system of comparisons of knowns x y and z states. That system example 1 is definable in trial and error for the remodeled versions by system 2. It would arguably become more likened to the letter that by system 3 it would be marginally acceptable by implication of process the qualifications would Express by a continued adjustment. This model would then be determinable as the z1 state an z2 state if an adjusted state of z3 is applied. So z3 becomes baseline representative in or translated for any series. My dood has batter that dood has bisquick and some amount of either is the shake and bake. I'm so bored as fuck rite now but it's like 500 pages of how to cook it rite. U got density and shit like wave mechanics and vacuums and resonance and harmonies disputing all of or supporting for either depending on shit. Just saying its a lot of dynamics for shit like anti poles or some shit I still say u r just redefining source and field properties of direct linear values to fabricate a fake believe thing. Like only one example of a curve existing and that's by spontaneity in all probable outcomes it just does by a everdisrupted value in scalar chance like a pussytickler in math

I recently stumbled upon this video about Geometric Algebra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60z_hpEAtD8

I learned a bit about it before but this - while he admits the video isn't a teaching guide - it is a pretty good 'showcase' as to what Geometric Algebra is about and what can do.

It's a shame this approach isn't taken in most college physics courses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60z_hpEAtD8

I learned a bit about it before but this - while he admits the video isn't a teaching guide - it is a pretty good 'showcase' as to what Geometric Algebra is about and what can do.

It's a shame this approach isn't taken in most college physics courses.

File: 1626696245771.jpg (48.68 KB, 340x500, animorphs 20.jpg)

>>3620371

This sounds like you're talking about a subject in complex analysis (i.e. calculus with complex numbers) called 'conformal mapping'. Not only does it offer an approach to turn any shape into any other shape it takes the interior of the shape and 'bends' it so that, at least on a microscopic level, it doesn't look like you've altered any angles (i.e. squares still look like squares)

Remember those cheesy 'morphing' effects you'd see all the time in the 1990s. That's done with conformal mapping.

This sounds like you're talking about a subject in complex analysis (i.e. calculus with complex numbers) called 'conformal mapping'. Not only does it offer an approach to turn any shape into any other shape it takes the interior of the shape and 'bends' it so that, at least on a microscopic level, it doesn't look like you've altered any angles (i.e. squares still look like squares)

Remember those cheesy 'morphing' effects you'd see all the time in the 1990s. That's done with conformal mapping.

File: 1626765804722.png (205.88 KB, 910x748, mathtestzzz.png)

File: 1626767411558.png (2.11 MB, 1920x1080, 4xkhfupmbnw51.png)

1:There is no other disruption as noticeable as the coursing of time. A value that is in theory always changing. Its directly corresponding to the flow of observed information. Prioritized data, assessed through a 'center point' aka reality. The observation is simply a mitigated data of the most availiable flux -curve of its origin or signature (in time). Approximated.

This means an averaging of fall off (exposure) to the center of the universe in its beginning locale(s), is our frame of reference, a singularity. The source which we do not see is measured-in more extreme cases only by distance or 'rate of observed data', suggests we are polarized by flux. We move slower than what we see, and data is only approximate to what we are informed, 'the future-past' curves an occulus (particle).

2:Reality is ever expanding, a polar flux filtered by frequency of observation (critical mass in casualty of half life). The more 'energetic' or 'exposed' something is the more information is mitigated. (Data is assessed at a faster rate and more is overlooked) We move faster with higher fallout rates and closer to critical mass, aka 'annihilation' or polarization. This process of this is Curve Theory.

3:In it the logistics of handling data transfer is by the amount of particle annihilation taking place. Prioritized routing is by the degree or radian in flux or about its angle being up or down. Using a prediction of how much until it occurs in casualty or is adjusted or otherwise, depends on the amount of exposure the data has (it is theorized it increases with speed or by chance). A selected flux is assigned a prefferred observation to the rest (by favorable signatures), the data logistics is made more controllable. (So long as that system takes place) a pathological gyroscopic position in which observations are predicted based on its orientation in time can be programmed for data mining.

4:So you have a gyroscopic positioning system that collects favorable weather reports of the best route through time possible, that you can supercede time by overstacking data and energy (by changing the position correctly). To flatten the curve basically, less bridging in referenced frames takes place *(or something) and faster than light travel or a super fluid may be possible. Esp with a Gun on it.

This means an averaging of fall off (exposure) to the center of the universe in its beginning locale(s), is our frame of reference, a singularity. The source which we do not see is measured-in more extreme cases only by distance or 'rate of observed data', suggests we are polarized by flux. We move slower than what we see, and data is only approximate to what we are informed, 'the future-past' curves an occulus (particle).

2:Reality is ever expanding, a polar flux filtered by frequency of observation (critical mass in casualty of half life). The more 'energetic' or 'exposed' something is the more information is mitigated. (Data is assessed at a faster rate and more is overlooked) We move faster with higher fallout rates and closer to critical mass, aka 'annihilation' or polarization. This process of this is Curve Theory.

3:In it the logistics of handling data transfer is by the amount of particle annihilation taking place. Prioritized routing is by the degree or radian in flux or about its angle being up or down. Using a prediction of how much until it occurs in casualty or is adjusted or otherwise, depends on the amount of exposure the data has (it is theorized it increases with speed or by chance). A selected flux is assigned a prefferred observation to the rest (by favorable signatures), the data logistics is made more controllable. (So long as that system takes place) a pathological gyroscopic position in which observations are predicted based on its orientation in time can be programmed for data mining.

4:So you have a gyroscopic positioning system that collects favorable weather reports of the best route through time possible, that you can supercede time by overstacking data and energy (by changing the position correctly). To flatten the curve basically, less bridging in referenced frames takes place *(or something) and faster than light travel or a super fluid may be possible. Esp with a Gun on it.

File: 1626767651450.jpg (161.44 KB, 740x363, futurama-time-machine.jpg)

>>3620462

So basically all of these tiny particles of matter are just 1s and 0s.

So basically all of these tiny particles of matter are just 1s and 0s.

File: 1626767842425.jpg (37.32 KB, 640x480, sddefault.jpg)

>>3620463

You gather all these specs to make a bigger cluster of itself and it will divide into smaller and smaller specs till it becomes nothing again? A negative becomes a positive and it repeats.

You gather all these specs to make a bigger cluster of itself and it will divide into smaller and smaller specs till it becomes nothing again? A negative becomes a positive and it repeats.

>>3620463

It really depends on where you want to start.

You can say that a polarized issuance of data centeralizes its alignment as having all or nothing from a source in a timeline.

Or a more complex system was in place involving atomic weights that would decide the same. Hydrogen and Helium just happen because they pretty much want to not because they are supposed to. So obviously there are intrinsic issuances that maybe, get more or less complex depending.

But when you put those two together, you could basically punch it all a new butthole and open a portal into some dimension where infact (its both) that is if you don't get basically liquified by gravitiy welling up from doing so.

It really depends on where you want to start.

You can say that a polarized issuance of data centeralizes its alignment as having all or nothing from a source in a timeline.

Or a more complex system was in place involving atomic weights that would decide the same. Hydrogen and Helium just happen because they pretty much want to not because they are supposed to. So obviously there are intrinsic issuances that maybe, get more or less complex depending.

But when you put those two together, you could basically punch it all a new butthole and open a portal into some dimension where infact (its both) that is if you don't get basically liquified by gravitiy welling up from doing so.

File: 1626769959730-0.jpg (201.82 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

File: 1626769959730-1.jpg (500.17 KB, 1000x563, A5-Kobe-strip-steak.jpg)

>>3620465

Sending a Value of 1 to point A to point B

Sending a dirty water molecule to a water treatment to a drinking fountain. Sending a "hello" signal from Earth To mars. Rumors of Japan is refining their trains and railways becoming faster than jets soon the Japanese will create some portal to deliver meat less than seconds away.

Sending a Value of 1 to point A to point B

Sending a dirty water molecule to a water treatment to a drinking fountain. Sending a "hello" signal from Earth To mars. Rumors of Japan is refining their trains and railways becoming faster than jets soon the Japanese will create some portal to deliver meat less than seconds away.

You may or may not agree with experimental ideas of firmament but there are alot of them, for me specifically how a photon transcedes most of physical rules, it seems to act as a fuel unit for alot of the rest of the universe, no? Understand the levels at which that may operate unlocks some very interesting stuff beyond just ufos and things like residual light. But, IMO, I think using photons to encode virtual space and then print it is the future of things. Using a mixture of 4 staged existential theorums. Not to make it sound complicated.

Though I want it to be true first all does not mean it is. A data system, as described as I have along with a material emplacement of atoms obviously they would break down and do what they do in a hybrid system. Some say that is real enough but the breaking down promotes only more questions as to how things really work.

Those special particles they dont teach because its still not really proven, but, it makes sense that they have to abide to at least SOME level of existence. We know there are pretty ways in which things are applied and in certain conditions.

So using them becomes mildly put a quantum realized world, as it is, that means we can further exploit it into a new approach. Using a fissure of all things to cherry pick and reconstruct the world in their new design, that seems to be alot of what has just been 'described as our by sheer chance universe'. Having photons and a the reins of magnitude I think it is possible.

The issue comes from just how put those it together since the 'put' part is a big if.

Though I want it to be true first all does not mean it is. A data system, as described as I have along with a material emplacement of atoms obviously they would break down and do what they do in a hybrid system. Some say that is real enough but the breaking down promotes only more questions as to how things really work.

Those special particles they dont teach because its still not really proven, but, it makes sense that they have to abide to at least SOME level of existence. We know there are pretty ways in which things are applied and in certain conditions.

So using them becomes mildly put a quantum realized world, as it is, that means we can further exploit it into a new approach. Using a fissure of all things to cherry pick and reconstruct the world in their new design, that seems to be alot of what has just been 'described as our by sheer chance universe'. Having photons and a the reins of magnitude I think it is possible.

The issue comes from just how put those it together since the 'put' part is a big if.

File: 1626770151380-0.jpg (167.26 KB, 634x684, YP5IC.jpg)

Japan should be using America's railguns for transportation purposes!

File: 1626770296676-0.png (45.71 KB, 529x190, potentialvskineticenergy_3….png)

File: 1626770296676-1.jpg (238.88 KB, 1500x1000, Kinetic-Energy-Examples.jpg)

>>3620467

Just for an eye opener honestly its a little daunting, for example. Pure photons unobserved and by en masse amount come from only by uh…lightning maybe and uh…a nuclear explosion….how are we going to "harness" a nuclear on demand thing like that. We would need a massive super colliding centrifuge of course only one place we know has that kind of thing and no they aren't letting you stick a N-Pill in it. So its kind of a hard kickstart.

Next in line even if we get that we need a means of printing it with the very same amount of "light-dispersion" for all the parts need to be perfect down to their chemistry. And that's gonna take one hell of a laser the only thing closest we have is maybe the very same collider that breaks open particles in the first place. Just modified for a 3d-sort of printing area.

That is all I can honestly say it would have to be done from space more than likely like a big tattoo gun.

Just for an eye opener honestly its a little daunting, for example. Pure photons unobserved and by en masse amount come from only by uh…lightning maybe and uh…a nuclear explosion….how are we going to "harness" a nuclear on demand thing like that. We would need a massive super colliding centrifuge of course only one place we know has that kind of thing and no they aren't letting you stick a N-Pill in it. So its kind of a hard kickstart.

Next in line even if we get that we need a means of printing it with the very same amount of "light-dispersion" for all the parts need to be perfect down to their chemistry. And that's gonna take one hell of a laser the only thing closest we have is maybe the very same collider that breaks open particles in the first place. Just modified for a 3d-sort of printing area.

That is all I can honestly say it would have to be done from space more than likely like a big tattoo gun.

Is knowledge of all this math/computer nerd stuff a turn-off or turn-on for you when looking for a partner?

>>3620496

math and EE are some of my passions in life. It would be kind of hard to relate to someone if we didn't share interests.

math and EE are some of my passions in life. It would be kind of hard to relate to someone if we didn't share interests.

File: 1626858506918.gif (2.14 MB, 500x500, 520748437electron-singular….gif)

Though about curves u kno I just don't see how they exist except in plasma states where you have arched lightning. There is really like no other real thing going on a solid space besides surface to surface contact but, in a plasma ball there is no matter in the vacuum of the glass so lightning is just 'trying' to connect to a conductor and in the excitement of the particles the electricity cannot find the right connection. It is insulated by the glass and as soon as it branches outwards it is confused by the open space and tries to 'attach' its path to the nearest surface. It cannot find the surfaces because its normals are not being conducted to it except on the rare occasion it does find an extension in the path and can visibly see it 'arching to the outside sphere of the plasma ball. That is because of it being in a plasma state where it is electro-magnetically connecting to other particles outside its original conduction. Touching a plasma ball you are literally touching electricity (except its broken), its lightning that is going the empty space instead of air and hitting glass as its weakened.

The air to ground lightning is very angular while the vacuum electro-mag is on a curved-correction. Partly due to the power supply directing it to your finger by overloading the capacity it has on the foil, if the plasma was natural and not 'man made' it would be so hot because you are getting a direct surface contact instead of the bridge of electromagnetic-ness between.

The reason you think you are getting shocked when u touch it is because static electricity is connecting on your side of the glass it is a big spoof.

So that is something very gay about plasma-magnetic force is that it is practically harmless in space that is why you can practically fly space ships through giant active electric storms but if you touch a nuetron star your whole body would die because it would go into you and rip you apart cuz of electricity. That just proves how curves aren't real.

The air to ground lightning is very angular while the vacuum electro-mag is on a curved-correction. Partly due to the power supply directing it to your finger by overloading the capacity it has on the foil, if the plasma was natural and not 'man made' it would be so hot because you are getting a direct surface contact instead of the bridge of electromagnetic-ness between.

The reason you think you are getting shocked when u touch it is because static electricity is connecting on your side of the glass it is a big spoof.

So that is something very gay about plasma-magnetic force is that it is practically harmless in space that is why you can practically fly space ships through giant active electric storms but if you touch a nuetron star your whole body would die because it would go into you and rip you apart cuz of electricity. That just proves how curves aren't real.

>>3620508

Well. Effectively you have just removed yourself from the Gene-pool. Thus proving Intelligence is potential counterproductive to evolution.

Interesting since Darwinism states the survival of the fittest is essential but at some level when beings with higher brain functions decides NOT to procreate then evolution has hit a dead-man switch of sort.

Well. Effectively you have just removed yourself from the Gene-pool. Thus proving Intelligence is potential counterproductive to evolution.

Interesting since Darwinism states the survival of the fittest is essential but at some level when beings with higher brain functions decides NOT to procreate then evolution has hit a dead-man switch of sort.

>>3620558

Since when did mathematicians and engineers NOT get laid?

The vast majority of humans value intelligence and the ability to impact the world. Something most, also, lack.

I have NEVER seen an EE being turned down over blue-collars unless they're unemployed at the time, especially women. Women in STEM get mistreated and underpaid so companies love to hire them to get quality work for cheaper.

Since when did mathematicians and engineers NOT get laid?

The vast majority of humans value intelligence and the ability to impact the world. Something most, also, lack.

I have NEVER seen an EE being turned down over blue-collars unless they're unemployed at the time, especially women. Women in STEM get mistreated and underpaid so companies love to hire them to get quality work for cheaper.

File: 1626886802800.png (30.51 KB, 300x300, zones-of-thought11[1].png)

>>3620467

>I think using photons to encode virtual space and then print it is the future of things. Using a mixture of 4 staged existential theorums.

This *immediately* made me think of "reality graphics" that Vernor Vinge described briefly in his Zones of Thought series, specifically A Fire Upon The Deep. He didn't really talk about how it worked, just that some process by which matter could be defined and programmed into existence holographically, a process that only worked in the High Beyond and the Transcend (latter not pictured, but basically the space outside the galaxy).

>I think using photons to encode virtual space and then print it is the future of things. Using a mixture of 4 staged existential theorums.

This *immediately* made me think of "reality graphics" that Vernor Vinge described briefly in his Zones of Thought series, specifically A Fire Upon The Deep. He didn't really talk about how it worked, just that some process by which matter could be defined and programmed into existence holographically, a process that only worked in the High Beyond and the Transcend (latter not pictured, but basically the space outside the galaxy).

File: 1626933075357.jpg (65.42 KB, 1200x857, 733794.jpg)

>>3620370

My bedsheets can make math, see those folds? Pinch them and be amazed!

My bedsheets can make math, see those folds? Pinch them and be amazed!

File: 1626933261506-0.jpg (47.93 KB, 720x477, hero-napkin-folds-720x477.jpg)

File: 1626933261506-1.jpg (39.93 KB, 1000x523, 1501360208-download-2.jpg)

File: 1626933261506-2.jpg (15.56 KB, 284x426, 0293fe6b35c5dc2da6dbb2896d….jpg)

Even napkins are part of it! Once it's used toss it in the laundry and to the dryer, it makes random clumpy fold!

what the fuck schizo shit did you guys invite into my thread

I just wanted to talk about differential equations and curvature

I just wanted to talk about differential equations and curvature

File: 1626941621469.jpg (179.59 KB, 1685x2048, 12ad75867d27ddef74d9fff5c2….jpg)

>>3620608

Renamon's ass has a nice curvature!

Renamon's ass has a nice curvature!

>>3620584

Pic looks like a fox's anus. We should rename our galaxy to the Fox Anus Galaxy.

Pic looks like a fox's anus. We should rename our galaxy to the Fox Anus Galaxy.

File: 1626993052036.jpg (105.02 KB, 1080x1388, 4f48ca6d45a9a300e9669e43bb….jpg)

Hmm curves!

>>3620612

Not sure what I want to suck on more, her toes or her tailhole.

Not sure what I want to suck on more, her toes or her tailhole.

File: 1627013938907-0.jpg (416.11 KB, 900x1354, Fractal-fem2.jpg)

File: 1627013938907-1.jpg (309.13 KB, 900x1354, Fractal-fem-2.jpg)

File: 1627013938907-2.png (1.34 MB, 960x540, fractal-1224961_960_720.png)

Smoke it till ya see the fractals! Why do math? when you could get on it!

>>3620569

> shadowban this buzzword-spouting spamming schizo

Does lulz even have a "shadowban" feature?

> shadowban this buzzword-spouting spamming schizo

Does lulz even have a "shadowban" feature?

>>3620569

mods? you mean the site admin who actually is fair and based.

mods? you mean the site admin who actually is fair and based.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60z_hpEAtD8

geometric algebra seems pretty swanky tbh

I wonder if I can find any applications to signal processing with it

geometric algebra seems pretty swanky tbh

I wonder if I can find any applications to signal processing with it

File: 1627271038040.jpg (81.7 KB, 1280x720, fourier.jpg)

>>3620371

This is a Fourier analysis problem. Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/r6sGWTCMz2k

So now you know how to trace your loop using a series of epicycles. The trick is to just smoothly scale the c_1 component to the radius of the circle with the same circumference as the arc length of your loop (c_1_final = r = arc length / 2π) while also smoothly scaling all other epicycle terms to zero except c_0. The c_0 component is just the vector pointing to the centroid of your loop as mentioned in the video. You would need to finely tune the scaling rate of each term if you want the arc length to stay the same throughout the process. I don't know how to do that. Maybe there is no general method for arbitrary loops.

>>3620459

Does anyone else work the challenge problems from this guy's videos? For squares as the input (highlighted numbers), I got for the nth term of the Moessner sum: (n!)^2/n

This is a Fourier analysis problem. Watch this video:

https://youtu.be/r6sGWTCMz2k

So now you know how to trace your loop using a series of epicycles. The trick is to just smoothly scale the c_1 component to the radius of the circle with the same circumference as the arc length of your loop (c_1_final = r = arc length / 2π) while also smoothly scaling all other epicycle terms to zero except c_0. The c_0 component is just the vector pointing to the centroid of your loop as mentioned in the video. You would need to finely tune the scaling rate of each term if you want the arc length to stay the same throughout the process. I don't know how to do that. Maybe there is no general method for arbitrary loops.

>>3620459

Does anyone else work the challenge problems from this guy's videos? For squares as the input (highlighted numbers), I got for the nth term of the Moessner sum: (n!)^2/n

>>3620946

Highlighted numbers in the top row that is.

Highlighted numbers in the top row that is.

File: 1627456463505-0.png (123.85 KB, 1360x511, 2021-07-28-031144_1360x511….png)

File: 1627456463505-1.png (110.4 KB, 1277x589, 2021-07-28-031247_1277x589….png)

because I'm clinically retarded, don't know when to quit, and am still not convinced there aren't solutions in non-cartesian coordinates, I'm still trying to find f'(x)=κ(x)

except now I'm trying to solve it in polar coordinates

I've at least made more headway (I think).

there's one manipulation where I've managed to get it into terms of addition using logarithms

and another manipulation where I can get one side to be in the form of a logarithmic derivative r'/r

still caving my skull in trying to figure out where to go from here

except now I'm trying to solve it in polar coordinates

I've at least made more headway (I think).

there's one manipulation where I've managed to get it into terms of addition using logarithms

and another manipulation where I can get one side to be in the form of a logarithmic derivative r'/r

still caving my skull in trying to figure out where to go from here

File: 1627459913640.png (130.12 KB, 1092x863, 2021-07-28-041050_1092x863….png)

>>3621106

another pair of probably trivial simplifications

I realized the right hand side could be "simplified" somewhat with a substitution but I don't think it actually accomplishes much

another pair of probably trivial simplifications

I realized the right hand side could be "simplified" somewhat with a substitution but I don't think it actually accomplishes much

>>3620946

1

You have a series that basically is different by step to represent something whole overall using knowns and unknowns.

2

You can break the steps down into a whole answer with each step arriving at a seperate solvability of a supposed patternSum.

3

But that does not outright mean they are congruent, even if they are perfectly aligned to be a new part. (There is no explicitly real loop unless it is a predesigned as toymath to be such.)

4

Fourier is trying to connect parts in which clues may surface as to the progression of the series. If you do KNOW that n=10 progression into n=20 what exactly is that likely. That is leaving the "jump" to interpretation, so…:

5

When there are no such thing as ellipses in a set where the patterns make ellipses then it may infact show, that the series is a pattern that simply loops as a toroid with you having just defined each layer further. *It just may not be so even if it looks so*. So the progressions might just be anything *(including integrals now that its been set to a overall fourier measure).

6

Knowing Zero you have just mapped points that either are the same, are congruent, or are are just different instances of points in a graph. So you can triangulate them of course that is what fourier is probably trying to suggest originally. (You can also submit them to other functions.)

With fourier you are hoping a script is going to promote integer progression since you assume to have all unknowns defined (but the unknowns are going to still show up more than likely again.) You aren't solving them per sae because you've balanced them to a 'progression', they are originally fabricated based off a concept within triangulating zero into itself "a solved quotient" or an infinitisimal and therefore useable "special case"

1

You have a series that basically is different by step to represent something whole overall using knowns and unknowns.

2

You can break the steps down into a whole answer with each step arriving at a seperate solvability of a supposed patternSum.

3

But that does not outright mean they are congruent, even if they are perfectly aligned to be a new part. (There is no explicitly real loop unless it is a predesigned as toymath to be such.)

4

Fourier is trying to connect parts in which clues may surface as to the progression of the series. If you do KNOW that n=10 progression into n=20 what exactly is that likely. That is leaving the "jump" to interpretation, so…:

5

When there are no such thing as ellipses in a set where the patterns make ellipses then it may infact show, that the series is a pattern that simply loops as a toroid with you having just defined each layer further. *It just may not be so even if it looks so*. So the progressions might just be anything *(including integrals now that its been set to a overall fourier measure).

6

Knowing Zero you have just mapped points that either are the same, are congruent, or are are just different instances of points in a graph. So you can triangulate them of course that is what fourier is probably trying to suggest originally. (You can also submit them to other functions.)

With fourier you are hoping a script is going to promote integer progression since you assume to have all unknowns defined (but the unknowns are going to still show up more than likely again.) You aren't solving them per sae because you've balanced them to a 'progression', they are originally fabricated based off a concept within triangulating zero into itself "a solved quotient" or an infinitisimal and therefore useable "special case"

>>3621132

So having done that your new 'forms' would show its case for congruency to the original. That is all that they can really do.

If they are perfect then they would be indistinguishable while perhaps allowing for a seperate condition in which you can rewrite the series notation for where specific notation are required.

For instance with a seperate comparitive model in a different notation, you would want to make -sure- that their forms each can effectively show that mode for each other.

And if it were to the preference of design, perhaps they are part of the same tangent, then that tangent can be recomposed under those Series which you now have outlined.

So by special works like chainblock or graphing 'peaks' and curve-points of the Series; with what you have outlined to find a "very special" case integer in tangent. So it narrows down guesswork.

So having done that your new 'forms' would show its case for congruency to the original. That is all that they can really do.

If they are perfect then they would be indistinguishable while perhaps allowing for a seperate condition in which you can rewrite the series notation for where specific notation are required.

For instance with a seperate comparitive model in a different notation, you would want to make -sure- that their forms each can effectively show that mode for each other.

And if it were to the preference of design, perhaps they are part of the same tangent, then that tangent can be recomposed under those Series which you now have outlined.

So by special works like chainblock or graphing 'peaks' and curve-points of the Series; with what you have outlined to find a "very special" case integer in tangent. So it narrows down guesswork.

>>3621134

I guess what I am trying to say is that in fourier's analysis it would occur in the progressions variable consistency checks as the complexities arise the less accurate the overall result becomes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that in fourier's analysis it would occur in the progressions variable consistency checks as the complexities arise the less accurate the overall result becomes.

File: 1627699345973.png (6.11 KB, 669x126, slope_set_to_curvature_in_….png)

>>3620371

I think I got ahead of myself in my previous post and may have overcomplicated things. I thought about this some more and came to the conclusion that there is no unique way to smooth out an arbitrary loop into a circle. Consider an analogy. Imagine you're a Canadian psychology professor with a compulsion to make your bed every morning. You can start at the foot of the bed and smooth out the sheets, then work your way up the the head. Or vice versa. The end result is still the same and the surface area of the sheet stays the same the whole time. Similarly, you can have a functional that takes the input of your loop and smooths out part of it faster than another part. Or vice versa. You still get a circle at the end and the arc length is invariant throughout, but there are a multitude of paths to get there. No unique solution. Maybe there's a most "natural" solution, but you'd have to specify what that means.

>>3621106

>I'm still trying to find f'(x)=κ(x)

>in polar coordinates

You got the expression for the curvature right in your image, but r' is not the same as f'(x) = y' from the last thread. You'd need to solve pic related.

I think I got ahead of myself in my previous post and may have overcomplicated things. I thought about this some more and came to the conclusion that there is no unique way to smooth out an arbitrary loop into a circle. Consider an analogy. Imagine you're a Canadian psychology professor with a compulsion to make your bed every morning. You can start at the foot of the bed and smooth out the sheets, then work your way up the the head. Or vice versa. The end result is still the same and the surface area of the sheet stays the same the whole time. Similarly, you can have a functional that takes the input of your loop and smooths out part of it faster than another part. Or vice versa. You still get a circle at the end and the arc length is invariant throughout, but there are a multitude of paths to get there. No unique solution. Maybe there's a most "natural" solution, but you'd have to specify what that means.

>>3621106

>I'm still trying to find f'(x)=κ(x)

>in polar coordinates

You got the expression for the curvature right in your image, but r' is not the same as f'(x) = y' from the last thread. You'd need to solve pic related.

File: 1627699580451.png (5.94 KB, 669x126, slope_set_to_curvature_in_….png)

>>3621370

Fuck that extra close parentheses.

Fuck that extra close parentheses.

>>3621371

damn it, I tried to double-check and everything. I knew something was off and that I couldn't just treat polar functions as I would cartesian, but nothing I checked mentioned anything about it.

Oh well, more shit to try.

damn it, I tried to double-check and everything. I knew something was off and that I couldn't just treat polar functions as I would cartesian, but nothing I checked mentioned anything about it.

Oh well, more shit to try.

>>3621372

polar functions and cartesians numbers have more than one dimension it takes

a quantum registry to correalate between dimensions. so basically everything has to be done twice over for the missing points.

even more etc with vectors and orthogonal coords/waypoints. You need to button down the folds in order to compare more advanced dimensions with less complex ones. Probably as Step or Sub systems with special case too. Polarized Sets that are implicit to full expressions in-line of the State of their next Positions. Eventually they converge in complexity as the same notation for writing out and equalizing as a new expression. (I guess that is what functions would imply they do but they don't always.) So you can right them 'like' cartesian maps.

polar functions and cartesians numbers have more than one dimension it takes

a quantum registry to correalate between dimensions. so basically everything has to be done twice over for the missing points.

even more etc with vectors and orthogonal coords/waypoints. You need to button down the folds in order to compare more advanced dimensions with less complex ones. Probably as Step or Sub systems with special case too. Polarized Sets that are implicit to full expressions in-line of the State of their next Positions. Eventually they converge in complexity as the same notation for writing out and equalizing as a new expression. (I guess that is what functions would imply they do but they don't always.) So you can right them 'like' cartesian maps.

>>3621379

also heisenburgs principle suggests that while knowing one item of the state of which it is in you cannot know for instance another item for instance u can know the energy of something but not the weight. Or the speed of something but not its mass.

You cannot know them simultaneously because they are different dimensional arrangements and that is why polar functions don't work like cartesian numbers or why direct lineations dont work exactly like quantum expressions.

You can try to get them together by writing them out for each other's type but that is like defining warez which simply isn't coinsiding with the data you have. So if you have it you have to perform to their causes seperately in someway they correalate, that is what i mean by having a registry to your write outs but even then it is not something "acceptable" in practice and is theoretically mainly.

The way I describe it is that the superlative math involved is withstanding as an entirely new simulation. Where they just count together ('It would be very complicated'). And by their test any formula has to be designed for that SimWork.

Though the entire result would look alot like fourier's case (just with major justification in the expressions for each part of the SIM-Result) It would look like a "Channeled Graph" that fit together for each Identifiable Dimension where it would have more than function charted. Whether or not they compose as a model for zero tests may or may not matter 'as much' by then.

also heisenburgs principle suggests that while knowing one item of the state of which it is in you cannot know for instance another item for instance u can know the energy of something but not the weight. Or the speed of something but not its mass.

You cannot know them simultaneously because they are different dimensional arrangements and that is why polar functions don't work like cartesian numbers or why direct lineations dont work exactly like quantum expressions.

You can try to get them together by writing them out for each other's type but that is like defining warez which simply isn't coinsiding with the data you have. So if you have it you have to perform to their causes seperately in someway they correalate, that is what i mean by having a registry to your write outs but even then it is not something "acceptable" in practice and is theoretically mainly.

The way I describe it is that the superlative math involved is withstanding as an entirely new simulation. Where they just count together ('It would be very complicated'). And by their test any formula has to be designed for that SimWork.

Though the entire result would look alot like fourier's case (just with major justification in the expressions for each part of the SIM-Result) It would look like a "Channeled Graph" that fit together for each Identifiable Dimension where it would have more than function charted. Whether or not they compose as a model for zero tests may or may not matter 'as much' by then.

>>3621381

For that to work you have to look at their stages in research. Where First Off:

You have your standard algebra that meets a qunatum level (with some trig and calc right)

And Secondly:

then they mix up into this "Simulated Graph" which also gets alot of theory put onto it.

And Finally:

it is just rewritten out as a Singularity for the same Parathenses that took place. So they all match up as 'a big read'

For that to work you have to look at their stages in research. Where First Off:

You have your standard algebra that meets a qunatum level (with some trig and calc right)

And Secondly:

then they mix up into this "Simulated Graph" which also gets alot of theory put onto it.

And Finally:

it is just rewritten out as a Singularity for the same Parathenses that took place. So they all match up as 'a big read'

>>3620371

When I first looked at this problem I thought you were talking about the area inside the loop but looked it over more carefully and realized you're just talking about a loop itself. As if you have a bicycle chain that's all twisted up and you want to stretch it out into a circle.

And while the Fourier approach described here >>3620946 might sort of work what you're really describing could use a different approach – one where you're treating it very much like a bicycle chain – divide your cure into fixed-length segments and apply some kind of 'forcing mechanism' that attempts to minimize the bend of each segment yet keeps the entire loop intact (e.g. starting point and ending point are at coordinate {0, 0}).

How exactly to do it escapes me at the moment but I'm thinking that approach is more along the lines with the spirit of the problem.

When I first looked at this problem I thought you were talking about the area inside the loop but looked it over more carefully and realized you're just talking about a loop itself. As if you have a bicycle chain that's all twisted up and you want to stretch it out into a circle.

And while the Fourier approach described here >>3620946 might sort of work what you're really describing could use a different approach – one where you're treating it very much like a bicycle chain – divide your cure into fixed-length segments and apply some kind of 'forcing mechanism' that attempts to minimize the bend of each segment yet keeps the entire loop intact (e.g. starting point and ending point are at coordinate {0, 0}).

How exactly to do it escapes me at the moment but I'm thinking that approach is more along the lines with the spirit of the problem.

>>3621412

> divide your cure into fixed-length segments and apply some kind of 'forcing mechanism' that attempts to minimize the bend of each segment yet keeps the entire loop intact (e.g. starting point and ending point are at coordinate {0, 0}).

that's exactly what I was trying to convey. I did a fucking terrible job though. I was trying to get too mathy when I hardly know the language.

Let me try again.

With the 1D heat equation, regions of the graph with large second derivatives will change the fastest over time. Eventually it asymptotically approaches a straight line meaning even heat distribution.

For the loop thing, the parts of the kinked loop with a large second derivative (which we know is approximately the curvature for sections with small changes of slope) would… have some opposite force? That would either push or tug those parts in proportion to their second derivative so that sections with relatively little curvature aren't changed much, but the very curved parts get changed a lot, so that eventually it approaches a smooth circle (ring?)

I was thinking something like a deflated innertube or a balloon. All crinkly and fucked up when deflated, but as you blow air into it, it corrects itself.

(is this ricci flow?)

> divide your cure into fixed-length segments and apply some kind of 'forcing mechanism' that attempts to minimize the bend of each segment yet keeps the entire loop intact (e.g. starting point and ending point are at coordinate {0, 0}).

that's exactly what I was trying to convey. I did a fucking terrible job though. I was trying to get too mathy when I hardly know the language.

Let me try again.

With the 1D heat equation, regions of the graph with large second derivatives will change the fastest over time. Eventually it asymptotically approaches a straight line meaning even heat distribution.

For the loop thing, the parts of the kinked loop with a large second derivative (which we know is approximately the curvature for sections with small changes of slope) would… have some opposite force? That would either push or tug those parts in proportion to their second derivative so that sections with relatively little curvature aren't changed much, but the very curved parts get changed a lot, so that eventually it approaches a smooth circle (ring?)

I was thinking something like a deflated innertube or a balloon. All crinkly and fucked up when deflated, but as you blow air into it, it corrects itself.

(is this ricci flow?)

>>3621428

Oh, another way to think about it (that might be esoteric…)

For sufficiently large celestial bodies, the force of gravity will, over time, cause all of the peaks and valleys to wear away and fill up, approaching an oblate spheroid.

If you have something viscous, like silly putty or "oobleck", and you deform it, over time it will reconform itself to approach a circle

Writing that out, it makes me wonder if there's some way to do a… convolution low pass filter? Moving average maybe?, but around a closed path rather than a line. (No clue if that even makes sense. It does in my DSP brain, Hopefully it does to you guys too. I am not too familiar with math beyond basic ODEs (yet))

Oh, another way to think about it (that might be esoteric…)

For sufficiently large celestial bodies, the force of gravity will, over time, cause all of the peaks and valleys to wear away and fill up, approaching an oblate spheroid.

If you have something viscous, like silly putty or "oobleck", and you deform it, over time it will reconform itself to approach a circle

Writing that out, it makes me wonder if there's some way to do a… convolution low pass filter? Moving average maybe?, but around a closed path rather than a line. (No clue if that even makes sense. It does in my DSP brain, Hopefully it does to you guys too. I am not too familiar with math beyond basic ODEs (yet))

>>3621428

>>3621431

oh buddy boy I might've been right thinking ricci flow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_flow

In mathematics, specifically __differential geometry__, a geometric flow is the gradient flow associated to a functional on a manifold which has a geometric interpretation, usually associated with some __extrinsic or intrinsic curvature__…

…These are of fundamental interest in the __calculus of variations__, and include several famous problems and theories. Particularly interesting are their __critical points__.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_surface

>In mathematics, a minimal surface is a surface that locally minimizes its area. This is equivalent to having __zero mean curvature__

man no wonder I'm so obsessed with this problem it literally touches all of my favorite math topics

CoV, optimization, curvature, differential geometry of curves…

do you guys think I can make some bizzaro contributions to DSP by getting a minor in Topology and differential geometry? wew

>>3621431

oh buddy boy I might've been right thinking ricci flow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_flow

In mathematics, specifically __differential geometry__, a geometric flow is the gradient flow associated to a functional on a manifold which has a geometric interpretation, usually associated with some __extrinsic or intrinsic curvature__…

…These are of fundamental interest in the __calculus of variations__, and include several famous problems and theories. Particularly interesting are their __critical points__.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_surface

>In mathematics, a minimal surface is a surface that locally minimizes its area. This is equivalent to having __zero mean curvature__

man no wonder I'm so obsessed with this problem it literally touches all of my favorite math topics

CoV, optimization, curvature, differential geometry of curves…

do you guys think I can make some bizzaro contributions to DSP by getting a minor in Topology and differential geometry? wew

>>3621433

sounds like n64 graphics to me. spec mapping etc. what we need here is wave mechanics to work from remote to real time with of course post processing. otherwise what is the use for any new math, but definitely would do everything to help analgraphics which is like topology.

sounds like n64 graphics to me. spec mapping etc. what we need here is wave mechanics to work from remote to real time with of course post processing. otherwise what is the use for any new math, but definitely would do everything to help analgraphics which is like topology.

>>3621428

fixed line segments defeat the purpose of a curve, you would be working with angles and their trajectories would need to be adjusted for each mark. (This is automated sure but is it really?) This method is only helpful for an overview of what your real-mean curves are.

fixed line segments defeat the purpose of a curve, you would be working with angles and their trajectories would need to be adjusted for each mark. (This is automated sure but is it really?) This method is only helpful for an overview of what your real-mean curves are.

>>3621437

>otherwise what is the use for any new math

I can't understate how much I love graphs and manipulating graphs; other than music production, it's the sole reason why I got into signal processing. I failed algebra 1 and 2 in highschool and barely passed geometry. Even then, when I hardly knew what the fuck a parabola was (and it was the only thing I knew as far as math went), I was manually solving points on graph paper to "stretch", "squish", and "shift" the graphs of those parabolas. I didn't know what I was doing or what I wanted, but all I knew was that I was obsessed.

You're looking at literal, 99.999% pure weapons-grade autism here.

I will go through hell and high water to find new ways to interpret, compare, redefine-in-terms-of, transform, skew, translate, compose, convolve, involve, evolve, rotate about, integrate, differentiate, parameterize, re-parameterize, fourier-transform, laplace-transform, glissette-tize, roulette-tize any and all curves you throw at me

and then I'll do it all over again with the resulting curve

>>3621439

>fixed line segments

that's probably me messing up the terminology again. I didn't mean to imply line segments, and if I did, it's in the calculus sense of "an infinitesimally small line segment" so that we can get away from that annoying nastiness.

I'm pretty sure that, if anything, it'll have to be a vector valued function. I'm trying to really, 100% understand the true definition of the Euler-Lagrange equation and the CoV outside of my amateur graphical-numerical method. I know I don't understand it because I can understand it in terms of a normal function, but as soon as I try and think about it in terms of a vector-valued function, my mind shits the bed.

>otherwise what is the use for any new math

I can't understate how much I love graphs and manipulating graphs; other than music production, it's the sole reason why I got into signal processing. I failed algebra 1 and 2 in highschool and barely passed geometry. Even then, when I hardly knew what the fuck a parabola was (and it was the only thing I knew as far as math went), I was manually solving points on graph paper to "stretch", "squish", and "shift" the graphs of those parabolas. I didn't know what I was doing or what I wanted, but all I knew was that I was obsessed.

You're looking at literal, 99.999% pure weapons-grade autism here.

I will go through hell and high water to find new ways to interpret, compare, redefine-in-terms-of, transform, skew, translate, compose, convolve, involve, evolve, rotate about, integrate, differentiate, parameterize, re-parameterize, fourier-transform, laplace-transform, glissette-tize, roulette-tize any and all curves you throw at me

and then I'll do it all over again with the resulting curve

>>3621439

>fixed line segments

that's probably me messing up the terminology again. I didn't mean to imply line segments, and if I did, it's in the calculus sense of "an infinitesimally small line segment" so that we can get away from that annoying nastiness.

I'm pretty sure that, if anything, it'll have to be a vector valued function. I'm trying to really, 100% understand the true definition of the Euler-Lagrange equation and the CoV outside of my amateur graphical-numerical method. I know I don't understand it because I can understand it in terms of a normal function, but as soon as I try and think about it in terms of a vector-valued function, my mind shits the bed.

>>3621431

Convulution is relatively high end dynamics that may or may not synch up correctly to the applied functions, it takes time for convulution mechanics to even out but they are assumed wonky anyway, there are parts in the measure that otherwise get roughed out in alignment.

IMO Convulutions don't typically effect the overall progression and formula until after its submitted. But that is just IMO.

Convulution is relatively high end dynamics that may or may not synch up correctly to the applied functions, it takes time for convulution mechanics to even out but they are assumed wonky anyway, there are parts in the measure that otherwise get roughed out in alignment.

IMO Convulutions don't typically effect the overall progression and formula until after its submitted. But that is just IMO.

>>3621440

Euler-Lagrange is sort of getting all the information required before plotting it. You end up plotting it anyway because it becomes an expression. But it typically involves getting all the data and putting it into some form of limit. The limit is shown obviously with comparisions of greaterthans and direction-based surfaces. So once its expressed correctly we have a new graph to test. (Sometimes it just represents a uneven blob or globular geometry) The Euler-Lagrange is the Priming for your new theory (as it is for most quantum theories, its substitute for alot of the roadwork theory-to-theory)

Euler-Lagrange is sort of getting all the information required before plotting it. You end up plotting it anyway because it becomes an expression. But it typically involves getting all the data and putting it into some form of limit. The limit is shown obviously with comparisions of greaterthans and direction-based surfaces. So once its expressed correctly we have a new graph to test. (Sometimes it just represents a uneven blob or globular geometry) The Euler-Lagrange is the Priming for your new theory (as it is for most quantum theories, its substitute for alot of the roadwork theory-to-theory)

>>3621428

I typed up alot of new work. I mean I basically sat down and proved that a smart phone should be able to find a bus-stop, except it's very complicated. It's not even really me, the human element just stops being a thing and making it make sense is all that matters.

Just a big boss chest sized computer can do everything in the universe in less than 8 real steps. I compare it to having a television work with another television in some sort of automatic relay of both of themselves.

Those two ideas pretty much are what I guess I have been describing all along.

I typed up alot of new work. I mean I basically sat down and proved that a smart phone should be able to find a bus-stop, except it's very complicated. It's not even really me, the human element just stops being a thing and making it make sense is all that matters.

Just a big boss chest sized computer can do everything in the universe in less than 8 real steps. I compare it to having a television work with another television in some sort of automatic relay of both of themselves.

Those two ideas pretty much are what I guess I have been describing all along.

File: 1627852405886-0.png (4.06 KB, 285x177, find_definite_integral_par….png)

File: 1627852405886-1.jpg (96.69 KB, 1280x720, good_ol_fashioned_family_e….jpg)

Not a whole lot of calculation for a math thread. Anyway, I stumble across this video the other day. Pretty interesting.

https://youtu.be/Pv26QAOcb6Q

https://youtu.be/Pv26QAOcb6Q

I found an interesting paper on arxiv about stochastic partial differential equations

even though I hardly understand it, it's still much more approachable than practically any other paper I've come across. I wish more were written like this.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.6353.pdf

even though I hardly understand it, it's still much more approachable than practically any other paper I've come across. I wish more were written like this.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.6353.pdf

>>3622493

another article by this same author has introduced me to the concept of "Mollification"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollifier

which sounds very similar to what I want to do with my loop-smoothing whatever thing from the beginning of the thread. Except, mollification seems to try to preserve the general structure of the curve while smoothing out the outliers

another article by this same author has introduced me to the concept of "Mollification"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mollifier

which sounds very similar to what I want to do with my loop-smoothing whatever thing from the beginning of the thread. Except, mollification seems to try to preserve the general structure of the curve while smoothing out the outliers

>>3622497

mollification is described as end-game math or at least i have heard it from someone who said they knew about it.

If that is the case I am more than likely mollifying everything I do in math such that it meets a pretense that it needs to be arranged for it being parts of a whole.

mollification is described as end-game math or at least i have heard it from someone who said they knew about it.

If that is the case I am more than likely mollifying everything I do in math such that it meets a pretense that it needs to be arranged for it being parts of a whole.

>>3622526

In the way of mollifiers being defined.

1.You would have a curve in which is it decided a mollfier is (like an isomer or part of the curve it is) in function.

2. That mollifier is now on the curve as a part being there.

3. That mollifier would not exist because of other rules so those rules suggest the mollifier is part of a whole counter-to or of the curve. (literally triangulation/departure)

4. A convolution is dependent on the mollifier/(or not) in which it is defined/(or not) so the SUM of what the curve is/(or not) is shown.

5. The SUM of the mollifier is counted with the curve (or a counter to that curve) being fully defined by any sequence shows a SUM, zero being defined. That Now 01 can be sequenced to 02 and in that sequence be summary of a pattern of 0 so that P{Sequence of 0s} where the fact the mollifier being any part of has now allowed more defined placements of 0.

In the way of mollifiers being defined.

1.You would have a curve in which is it decided a mollfier is (like an isomer or part of the curve it is) in function.

2. That mollifier is now on the curve as a part being there.

3. That mollifier would not exist because of other rules so those rules suggest the mollifier is part of a whole counter-to or of the curve. (literally triangulation/departure)

4. A convolution is dependent on the mollifier/(or not) in which it is defined/(or not) so the SUM of what the curve is/(or not) is shown.

5. The SUM of the mollifier is counted with the curve (or a counter to that curve) being fully defined by any sequence shows a SUM, zero being defined. That Now 01 can be sequenced to 02 and in that sequence be summary of a pattern of 0 so that P{Sequence of 0s} where the fact the mollifier being any part of has now allowed more defined placements of 0.

>>3622528

Mollifiers look like practically the same thing as using vectors but on a curve.

>Using a figure to circumvent a true measurement by applying a theory.

Mollifiers look like practically the same thing as using vectors but on a curve.

>Using a figure to circumvent a true measurement by applying a theory.

Mollifiers are used as quantum measurements in the way that otherwise they are simply coloring outside the lines of a curve

So that in a quantum usage it makes the case for singularity or zero space.

That is seperate from the idea of mollifiers but the theory put forward idealizes a permutable quotient of that expression. that quotient is simply like writing the value of 1 and italicizing the standard(1) for special casel; (while remaining relative to its original expressed values it may show (super relativity and multiplicity) as a way of preparing a template for 'stat-boxing' of a theory. this is helpful in distinguishing infinitismals but more just for showing a rounded curve in quantum space under dimensional zones *(or fields wherein that curve applies) It is almost as linear quotients can rely on this quantum comparision of curves. Showing super relativity suggests a permutatable quasi-expression of linear and quantum terms or perhaps the true difference quotients or makes the case for quantum data of traced particle states on their rates of observation which would likely incorporate the planck constant as a legend.

Particle or Coordinate of Path(etc) represents (Percentage of Infinity)

Written out as a molifier or sequence of tagged-states. And could allow be traced in form to a memory-based quotient of simulated particle or scripts.

Mollfiers suggest a data state for a logic-based feedback of the form components that fits within loops of observed rates(with respect to time).

EX. Observed particles are changed as outlined with Schroedingers theory.

So that in a quantum usage it makes the case for singularity or zero space.

That is seperate from the idea of mollifiers but the theory put forward idealizes a permutable quotient of that expression. that quotient is simply like writing the value of 1 and italicizing the standard(1) for special casel; (while remaining relative to its original expressed values it may show (super relativity and multiplicity) as a way of preparing a template for 'stat-boxing' of a theory. this is helpful in distinguishing infinitismals but more just for showing a rounded curve in quantum space under dimensional zones *(or fields wherein that curve applies) It is almost as linear quotients can rely on this quantum comparision of curves. Showing super relativity suggests a permutatable quasi-expression of linear and quantum terms or perhaps the true difference quotients or makes the case for quantum data of traced particle states on their rates of observation which would likely incorporate the planck constant as a legend.

Particle or Coordinate of Path(etc) represents (Percentage of Infinity)

Written out as a molifier or sequence of tagged-states. And could allow be traced in form to a memory-based quotient of simulated particle or scripts.

Mollfiers suggest a data state for a logic-based feedback of the form components that fits within loops of observed rates(with respect to time).

EX. Observed particles are changed as outlined with Schroedingers theory.

File: 1629153149694-0.png (68.45 KB, 591x347, 2021-08-16-182412_591x347_….png)

File: 1629153149694-1.png (75.32 KB, 542x616, my mfw when.png)

>a set A is countable if A is equivalent to the set of positive Integers

>if a set A is equivalent to the set of positive Integers, it is countable

>QED

so THIS is the legendary power of Rudin…

>if a set A is equivalent to the set of positive Integers, it is countable

>QED

so THIS is the legendary power of Rudin…

>>3623029

this is more of a conveyed solution so that |1| or any absolute value including zero would compare to any other variable expression of its value or theory. So that real numbers are the same as imaginary numbers. If X=1 then 1=X. Suggesting that the mean-average of a set is the same as writing the entire set. Even when that set is undefined then it will likely have a solution (on the assumption of its solution is known through mollified states;every key must fit a lock)

this is more of a conveyed solution so that |1| or any absolute value including zero would compare to any other variable expression of its value or theory. So that real numbers are the same as imaginary numbers. If X=1 then 1=X. Suggesting that the mean-average of a set is the same as writing the entire set. Even when that set is undefined then it will likely have a solution (on the assumption of its solution is known through mollified states;every key must fit a lock)

>>3623029

By itself this THEORY says the equation can recount itself in some way, based on informed practices of the set. The Entire expression or equation may be undefined while in some parts 'written'. It may or may not skip steps knowing certain steps as a given, for a hash-up. This is good for allocating large sums of numbers as a SET.

But it only conveys the solutions as proof as not counts as true proof unless supported by a very strong case of other theories. (More or less worked out) Such as Schroedinger or basic Euler-Lagrange or anything, it may require more supporting theory to be "consisent".

Why? Because of Convolution always is approximate. (My college professor pretty much told me this through his rocket psybonic-jargon)

Things like Heisenburgs(sp) Principle and other Newtonian problems arise (in the Molecular Physics Side of the math) WHEN do two hydrogen molecules actually count as helium?? Etc (They orbit each other until they do) (Their signature of magnitude or order in which they orbit defines their chemical property) (So when you have a block of many particles how can you even tell what it is) (The information that is exchanged through the orbit of molecules is overall translated by their shared states) I.E. A mass of carbon/iron is hard to distinguish as steel in some parts, those parts must be weighed in probability and certainty. (That is quantum physics too)

So having a fully expressed "potentiation" or postulate RELIES on a Many Cases proving (overall) the system.

Otherwise it will be dedicated to single measure of "irrevelent" data, the data of the source expression is important, the solution of it can then carry over to other systems as the 'solid-model' for working proof. This is why einstein is so fucked up (because he relies on two incomparable terms of light and energy)

believing its self evident that light and mass make themselves suddenly force.

There is little logistics involved if you have the ingredients. Says einstein. But infact it requires an algorithm of many arranged processes, says every other scientist backed by chemistry.

By itself this THEORY says the equation can recount itself in some way, based on informed practices of the set. The Entire expression or equation may be undefined while in some parts 'written'. It may or may not skip steps knowing certain steps as a given, for a hash-up. This is good for allocating large sums of numbers as a SET.

But it only conveys the solutions as proof as not counts as true proof unless supported by a very strong case of other theories. (More or less worked out) Such as Schroedinger or basic Euler-Lagrange or anything, it may require more supporting theory to be "consisent".

Why? Because of Convolution always is approximate. (My college professor pretty much told me this through his rocket psybonic-jargon)

Things like Heisenburgs(sp) Principle and other Newtonian problems arise (in the Molecular Physics Side of the math) WHEN do two hydrogen molecules actually count as helium?? Etc (They orbit each other until they do) (Their signature of magnitude or order in which they orbit defines their chemical property) (So when you have a block of many particles how can you even tell what it is) (The information that is exchanged through the orbit of molecules is overall translated by their shared states) I.E. A mass of carbon/iron is hard to distinguish as steel in some parts, those parts must be weighed in probability and certainty. (That is quantum physics too)

So having a fully expressed "potentiation" or postulate RELIES on a Many Cases proving (overall) the system.

Otherwise it will be dedicated to single measure of "irrevelent" data, the data of the source expression is important, the solution of it can then carry over to other systems as the 'solid-model' for working proof. This is why einstein is so fucked up (because he relies on two incomparable terms of light and energy)

believing its self evident that light and mass make themselves suddenly force.

There is little logistics involved if you have the ingredients. Says einstein. But infact it requires an algorithm of many arranged processes, says every other scientist backed by chemistry.

>>3623074

In my opinion what happens is some crazy consecutive thing in which a pattern is realized and reciprocated unto itself as a new state, with respect to time in flux of its difference in states, which is the retention of data or memory of physics. That translates overall as a process in observability as light "virtualizes" the particles over themselves.

It takes 32 or so steps to make sense in regards to reaching peak convergence of their properties. In a blackhole for instance, all content is accounted for and flux to space(in time) which synchronizes with order of magnitude. This is called singularity, or zerospace or just a superfluid in which it can be expressed as a math value. That value is a normal or isometry in memory. So that on a curve it can be pin pointed. The pin point is very important.

While understanding the measures used as normals, pinpoints are themselves ratio to a fold in space, that reciprocation of its own value carries throughout any point on a curve, as an inversion in blackhole differences. (This consecutive use of inversions also mollifies but mostly accounts for folds to be planned as their own vectors as complexity increases)

The simply system answers to a Pattern Strng for the endterm-solution and the source-data(or quantum set). These 2 patterns make for Using the "Base Expressions-now with Mollifiers" as two-systems(basically Vector-Mode).

Going back we would have P{01}(1,2,3,4)

P{02}(1,2,3,4)

Where 1 is simple |1| and 2 is |2| or (1+1)

(elementary quantities of very complicated expressions in arrangements of a full-theory written as terms of Sub0)

That E=MC^2 is actually E=Psub01*Psub02^2.

The difference being that it is a blackhole. The black hole is an accelerate field where many terms convolute to a pin-point ratio and becomes displaced via degree(alot and many of).

In my opinion what happens is some crazy consecutive thing in which a pattern is realized and reciprocated unto itself as a new state, with respect to time in flux of its difference in states, which is the retention of data or memory of physics. That translates overall as a process in observability as light "virtualizes" the particles over themselves.

It takes 32 or so steps to make sense in regards to reaching peak convergence of their properties. In a blackhole for instance, all content is accounted for and flux to space(in time) which synchronizes with order of magnitude. This is called singularity, or zerospace or just a superfluid in which it can be expressed as a math value. That value is a normal or isometry in memory. So that on a curve it can be pin pointed. The pin point is very important.

While understanding the measures used as normals, pinpoints are themselves ratio to a fold in space, that reciprocation of its own value carries throughout any point on a curve, as an inversion in blackhole differences. (This consecutive use of inversions also mollifies but mostly accounts for folds to be planned as their own vectors as complexity increases)

The simply system answers to a Pattern Strng for the endterm-solution and the source-data(or quantum set). These 2 patterns make for Using the "Base Expressions-now with Mollifiers" as two-systems(basically Vector-Mode).

Going back we would have P{01}(1,2,3,4)

P{02}(1,2,3,4)

Where 1 is simple |1| and 2 is |2| or (1+1)

(elementary quantities of very complicated expressions in arrangements of a full-theory written as terms of Sub0)

That E=MC^2 is actually E=Psub01*Psub02^2.

The difference being that it is a blackhole. The black hole is an accelerate field where many terms convolute to a pin-point ratio and becomes displaced via degree(alot and many of).

>>3621412

>As if you have a bicycle chain that's all twisted up and you want to stretch it out into a circle.

Exactly. And I think your approach of treating this problem in terms of forces is probably the best. Like a statics problem. Imagine a circular loop of constant flexural modulus deformed into the shape of your loop. The challenge is to find the net force on each infinitesimal segment. These forces will tell you how each point will shift in an infinitesimal time interval. After each infinitesimal time interval, you perform the same procedure of summing all the forces acting on each point and time shift again. Lather, rinse, repeat until you're left with a circle.

The distance each point/infinitesimal segment gets shifted in an infinitesimal time interval will be proportional to the net force on it. Whichever point has the most net unidirectional force acting on it will be shifted the most, so it makes sense to set this as a sort of maximum shifting distance and normalize the shifting distances for the other points with respect to it. Then scale the resulting shape after each time interval, so the arc length stays constant.

The way this would all work is that points of highest curvature exert the most force on neighboring points - away from the radius of curvature. All this would have to be calculated numerically on a computer ofc. The totality of the time slices yields the solution.

Some problems just don't have solutions that can be arrived at with a nice math trick. The traveling salesman problem is one such. I believe this loop problem is another computationally intensive problem, where the more baroque the shape of the loop, the more time it takes to compute a solution to exponential degree. That is, I imagine the time it takes to compute a solution will be higher than any polynomial function of the number of bends in the loop, generally.

But really, I don't know. I'm just spitballing.

>As if you have a bicycle chain that's all twisted up and you want to stretch it out into a circle.

Exactly. And I think your approach of treating this problem in terms of forces is probably the best. Like a statics problem. Imagine a circular loop of constant flexural modulus deformed into the shape of your loop. The challenge is to find the net force on each infinitesimal segment. These forces will tell you how each point will shift in an infinitesimal time interval. After each infinitesimal time interval, you perform the same procedure of summing all the forces acting on each point and time shift again. Lather, rinse, repeat until you're left with a circle.

The distance each point/infinitesimal segment gets shifted in an infinitesimal time interval will be proportional to the net force on it. Whichever point has the most net unidirectional force acting on it will be shifted the most, so it makes sense to set this as a sort of maximum shifting distance and normalize the shifting distances for the other points with respect to it. Then scale the resulting shape after each time interval, so the arc length stays constant.

The way this would all work is that points of highest curvature exert the most force on neighboring points - away from the radius of curvature. All this would have to be calculated numerically on a computer ofc. The totality of the time slices yields the solution.

Some problems just don't have solutions that can be arrived at with a nice math trick. The traveling salesman problem is one such. I believe this loop problem is another computationally intensive problem, where the more baroque the shape of the loop, the more time it takes to compute a solution to exponential degree. That is, I imagine the time it takes to compute a solution will be higher than any polynomial function of the number of bends in the loop, generally.

But really, I don't know. I'm just spitballing.

>>3623297

>normalize

I meant scale in proportion to force. All the other shifting distances would be a fraction of the maximum and in proportion to ratio of the force on the point to the maximum net force at a point.

delta_p/delta_max = F_p/F_max

Normalization in this context would mean you always get the same value when you integrate shifting distances around each time slice loop, which seems unnecessary.

>normalize

I meant scale in proportion to force. All the other shifting distances would be a fraction of the maximum and in proportion to ratio of the force on the point to the maximum net force at a point.

delta_p/delta_max = F_p/F_max

Normalization in this context would mean you always get the same value when you integrate shifting distances around each time slice loop, which seems unnecessary.

>>3623297

So you are trying to find a "hard" or "evident" number among "fuzzy" logic or basically a margin or matrix. You are basically cummulatively "searching" for a ratio for "thresholds". I.e. Integers that show a clipped amount (likely with alternating of differential appliance) which appears as a splashed 'model' under a strain or algoritm.

Basically your SOURCE function is being configured via another integrated "function" from what I can tell, that now also has a derivitive formula that is met depending on its root complexity.

I think the roots are going to be your main concern in defining a fixed interval in the progression, you will have to set a fixed target measure as the solution everytime that it is only the case for each proven interval under their respective root solutions. Which means in the end you will have many answers based off a target condition (each solution will be its own circle at its own orientation)

(Each interval has its own seperate solution for the whole expression)

You would need to write that in a pattern more than likely a sequence to illustrate that fourier's square of infintisimals are being Mollified by also limits that being used as more than likely an intergral function, where the integral is stem to a root complexity. And that while that may be solved, within its interval solution it may change in the progression of the function (so it requires a full expression and written orientation of said expression i.e. a vector)

The limits and the root could work somehow with the integral to show a deritive, that would allow to write an explicit circle sum. (Before it is moved to another "orientation" every interval)

So when you use fourier to define the variable knowing of you would have done this all twice for infinitisimals.

So you are trying to find a "hard" or "evident" number among "fuzzy" logic or basically a margin or matrix. You are basically cummulatively "searching" for a ratio for "thresholds". I.e. Integers that show a clipped amount (likely with alternating of differential appliance) which appears as a splashed 'model' under a strain or algoritm.

Basically your SOURCE function is being configured via another integrated "function" from what I can tell, that now also has a derivitive formula that is met depending on its root complexity.

I think the roots are going to be your main concern in defining a fixed interval in the progression, you will have to set a fixed target measure as the solution everytime that it is only the case for each proven interval under their respective root solutions. Which means in the end you will have many answers based off a target condition (each solution will be its own circle at its own orientation)

(Each interval has its own seperate solution for the whole expression)

You would need to write that in a pattern more than likely a sequence to illustrate that fourier's square of infintisimals are being Mollified by also limits that being used as more than likely an intergral function, where the integral is stem to a root complexity. And that while that may be solved, within its interval solution it may change in the progression of the function (so it requires a full expression and written orientation of said expression i.e. a vector)

The limits and the root could work somehow with the integral to show a deritive, that would allow to write an explicit circle sum. (Before it is moved to another "orientation" every interval)

So when you use fourier to define the variable knowing of you would have done this all twice for infinitisimals.

>>3623461

If the infintisimals are different you would have to use some sort of triangulation of them or an individual fourier proof for each difference of infinitisimal (which would be a couple of pages of work each depending on how many you are dealing with)

So it is better to simply prep the whole system to be "self-met", if the infintisimals are different you would have to once again proof them as being triangulatable between them selves and each one by using the fourier proofing for each one as a basis for their own algorithm; so that when you define an interval in the progression of having net-conditions effecting their normals it doesn't throw off the integrated functions or deritives of the integrated functions infintisimals (which get thrown off anyway the second any new orientation is introduced)

If the infintisimals are different you would have to use some sort of triangulation of them or an individual fourier proof for each difference of infinitisimal (which would be a couple of pages of work each depending on how many you are dealing with)

So it is better to simply prep the whole system to be "self-met", if the infintisimals are different you would have to once again proof them as being triangulatable between them selves and each one by using the fourier proofing for each one as a basis for their own algorithm; so that when you define an interval in the progression of having net-conditions effecting their normals it doesn't throw off the integrated functions or deritives of the integrated functions infintisimals (which get thrown off anyway the second any new orientation is introduced)

>>3623464

If you learn photographically then I would compare this as having a standard analog clock that is a little bit crooked compared to another Standard analog clock that may or may not be the same brand but is also framed in a different way. And asking if they are even enough to express a specific time or correct time.

If you learn photographically then I would compare this as having a standard analog clock that is a little bit crooked compared to another Standard analog clock that may or may not be the same brand but is also framed in a different way. And asking if they are even enough to express a specific time or correct time.

File: 1629608907036-0.png (16.48 KB, 500x332, centre-of-curvature.png)

File: 1629608907036-1.png (27.46 KB, 768x768, Bijection.png)

>>3623297

>points of highest curvature exert the most force on neighboring points - away from the radius of curvature

Minor point of clarification, but you probably knew what I meant. Should read,*away from the center of curvature*.

>>3623029

This is a notation fail. The tilde signifies an equivalence relation, but they really mean a bijection exists between the sets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection

So what they really meant was that a set A is countable if there exists a bijection (a one-to-one correspondence) from A to the set of positive integers. So for example, the set of even numbers is not equivalent to the set of all positive integers. But the set of even numbers is countable, because there is a bijection from it to the set of positive integers. If we're talking about positive even integers, just divide each element by two to get the set of all positive integers - division by two is the bijection. Make sense?

>points of highest curvature exert the most force on neighboring points - away from the radius of curvature

Minor point of clarification, but you probably knew what I meant. Should read,

>>3623029

This is a notation fail. The tilde signifies an equivalence relation, but they really mean a bijection exists between the sets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection

So what they really meant was that a set A is countable if there exists a bijection (a one-to-one correspondence) from A to the set of positive integers. So for example, the set of even numbers is not equivalent to the set of all positive integers. But the set of even numbers is countable, because there is a bijection from it to the set of positive integers. If we're talking about positive even integers, just divide each element by two to get the set of all positive integers - division by two is the bijection. Make sense?

>>3623529

Integer of theory 1 be interchanged (by equivalency in values) with integer of theory 2 and may be counted as either given a bijection overall of theory. So X=Y may, but x=5 does not y=5.

Integer of theory 1 be interchanged (by equivalency in values) with integer of theory 2 and may be counted as either given a bijection overall of theory. So X=Y may, but x=5 does not y=5.

File: 1629636225924-0.png (167.55 KB, 1000x585, Number-and-Its-Types.png)

File: 1629636225924-1.png (1.7 MB, 1780x901, math1.png)

File: 1629636225924-2.png (1.08 MB, 1780x901, math2.png)

File: 1629636225924-3.png (2 MB, 1780x901, math3.png)

File: 1629636225924-4.png (1.31 MB, 1780x901, math4.png)

If you have a quadratic solution of two integers where X1 and X2 are now a ratio basically. of X1:X2 and a solution for Y of the theory then

that Ratio can be set to a theory measure of IntegerX1:X2/(RangeP)= IntegerY/(RangeP) where RangeP is a number used to make them equal and then Theory1/(RangeP) and Theory2/(RangeP)

now can interchange their Series or Case for X or Y.

Would be some sort of (overdone maybe) bijection for creating a 'interchangable' count for 'Sets between theories'. Where Variables assigned with RangeP can likely count for a Y-Series of other theories.

However it is very end-game math to me. I am just going to call it some sort of 'inclusionary' grab for there to be a y1:y2 ratio that can make correalations between Theories just so I have to say x1:x2/(rangeP)=y1:y2/(rangeP) so I can then say Theory(x-series)=Theory(y-series) in terms of countability.

This is important to me because in having a new/used term for instance, in an activated vector especially. Where Vector 1 and Vector 2 are different, probably use different Theories, use different congruencies of a sampled Matrice. It's all having to be different because Quantum Entanglement. So what it looks like?

The Quantum Expression telling what Numbers to put into a Matrice.

Matrice Shows Congruencies defined by a Quantum Expression

Vector1:Integer Range Defines Blackholes or Not(Based off Selection of Matrice). Vector2:Integer Range Defines Blackholes or Not(based off Selection of Matrice)

The Terms are usually the BlackHoles. They also form Innie-Series and Outie-Series(which are) Innie:MadeByMatterDestruction Outie:MadebyMassiveEnergy

So that it would at its most basic probably look like "V1-Range(P)=["{MatriceCongruency;of Innies + Outies + NotAvailiablesPerCase + SimplyNotListed}] as well as another string for V2

For Quantum Expression or Theory such that Terms are accounted = The Amount of Energy it is.

Then the Amount of Energy = "This much is countable"/(RangeP) for the Next Quantum Expression/Range(P) where QE-Series is proof and written for the case of "This amount of energy" Which is now we now without a Range(P) measure

that Ratio can be set to a theory measure of IntegerX1:X2/(RangeP)= IntegerY/(RangeP) where RangeP is a number used to make them equal and then Theory1/(RangeP) and Theory2/(RangeP)

now can interchange their Series or Case for X or Y.

Would be some sort of (overdone maybe) bijection for creating a 'interchangable' count for 'Sets between theories'. Where Variables assigned with RangeP can likely count for a Y-Series of other theories.

However it is very end-game math to me. I am just going to call it some sort of 'inclusionary' grab for there to be a y1:y2 ratio that can make correalations between Theories just so I have to say x1:x2/(rangeP)=y1:y2/(rangeP) so I can then say Theory(x-series)=Theory(y-series) in terms of countability.

This is important to me because in having a new/used term for instance, in an activated vector especially. Where Vector 1 and Vector 2 are different, probably use different Theories, use different congruencies of a sampled Matrice. It's all having to be different because Quantum Entanglement. So what it looks like?

The Quantum Expression telling what Numbers to put into a Matrice.

Matrice Shows Congruencies defined by a Quantum Expression

Vector1:Integer Range Defines Blackholes or Not(Based off Selection of Matrice). Vector2:Integer Range Defines Blackholes or Not(based off Selection of Matrice)

The Terms are usually the BlackHoles. They also form Innie-Series and Outie-Series(which are) Innie:MadeByMatterDestruction Outie:MadebyMassiveEnergy

So that it would at its most basic probably look like "V1-Range(P)=["{MatriceCongruency;of Innies + Outies + NotAvailiablesPerCase + SimplyNotListed}] as well as another string for V2

For Quantum Expression or Theory such that Terms are accounted = The Amount of Energy it is.

Then the Amount of Energy = "This much is countable"/(RangeP) for the Next Quantum Expression/Range(P) where QE-Series is proof and written for the case of "This amount of energy" Which is now we now without a Range(P) measure

>>3623529

>This is a notation fail.

Never mind. Apparently this is standard notation. I'm just used to seeing the other notation used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinumerosity

>This is a notation fail.

Never mind. Apparently this is standard notation. I'm just used to seeing the other notation used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinumerosity

File: 1629663485801.png (99.04 KB, 1919x629, 2021-08-22-161607_1919x629….png)

new probability distribution function just dropped

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/auq1q0ubyq

it's called the buttplug distribution or the chodal distribution

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/auq1q0ubyq

it's called the buttplug distribution or the chodal distribution

>>3620370

math shitposting is worse than Pol shitposting.

Atleast with Pol most people have an opinion and can join the fray. Instead we have 1 (read : One) Schizophrenic Autistic nutter with 3 personalities talking to him/themselves.

Jeeez.

math shitposting is worse than Pol shitposting.

Atleast with Pol most people have an opinion and can join the fray. Instead we have 1 (read : One) Schizophrenic Autistic nutter with 3 personalities talking to him/themselves.

Jeeez.

>>3623678

Sing-a-Long-everybody !!!

Talking to myself -Speaking to myself - all day looong…

Talking to Myself -Speaking to Myself - Singing this Loonely soooong.

Talking to Myself - Speaking to Myself - No-ooone to Loooove…

Talking to Myself - Speaking to Myself - Im just a lonely Dooove

———————————————————

Insert any tune (mathematically fitting the Octaves) thay you may find appropriate.

Sing-a-Long-everybody !!!

Talking to myself -Speaking to myself - all day looong…

Talking to Myself -Speaking to Myself - Singing this Loonely soooong.

Talking to Myself - Speaking to Myself - No-ooone to Loooove…

Talking to Myself - Speaking to Myself - Im just a lonely Dooove

———————————————————

Insert any tune (mathematically fitting the Octaves) thay you may find appropriate.

>>3623684

the universe is a harmony of many waves, an oscillation in particles and sematically charged in their micro-volts, you see, disrupting that with this fool's errand will not exactly derail what is already in momentum. Though, you will simply have to counter every fact with enough force to take on the entire train, i assume you have this all planned on merely hijinks, however it likely won't be that simple there, one-hit-wonder that you are.

the universe is a harmony of many waves, an oscillation in particles and sematically charged in their micro-volts, you see, disrupting that with this fool's errand will not exactly derail what is already in momentum. Though, you will simply have to counter every fact with enough force to take on the entire train, i assume you have this all planned on merely hijinks, however it likely won't be that simple there, one-hit-wonder that you are.

File: 1629858885904.jpg (64.04 KB, 1280x720, advanced_calculus_problem.jpg)

>>3623662

>>3623684

OMG! This was supposed to be a bully-free nerd zone.

>>3621522

I suspect no one will take a crack at this. It is after all an advanced calculus problem. Says so right in the title of the video I got it from.

https://youtu.be/NiDbbPKrs-0

He doesn't actually give an approximate value in the video, so I took it as a challenge to compute it to ten decimal places myself. If there's any interest, I'll explain how to do this.

>>3620404

This is an excellent lecture btw.

>>3623684

OMG! This was supposed to be a bully-free nerd zone.

>>3621522

I suspect no one will take a crack at this. It is after all an advanced calculus problem. Says so right in the title of the video I got it from.

https://youtu.be/NiDbbPKrs-0

He doesn't actually give an approximate value in the video, so I took it as a challenge to compute it to ten decimal places myself. If there's any interest, I'll explain how to do this.

>>3620404

This is an excellent lecture btw.

>>3623885

i dont even look at this but ive not really any way to relate to other than, my take is incredibly impratical:

"fuel of this arrangement changes to fuel of next arrangement: because of 'it being self catalytic'; then that is measured by what degree (the degree is obviously another instance where the percentage to its shelf life of change by degree) so as to calculate turn over.

That probably makes it floating in someway to its placeholder, such that its delta is measurable (when its flux or in use i.e. being of cost) despite its "pose" of its fuel, the delta remains constant"

The percentage of it would read as if it was a special case in delta among the other poses. So I would say: This delta shows that—a dimension within or of itself is specially oriented–at such that it is arranged in this fashion—Results as to next converted fashion as the solution. That would of course be a 3/2 ratio rewritten to Normal Case -→Special Case and that special case proves only for other 3/2 ratios.

The extra step is writing the sequence of 3/2 for each delta in anyway you want such that -all- percentages are listed as the range; or all the degrees are listed of the range (depending on which you want) (special cases of percentage or degrees).

Then the T has a key for every result. I guess that means T will define the compatible matches for sets of both, where those are the preferred delta to their start-point. Degrees and Percentages will be their own measures so its best to distinguish them unless you are being bland.

Because the Case works for any integer as long as its in key, they are simplified as point in the range. (Anyway they will be evidenced by odd or even integers and which of those work or not due to the OverAll Ratio of 3/2)

So The StartingPoint of [DeltaCase-DeltaKey-Where "Sequence of Integer Ratios" Meet This Degree"] = "3/2" for each Degree of Delta or (range of 360).

So T would be ratio that works with 3/2 for keeping spins correct while starting points in the key are odd or even and I don't remember what ones those are. meh. and you know, probably not right either.

i dont even look at this but ive not really any way to relate to other than, my take is incredibly impratical:

"fuel of this arrangement changes to fuel of next arrangement: because of 'it being self catalytic'; then that is measured by what degree (the degree is obviously another instance where the percentage to its shelf life of change by degree) so as to calculate turn over.

That probably makes it floating in someway to its placeholder, such that its delta is measurable (when its flux or in use i.e. being of cost) despite its "pose" of its fuel, the delta remains constant"

The percentage of it would read as if it was a special case in delta among the other poses. So I would say: This delta shows that—a dimension within or of itself is specially oriented–at such that it is arranged in this fashion—Results as to next converted fashion as the solution. That would of course be a 3/2 ratio rewritten to Normal Case -→Special Case and that special case proves only for other 3/2 ratios.

The extra step is writing the sequence of 3/2 for each delta in anyway you want such that -all- percentages are listed as the range; or all the degrees are listed of the range (depending on which you want) (special cases of percentage or degrees).

Then the T has a key for every result. I guess that means T will define the compatible matches for sets of both, where those are the preferred delta to their start-point. Degrees and Percentages will be their own measures so its best to distinguish them unless you are being bland.

Because the Case works for any integer as long as its in key, they are simplified as point in the range. (Anyway they will be evidenced by odd or even integers and which of those work or not due to the OverAll Ratio of 3/2)

So The StartingPoint of [DeltaCase-DeltaKey-Where "Sequence of Integer Ratios" Meet This Degree"] = "3/2" for each Degree of Delta or (range of 360).

So T would be ratio that works with 3/2 for keeping spins correct while starting points in the key are odd or even and I don't remember what ones those are. meh. and you know, probably not right either.

>>3623885

I know im so wrong about this but i cant help but think the answer is easier than it sounds when t might should be 1/3 or 2/3 in hopes it flips out and matches up together. because I think that is what is basically being hinted at that it would do.

I know im so wrong about this but i cant help but think the answer is easier than it sounds when t might should be 1/3 or 2/3 in hopes it flips out and matches up together. because I think that is what is basically being hinted at that it would do.

File: 1630214405164.png (162.41 KB, 1334x904, 2021-08-29-011808_1334x904….png)

I'm taking a probability theory class this semester and it got me thinking

imagine you have a frequency-modulated sine wave, sin(δx), where δ is a random number between 0 and 1

what is the expected arc length of that sine function between 0 and 2π

I don't know what I expected but I definitely didn't expect the answer to be convergent but I'll be hot damned it does converge, to something around 7.62

not sure if I should show this to my professor. It's absolutely preschool tier compared to the shit he's done but it might get me in his good graces at least

imagine you have a frequency-modulated sine wave, sin(δx), where δ is a random number between 0 and 1

what is the expected arc length of that sine function between 0 and 2π

I don't know what I expected but I definitely didn't expect the answer to be convergent but I'll be hot damned it does converge, to something around 7.62

not sure if I should show this to my professor. It's absolutely preschool tier compared to the shit he's done but it might get me in his good graces at least

>>3624321

it's converging to the value of the arc length of the sin(x) from 0 to 2pi

I don't know what I expected lol

it's converging to the value of the arc length of the sin(x) from 0 to 2pi

I don't know what I expected lol

>>3624327

that is what they do for most wavelengths. >.> at least you have something to show.

currently the best i can do with are very badly defined fields that overlap each other. maybe that has something to do with 2pi too. curves can equal fields…elliptically….you could have a particle that has a fractal range. im pretty sure that is what most photons are.

that is what they do for most wavelengths. >.> at least you have something to show.

currently the best i can do with are very badly defined fields that overlap each other. maybe that has something to do with 2pi too. curves can equal fields…elliptically….you could have a particle that has a fractal range. im pretty sure that is what most photons are.

>>3624335

>i really am interested in that side of things however, it is like a magnum opus of other people's ideas. It's all a big math-soup.

1

My method involves of course a basic hypergraph is very essential in having the steps laid out, the graph is 'warped' usually by a golden measure just because it will be messed with, I just wanted to mention how important the golden measure can be. But It is actually gets algorithmically warped which is so much more complicated. Right?

2

Then there are constraints in the graph accenting the already warped quadrants, this is to simulated spin while keeping a particular value 'locked in place' for the measure.

The constraints look literally like spirals of a delta triangulation. (IDK how to call it that, tear drop spiral with a straight edging down the center just to show its there for each corner. It's so dumb.

3

The next thing I try to keep a quotient or sample quotient of what is being valued. So the quotient takes a field shape if not it can be rewritten hopefully, the field shape is used as an overall pinning for any deep expression it is.

4

Any elements of that are used in a Simulated layer on the graph so they can "be compared" for quantum use. Don't really know how to say it is like the pit of the cherry on the tree branch of yggdrasil. lol.

Then I would define zero and try to write a quantum expression for the polar graph which I am using as a direct comparison. But also that it may require more parts than expected to isometrize, that would be my preferred steps of the second graph. Of course once there's a fourier's model of it that is fully translatable then it's the theory of everything more or less.

>i really am interested in that side of things however, it is like a magnum opus of other people's ideas. It's all a big math-soup.

1

My method involves of course a basic hypergraph is very essential in having the steps laid out, the graph is 'warped' usually by a golden measure just because it will be messed with, I just wanted to mention how important the golden measure can be. But It is actually gets algorithmically warped which is so much more complicated. Right?

2

Then there are constraints in the graph accenting the already warped quadrants, this is to simulated spin while keeping a particular value 'locked in place' for the measure.

The constraints look literally like spirals of a delta triangulation. (IDK how to call it that, tear drop spiral with a straight edging down the center just to show its there for each corner. It's so dumb.

3

The next thing I try to keep a quotient or sample quotient of what is being valued. So the quotient takes a field shape if not it can be rewritten hopefully, the field shape is used as an overall pinning for any deep expression it is.

4

Any elements of that are used in a Simulated layer on the graph so they can "be compared" for quantum use. Don't really know how to say it is like the pit of the cherry on the tree branch of yggdrasil. lol.

Then I would define zero and try to write a quantum expression for the polar graph which I am using as a direct comparison. But also that it may require more parts than expected to isometrize, that would be my preferred steps of the second graph. Of course once there's a fourier's model of it that is fully translatable then it's the theory of everything more or less.

>>3624321

Wait, so for clarification, you're asking what is the average arc length over the interval 0 < x < 2π of sin(δx) if δ is allowed to vary from 0 to 1?

Wait, so for clarification, you're asking what is the average arc length over the interval 0 < x < 2π of sin(δx) if δ is allowed to vary from 0 to 1?

>>3624339

so like when its 50% its 0% u kno, cuz delta varies to it being or not. Then it averages to 50% even still, whether its -true or false-

so like when its 50% its 0% u kno, cuz delta varies to it being or not. Then it averages to 50% even still, whether its -true or false-

>>3624340

i really don't know the secret of that but wouldn't it be because that to the applied function you would count now as the logic dictates its 25% of what the original function is.

i really don't know the secret of that but wouldn't it be because that to the applied function you would count now as the logic dictates its 25% of what the original function is.

>>3624339

>>3624340

>>3624341

not trying to mess with you but. ok, you are measuring 4 arcs to the wave of the function, so, its going to look like a different function when you write in the average for them.

You will have two different waves for any function. Therefore an average function.

You when you use your average functions you can switch them between the next wave you get for extra results.

You will be able to define breaks between arcs to write an overall new function between them all that details new arcs averages. But that does not really show direct data of your originals.

>>3624340

>>3624341

not trying to mess with you but. ok, you are measuring 4 arcs to the wave of the function, so, its going to look like a different function when you write in the average for them.

You will have two different waves for any function. Therefore an average function.

You when you use your average functions you can switch them between the next wave you get for extra results.

You will be able to define breaks between arcs to write an overall new function between them all that details new arcs averages. But that does not really show direct data of your originals.

File: 1630298416594.png (8.26 KB, 1024x129, expectation_of_modulated_s….png)

>>3624321

>>3624327

>imagine you have a frequency-modulated sine wave, sin(δx), where δ is a random number between 0 and 1

>what is the expected arc length of that sine function between 0 and 2π

>it does converge, to something around 7.62

>it's converging to the value of the arc length of the sin(x) from 0 to 2pi

The arc length from 0 to 2π of sin(x) is the maximum. This comes out to about 7.64. This is when δ = 1; whereas the minimum is when δ = 0, which gives an arc length of 2π (about 6.28). So the average arc length (expected value) has to be between the minimum arc length of 6.28 and the maximum of 7.64.

Because δ is a continuous variable, you want to use integration to find the expected arc length. It looks like you were using a summation in Desmos. This is actually a good way to conceptualize the problem. But you have to take the limit as N goes to infinity, which is equivalent to taking a definite integral. Pic related shows how to do this with the resulting expected arc length.

>>3624327

>imagine you have a frequency-modulated sine wave, sin(δx), where δ is a random number between 0 and 1

>what is the expected arc length of that sine function between 0 and 2π

>it does converge, to something around 7.62

>it's converging to the value of the arc length of the sin(x) from 0 to 2pi

The arc length from 0 to 2π of sin(x) is the maximum. This comes out to about 7.64. This is when δ = 1; whereas the minimum is when δ = 0, which gives an arc length of 2π (about 6.28). So the average arc length (expected value) has to be between the minimum arc length of 6.28 and the maximum of 7.64.

Because δ is a continuous variable, you want to use integration to find the expected arc length. It looks like you were using a summation in Desmos. This is actually a good way to conceptualize the problem. But you have to take the limit as N goes to infinity, which is equivalent to taking a definite integral. Pic related shows how to do this with the resulting expected arc length.

>>3624451

the delta is 2pi at its "peak" in a system of not knowing the in betweens, you can assure that 2pi is there when delta is maxed. That means in a dynamo effect where 2pi are shown there is a delta. >.>

There is reason to believe there is a central mean of for any average to consist of a delta. That 1+1=3. But that is also a theoretical number that doesn't exist unless there is a 100% certainty. So it is a phenomenon such like…a quantum vampire that exists in space undetected as a shadow or artifact. It is not something I ever thought was important but now I research more and I feel like a -low energy- can be enough cause refract as delta. In photons the photon refracts as it travels through space. It is different from a simple wave or particle. It shares its spins with other particles.

Or does it? A single low energy delta vibration could be the driving factor behind all photons travelling. That would be a quantum vampire, controlling the relay of atoms using middle man photons that cause them to spin without so much as changing itself.

This makes sense in neutron collection of nuclear reactors too. Why does the rate of neutron collection require modifying in large quantities? Because small quantities are impossible with atomic barriers, their electrons are constantly stabelizing their isotopes, a low energy natural delta cannot change under the required force, therefore that is way a celestial dynamo is so spread out.

the delta is 2pi at its "peak" in a system of not knowing the in betweens, you can assure that 2pi is there when delta is maxed. That means in a dynamo effect where 2pi are shown there is a delta. >.>

There is reason to believe there is a central mean of for any average to consist of a delta. That 1+1=3. But that is also a theoretical number that doesn't exist unless there is a 100% certainty. So it is a phenomenon such like…a quantum vampire that exists in space undetected as a shadow or artifact. It is not something I ever thought was important but now I research more and I feel like a -low energy- can be enough cause refract as delta. In photons the photon refracts as it travels through space. It is different from a simple wave or particle. It shares its spins with other particles.

Or does it? A single low energy delta vibration could be the driving factor behind all photons travelling. That would be a quantum vampire, controlling the relay of atoms using middle man photons that cause them to spin without so much as changing itself.

This makes sense in neutron collection of nuclear reactors too. Why does the rate of neutron collection require modifying in large quantities? Because small quantities are impossible with atomic barriers, their electrons are constantly stabelizing their isotopes, a low energy natural delta cannot change under the required force, therefore that is way a celestial dynamo is so spread out.

>>3624455

this is obviously taking form of a different expression, in which the converging factor is at play. The converging of a delta to a mean or average while leaving open-probability of other measures, the delta works like zero in which it is very dodgy. Though knowing there is a mean-delta to every main, might be the first step in exposing the trick. The trick is in the arcs, even the arcs can be paired to form semi-helix or a short crest or bow. These are important in unmasking the delta as an actor, where it substitutes its form with others. The same with a zero being defined in quantum physics. This is a major step in probability I think is being overlooked here. Where you can "zero in" on the delta using its known forms, you can leap to the conclusion of its average form and the delta-mean it converges to. This changes the functions of course. This changes everything you would use in the work by applying a "lense". Like an "extra-utensial"

this is obviously taking form of a different expression, in which the converging factor is at play. The converging of a delta to a mean or average while leaving open-probability of other measures, the delta works like zero in which it is very dodgy. Though knowing there is a mean-delta to every main, might be the first step in exposing the trick. The trick is in the arcs, even the arcs can be paired to form semi-helix or a short crest or bow. These are important in unmasking the delta as an actor, where it substitutes its form with others. The same with a zero being defined in quantum physics. This is a major step in probability I think is being overlooked here. Where you can "zero in" on the delta using its known forms, you can leap to the conclusion of its average form and the delta-mean it converges to. This changes the functions of course. This changes everything you would use in the work by applying a "lense". Like an "extra-utensial"

File: 1630307952970.png (94.85 KB, 1920x1080, average_arc_length_of_modu….png)

>>3624451

As an explanatory aid, I made a Desmos thing to play around with. Enjoy.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9wnv2skexc

As an explanatory aid, I made a Desmos thing to play around with. Enjoy.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/9wnv2skexc

>>3624457

understanding delta forms is the equivilent of finding dimestore silver when it comes to quantum charting. it has everything to do with predicting zero-sum space-time events correctly using multiple graph sets including quantum and vector graphs, this is important in overlaying those onto an original graph creating a quasi-graph which promptly identifies trends, if you have them charted to show the right trends where, you can quickly predict patterns used by simple mollfiers or peak delta arrangement, in order to pin point zero-limits i.e. quantum origins in which your portals will logically correalate, its simpler than it sounds.

understanding delta forms is the equivilent of finding dimestore silver when it comes to quantum charting. it has everything to do with predicting zero-sum space-time events correctly using multiple graph sets including quantum and vector graphs, this is important in overlaying those onto an original graph creating a quasi-graph which promptly identifies trends, if you have them charted to show the right trends where, you can quickly predict patterns used by simple mollfiers or peak delta arrangement, in order to pin point zero-limits i.e. quantum origins in which your portals will logically correalate, its simpler than it sounds.

File: 1630989506130.png (74.07 KB, 1155x1024, equilateral_triangle.png)

While we're on the topic, here's a neat probability problem. If you divide a line segment into three smaller segments by cutting it at two points randomly spaced along it, what is the probability that the three smaller segments can form a triangle? You don't need calculus for this, but that's how I solved it. There is, however, a more elegant geometric solution using an equilateral triangle theorem.

>>3620370

Stating the blatantly obvious for the blatantly oblivious.

This is a Furry board. its about drawing , mostly erotic, with and/or about creatures that does not exist.

However, do not despair :

https://boards.4channel.org/sci/

Is more up your ally. thanks.

Stating the blatantly obvious for the blatantly oblivious.

This is a Furry board. its about drawing , mostly erotic, with and/or about creatures that does not exist.

However, do not despair :

https://boards.4channel.org/sci/

Is more up your ally. thanks.

>>3625285

Depends if you count rhomboids as triangles, or hyper triangles, but that is going down a path i feel is being more of philosophy and not real geometry. But I would guess its 100%.

If there is a line cut with a rhomboid in it and you don't count them as a hypertriangle THEN its depending on the shake up of them benig there or not. I don't know actually. but probably 1 in 6 chance or something there would be a not be a smaller triangle if you count points, and instead a rhombous for each section. This question probably has some cardboard explanation I didn't get the link for.

Depends if you count rhomboids as triangles, or hyper triangles, but that is going down a path i feel is being more of philosophy and not real geometry. But I would guess its 100%.

If there is a line cut with a rhomboid in it and you don't count them as a hypertriangle THEN its depending on the shake up of them benig there or not. I don't know actually. but probably 1 in 6 chance or something there would be a not be a smaller triangle if you count points, and instead a rhombous for each section. This question probably has some cardboard explanation I didn't get the link for.

File: 1631165501836.gif (5.24 MB, 800x432, a438ce65-b962-4ac6-aaf7-2d….gif)

>when you accidentally shoot spaghetti into a black hole you get more nuetrinotial table.

File: 1632197603746.jpg (339.5 KB, 1717x2733, E_gFbEsXoAYF68l.jpg)

>>3625311

I got banned for posting pic related on /sci/. They said I was a furfag and told me to yiff in Hell. :'(

I got banned for posting pic related on /sci/. They said I was a furfag and told me to yiff in Hell. :'(

>>3626560

the equation was to complicated and surreal for their relentless autism.

there is no way 6+9 will equal 69 in their one-way only mind.

when they see 80085 on the display of the calculator they will never see Boobs like us other boring normies

the equation was to complicated and surreal for their relentless autism.

there is no way 6+9 will equal 69 in their one-way only mind.

when they see 80085 on the display of the calculator they will never see Boobs like us other boring normies

File: 1632529578760.png (156.18 KB, 963x742, mathzzzzzzz.png)

File: 1632729074638.jpg (183.21 KB, 1500x1579, surprised-open-mouth-memeb….jpg)

We have six Deaths, five guys, four plates, three condoms, two girls, and one cup. What is the math behind this?

>>3627161

Simple :

We have six Deaths, five guys, four plates, three condoms, two girls, and one cup. What is the math behind this?

Simple :

I (1 guy out of 5) fought the other guys to death over right to fuck the 2 girls. Hence 4 death now.

One girl was into anal also , hence the 3 condoms.

I was so good they died of pleasure, now we have 6 deaths.

I celebrated with Steak, Dial-a-Kebab, Burger Icecream and Cola. Hence four plates & cup (because only PLEBS eat different food from the same plate)

Problem solved.

Simple :

We have six Deaths, five guys, four plates, three condoms, two girls, and one cup. What is the math behind this?

Simple :

I (1 guy out of 5) fought the other guys to death over right to fuck the 2 girls. Hence 4 death now.

One girl was into anal also , hence the 3 condoms.

I was so good they died of pleasure, now we have 6 deaths.

I celebrated with Steak, Dial-a-Kebab, Burger Icecream and Cola. Hence four plates & cup (because only PLEBS eat different food from the same plate)

Problem solved.

>>3627185

this is highly illogical

that much food suggests you are a fatso.

they died of pleasure, they must be into chubsters not from horror of all the shit piss and blood you spewed everywhere when two girls noticed said landwhale.

one girl into anal hence 3 condoms. you clearly thought about this in line to buy said fattie platter.

you fought four people who clearly were just buying their own food because you are a dumpster zombie.

this is highly illogical

that much food suggests you are a fatso.

they died of pleasure, they must be into chubsters not from horror of all the shit piss and blood you spewed everywhere when two girls noticed said landwhale.

one girl into anal hence 3 condoms. you clearly thought about this in line to buy said fattie platter.

you fought four people who clearly were just buying their own food because you are a dumpster zombie.

File: 1632849534755-0.png (491.45 KB, 6400x6400, 2000_septims_pouch (1).png)

File: 1632849534755-1.png (96.37 KB, 1711x830, septims_folder_of_chests.png)

File: 1632849534755-2.png (131.96 KB, 1711x830, 200,000_septims.png)

>>3627161

What's even disturbing this was a deleted quest in Morrowind. 5 Guys are 1 Dark Elf, 1 High Elf, 1 Redguard, 1 Nord, and 1 Imperial. The 2 girls are 1 Khajiit, and 1 Argonian. One of them have one million Septims with a wagon carrying 5 chests each worth 200,000 of 100 pouches each of them have 2,000. What happens next?

What's even disturbing this was a deleted quest in Morrowind. 5 Guys are 1 Dark Elf, 1 High Elf, 1 Redguard, 1 Nord, and 1 Imperial. The 2 girls are 1 Khajiit, and 1 Argonian. One of them have one million Septims with a wagon carrying 5 chests each worth 200,000 of 100 pouches each of them have 2,000. What happens next?

>>3627241

Hmm. Sorry 3627185 wins.

ZARATRUSTA HAS SPOKEN !

Also…..what is wrong with Fatty Sex ?

Can you imagine the Slap-Slap-Slap of fat quivering flesh hitting upon sweaty, pale , wrinkled fatty buttocks ?

There is nothing better!

Hmm. Sorry 3627185 wins.

ZARATRUSTA HAS SPOKEN !

Also…..what is wrong with Fatty Sex ?

Can you imagine the Slap-Slap-Slap of fat quivering flesh hitting upon sweaty, pale , wrinkled fatty buttocks ?

There is nothing better!

File: 1632875217345-0.jpg (124.61 KB, 1280x1054, da47dfb2abbb37a88c5de952a0….jpg)

File: 1632875217345-1.jpg (126.58 KB, 1180x1280, 52102845afdaa1caf9fe05408b….jpg)

>>3627269

I've been with men, women, mtf, ftm, and all in all some of the best sex ive ever had was going down on a chunky guy. Not obese, just a bit tubby.

Larger women not so much, they get this thing where all their bits just become a fatty axe wound.

I've been with men, women, mtf, ftm, and all in all some of the best sex ive ever had was going down on a chunky guy. Not obese, just a bit tubby.

Larger women not so much, they get this thing where all their bits just become a fatty axe wound.

File: 1632879319787.jpg (93.79 KB, 750x700, 1630902690174.jpg)

>>3627269

>the one pancake that does him over.

Disclaimer for TL;DR*

Obesity is a kink and while health may or may not be concerned in a fantasy universe the threat of underlying heart conditions is very real. Fat people die at higher rates than the average "overwight person who may lift a couple of times a day". The fact is sedantary lifestyles are lethal and a high caloric diet may not be the most ideal situation for someone is not even able to support their own body weight. The situation of being unable to commonly handle short bursts of streneuos activity without heavy respiration is less humorous when coupled with the offchance that they will overheat and become prone to stroke. The reason being that fat is an insulation the body uses for protection yet also burdens the skeleton frame in such a way that the person themselves are susceptible to even more bodily injury than it was naturally intended, and honestly: the exclusion of fat people from societal proceedings can be linked to herd mentality of being simply over vulnerable to enviromental hazards (as well disliked overall for their personal liability in requiring over-excess of supply). Being fat is not only hurtful to the individual on a personal level but also costs those around them in a survival setting; but as well, simply is obstentious in a "natural selection" as when it comes to mates. 1. There is alot of compromise for adapting to this expressed traits exhibited in the obese kink/health image of faciliating sexual arousal. 2. The hormones themselves involved in stimulation further are reduced in their potency and effectivily nullified on a physical level as fat itself is an absorbatant tissue that prevents transmissions of bodily chemicals not limited to enzymes 'that promote intelligence as well as immuno-secure chemicals that protect against disease'. Finally, being chubby while acceptable in most conditions and is infact a developmental perk in adolescence and infancy, actually becomes more of a risk later especially through over eating and having nurtured unhealthy habits in the way of acquiring learned 'health conditions' –such as diabetes and a long list of emotional and mental stress related disorders.

If genetics were able to predict their faults we would technically live in a perfect world without obesity or other mal-adjusted body types that age poorly or are not in a constant panic everytime a piece of pollen touches them.

>the one pancake that does him over.

Disclaimer for TL;DR*

Obesity is a kink and while health may or may not be concerned in a fantasy universe the threat of underlying heart conditions is very real. Fat people die at higher rates than the average "overwight person who may lift a couple of times a day". The fact is sedantary lifestyles are lethal and a high caloric diet may not be the most ideal situation for someone is not even able to support their own body weight. The situation of being unable to commonly handle short bursts of streneuos activity without heavy respiration is less humorous when coupled with the offchance that they will overheat and become prone to stroke. The reason being that fat is an insulation the body uses for protection yet also burdens the skeleton frame in such a way that the person themselves are susceptible to even more bodily injury than it was naturally intended, and honestly: the exclusion of fat people from societal proceedings can be linked to herd mentality of being simply over vulnerable to enviromental hazards (as well disliked overall for their personal liability in requiring over-excess of supply). Being fat is not only hurtful to the individual on a personal level but also costs those around them in a survival setting; but as well, simply is obstentious in a "natural selection" as when it comes to mates. 1. There is alot of compromise for adapting to this expressed traits exhibited in the obese kink/health image of faciliating sexual arousal. 2. The hormones themselves involved in stimulation further are reduced in their potency and effectivily nullified on a physical level as fat itself is an absorbatant tissue that prevents transmissions of bodily chemicals not limited to enzymes 'that promote intelligence as well as immuno-secure chemicals that protect against disease'. Finally, being chubby while acceptable in most conditions and is infact a developmental perk in adolescence and infancy, actually becomes more of a risk later especially through over eating and having nurtured unhealthy habits in the way of acquiring learned 'health conditions' –such as diabetes and a long list of emotional and mental stress related disorders.

If genetics were able to predict their faults we would technically live in a perfect world without obesity or other mal-adjusted body types that age poorly or are not in a constant panic everytime a piece of pollen touches them.

>>3627313

Thats not even tl;dr, thats straight up wall of text.

Good lord do they not teach how to make paragraphs in school anymore? I was able to deal with them giving up on cursive, but for fucks sake.

Thats not even tl;dr, thats straight up wall of text.

Good lord do they not teach how to make paragraphs in school anymore? I was able to deal with them giving up on cursive, but for fucks sake.

File: 1632890377348.png (75.32 KB, 542x616, my mfw when.png)

mfw I realize I can do my probability assignments with karnaugh maps

>>3627313

Ignore the Copy&paste thread from the Schizos.

Also Fatty thread made it into CNN. We are famous now! Almost….if you squint an eye and look at it sideways in the right (poor) light

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/fat-bear-week-katmai-national-park-2021/index.html

Ignore the Copy&paste thread from the Schizos.

Also Fatty thread made it into CNN. We are famous now! Almost….if you squint an eye and look at it sideways in the right (poor) light

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/fat-bear-week-katmai-national-park-2021/index.html

File: 1632973844374.png (2.25 KB, 179x40, 2021-09-29-234919_179x40_s….png)

new diffy queue just dropped

>>3627419

definitely feeling this like probly some reversal type shit

definitely feeling this like probly some reversal type shit

Well I've gone and done. I've put in so much research I literally just invented fractal positronic beam technology. See you all in 2021 time continuum, I'm fucking outa here.

File: 1633978558003.jpg (86.68 KB, 1080x1079, 1633908289481.jpg)

>>3629065

its not really how they normally behave, its more a problem with well how they normally don't behave.

The problem with electrons and photons is that they act differently whether you're actually physically observing them. Doesn't matter if you're using a camera, bare eye, just standing in the room, it just acts totally different depending on the level of observation.

its not really how they normally behave, its more a problem with well how they normally don't behave.

The problem with electrons and photons is that they act differently whether you're actually physically observing them. Doesn't matter if you're using a camera, bare eye, just standing in the room, it just acts totally different depending on the level of observation.

File: 1633994206523.jpg (251.98 KB, 1480x1152, Ayi2q.jpg)

>>3629034

Matter, how can you be both a particle and a wave? Matter, you're drunk.

>>3629036

>>3629040

Wave-particle duality applies to all particles. Fermions (matter like electrons), bosons (force carriers like photons), each has both wave and particle nature.

>>3627419

I solved this, beyond the trivial solution of y=0, but haven't gotten around to making a latex image showing the steps. Is anyone interested? Because there are a lot of steps involved. Also, how did you come up with this differential equation? What does it represent?

Matter, how can you be both a particle and a wave? Matter, you're drunk.

>>3629036

>>3629040

Wave-particle duality applies to all particles. Fermions (matter like electrons), bosons (force carriers like photons), each has both wave and particle nature.

>>3627419

I solved this, beyond the trivial solution of y=0, but haven't gotten around to making a latex image showing the steps. Is anyone interested? Because there are a lot of steps involved. Also, how did you come up with this differential equation? What does it represent?

>>3629070

when dose hose bee so dirty u gotta wrap yo shit twice

when dose hose bee so dirty u gotta wrap yo shit twice

File: 1634007085826.png (245.87 KB, 1280x828, 1280px-Schroedingers_cat_f….png)

>>3629067

I think you responded to the post I deleted and reposted >>3629070 after editing some clunky wording. Sorry for the confusion, everyone else. Anyway,

>The problem with electrons and photons is that they act differently whether you're actually physically observing them.

What you're describing is called the "measurement problem". This is a real mystery, and no one knows for sure. But the decoherence/many worlds explanation makes the most sense to me.

https://youtu.be/kTXTPe3wahc

https://youtu.be/dzKWfw68M5U

https://youtu.be/GlOwJWJWPUs

https://youtu.be/z-syaCoqkZA

I think you responded to the post I deleted and reposted >>3629070 after editing some clunky wording. Sorry for the confusion, everyone else. Anyway,

>The problem with electrons and photons is that they act differently whether you're actually physically observing them.

What you're describing is called the "measurement problem". This is a real mystery, and no one knows for sure. But the decoherence/many worlds explanation makes the most sense to me.

https://youtu.be/kTXTPe3wahc

https://youtu.be/dzKWfw68M5U

https://youtu.be/GlOwJWJWPUs

https://youtu.be/z-syaCoqkZA

>>3629103

not going to watch those youtube links, but seems like we have a similiar mindset on the phenomena.

As much as I hate to just sit back and accept something like a multiverse, there are a lot of things that support it. Just a bunch of random ass things where science is like "you know what, fuck it"

hell even Albert Einstein stated that he regretted ever even looking into quantum physics.

not going to watch those youtube links, but seems like we have a similiar mindset on the phenomena.

As much as I hate to just sit back and accept something like a multiverse, there are a lot of things that support it. Just a bunch of random ass things where science is like "you know what, fuck it"

hell even Albert Einstein stated that he regretted ever even looking into quantum physics.

File: 1634009190046.png (331.27 KB, 617x344, nope.png)

I looked into the quantum void once, and figured I was already insane enough and just made a toaster waffle instead.

>>3629109

virtual reality is gay and our universe is constantly fucked in the butt by the nega-void, therefore god exists but not magic?

virtual reality is gay and our universe is constantly fucked in the butt by the nega-void, therefore god exists but not magic?

>>3629110

Quantum science is akin to alchemy and its gate of truth theory.

Most minds cant grasp what it doesnt want to understand and is easily confused so there being a multiverse confuses anyone with no idea which is what. That being said its easy to become lost in the literal void of it if you gotta ask the question of which ones real and which one matters in the multiverse its simply subjective only the universe that you originate from is what should matter to you anything else is just useless information to you and your own universe. But that doesnt mean that yours is any more important or else there wouldn't be a multiverse and even chaos wouldnt ecist and it would come down to the one question are we the product of a god controling the flow of time into a single prime. Truth is without the multiverse there wouldnt be such a thing as free will and chaos would be nothing more than the byproduct of the natural order..

Truth is energy evolves and changes with the flow of time even when a star explodes it gives way to new worlds at some point or new stars thats why the universe just goes on forever and expands more and more. Truth be told there is no end even when the stars recede those that explode push their energy further inward as well as outward time just means that every time stars explode it takes longer for the energy to reaccumulate to create new systems that being said time is both linear and reoccurring naturally

Quantum science is akin to alchemy and its gate of truth theory.

Most minds cant grasp what it doesnt want to understand and is easily confused so there being a multiverse confuses anyone with no idea which is what. That being said its easy to become lost in the literal void of it if you gotta ask the question of which ones real and which one matters in the multiverse its simply subjective only the universe that you originate from is what should matter to you anything else is just useless information to you and your own universe. But that doesnt mean that yours is any more important or else there wouldn't be a multiverse and even chaos wouldnt ecist and it would come down to the one question are we the product of a god controling the flow of time into a single prime. Truth is without the multiverse there wouldnt be such a thing as free will and chaos would be nothing more than the byproduct of the natural order..

Truth is energy evolves and changes with the flow of time even when a star explodes it gives way to new worlds at some point or new stars thats why the universe just goes on forever and expands more and more. Truth be told there is no end even when the stars recede those that explode push their energy further inward as well as outward time just means that every time stars explode it takes longer for the energy to reaccumulate to create new systems that being said time is both linear and reoccurring naturally

>>3629727

>>3629727

Yes there are multi verses, and string theory sums it all up. But even then there are folds within the multiverses and putting them all together into a single system requires more than a little innovation (it requires a complete reconstruction of the universe).

The change from quantum to matter is not just a switch it IS more like a radio channel that fine tunes several signals into one. Each chord causing more disruption until it inevitably synchronizes.

That is only done through quantum computers which are nothing like basic computer design, they use hyper threading in a way that creates "artificial electricity", and then of course the process is streamlined into a 'virtual mode' which they aim to print and model "via teleportation". (With the cap of technology as it is we are just barely able to with any of that, and simply have to accept we will reach a limit by an artificial 'model').

The actual render of quantum matter takes tons of energy, in fact, it would very probably take at least 3 MegaVolts to do. (Draining alot of power to all be used at once, is also a feat of engineering)

That would however cause enough change in the flux of standard light particles to alter timespace(ie. quantum tunneling). The tunneling then normalizes in our own spacetime hopefully to render the programmed objects through the field it generates.

Projecting the data as a holograph in order to render and compute each particle (in its flux prior to it normalizing)

I am only just able to simulate this on my own computer. There is also more to it than that (in regards to how 'alchemy' also can be incorporated)

>>3629727

Yes there are multi verses, and string theory sums it all up. But even then there are folds within the multiverses and putting them all together into a single system requires more than a little innovation (it requires a complete reconstruction of the universe).

The change from quantum to matter is not just a switch it IS more like a radio channel that fine tunes several signals into one. Each chord causing more disruption until it inevitably synchronizes.

That is only done through quantum computers which are nothing like basic computer design, they use hyper threading in a way that creates "artificial electricity", and then of course the process is streamlined into a 'virtual mode' which they aim to print and model "via teleportation". (With the cap of technology as it is we are just barely able to with any of that, and simply have to accept we will reach a limit by an artificial 'model').

The actual render of quantum matter takes tons of energy, in fact, it would very probably take at least 3 MegaVolts to do. (Draining alot of power to all be used at once, is also a feat of engineering)

That would however cause enough change in the flux of standard light particles to alter timespace(ie. quantum tunneling). The tunneling then normalizes in our own spacetime hopefully to render the programmed objects through the field it generates.

Projecting the data as a holograph in order to render and compute each particle (in its flux prior to it normalizing)

I am only just able to simulate this on my own computer. There is also more to it than that (in regards to how 'alchemy' also can be incorporated)

>>3629727

>>3629740

A true theory requires a working model. The model is left for deliberation among actual 'philosophy' majors and attracts a wider audience. The truth model, from skeptics and devoted 'metaphysicists', leaves alot more questions than answers.

The 'truth' is only through the realization of a concept. In the science I refer to, the truth is the proofing of our 'hypothesis'. It helps better that there is an object in the source reference, such as having a handful of titanium, the weight, its density, and other properties reinforce it as an 'evidential truth'.

Chaos wouldn't exist is also very inquisitive assumption, but in the source of all things there is probability and the dynamic of co-existence, string theory is alot like chaos theory in that we can see a Jacob's ladder type effect stemming as a source. However, there is also zero-point energy which may just simply be a feedback of itself, building up over time via a universal constant (low energy vibration.)

Chaos and zero-point energy are two very real possibilities, giving way to a universal flux through which truth exists or not. (There are tricks in the universe.)

Exploiting those tricks is what alchemy has been intent on proving, and so in turn quantum 'alchemy'. The byproduct may infact leave more to be answered for in its 'existential state', for which the likes of annihilation and virtual-renders will have to substitute as proof for now, but having a 'prime state' as the target (even in all its variants) yield the occasional information, we can progress our model over each 'study or change that is made'.

>>3629740

A true theory requires a working model. The model is left for deliberation among actual 'philosophy' majors and attracts a wider audience. The truth model, from skeptics and devoted 'metaphysicists', leaves alot more questions than answers.

The 'truth' is only through the realization of a concept. In the science I refer to, the truth is the proofing of our 'hypothesis'. It helps better that there is an object in the source reference, such as having a handful of titanium, the weight, its density, and other properties reinforce it as an 'evidential truth'.

Chaos wouldn't exist is also very inquisitive assumption, but in the source of all things there is probability and the dynamic of co-existence, string theory is alot like chaos theory in that we can see a Jacob's ladder type effect stemming as a source. However, there is also zero-point energy which may just simply be a feedback of itself, building up over time via a universal constant (low energy vibration.)

Chaos and zero-point energy are two very real possibilities, giving way to a universal flux through which truth exists or not. (There are tricks in the universe.)

Exploiting those tricks is what alchemy has been intent on proving, and so in turn quantum 'alchemy'. The byproduct may infact leave more to be answered for in its 'existential state', for which the likes of annihilation and virtual-renders will have to substitute as proof for now, but having a 'prime state' as the target (even in all its variants) yield the occasional information, we can progress our model over each 'study or change that is made'.

>>3629741

In other words, the experiment takes place, and we write down the changes.

In our Standard, we alter the conditions in many ways that a new Quantum Model is made.

The quantum model may even be more complex, with many layers. Like a "algorithmic wave or field", with many paramaters that are also changed in and of that layer.

That may represent as well, probability, chaos, and any number of ingredients we want to add in AS formula. (Which makes it fun;if you aren't having 'fun', then that's the 'problem'.)

For instance, the state may fluctuate based on the work that is done to it, but the overall Model is predicted (even though it may change throughout the process) We can predict and offer a guiding hand throughout its changes. And why? Because that is the nature of Alchemy.

For instance to change Titanium into Thorium. But it's never just that simple, even in two steps both require a proceduration of quadratic balances and chemical sequencing.

In the least, the monkey on the back is always there. As scientists we are operating in adhoc to whatever we can prove for in our universe.

In other words, the experiment takes place, and we write down the changes.

In our Standard, we alter the conditions in many ways that a new Quantum Model is made.

The quantum model may even be more complex, with many layers. Like a "algorithmic wave or field", with many paramaters that are also changed in and of that layer.

That may represent as well, probability, chaos, and any number of ingredients we want to add in AS formula. (Which makes it fun;if you aren't having 'fun', then that's the 'problem'.)

For instance, the state may fluctuate based on the work that is done to it, but the overall Model is predicted (even though it may change throughout the process) We can predict and offer a guiding hand throughout its changes. And why? Because that is the nature of Alchemy.

For instance to change Titanium into Thorium. But it's never just that simple, even in two steps both require a proceduration of quadratic balances and chemical sequencing.

In the least, the monkey on the back is always there. As scientists we are operating in adhoc to whatever we can prove for in our universe.

>>3629771

Ouch that's gotta hurt you are telling me you didn't count for the spins of a nuetrino correctly? Cuz honestly all you gotta know is 1/3 is pretty much gonna be the latter of the rest of them. That's for real what I believe I am looking at there.

Everytime I see someone break out into sin-1 and tanh anything I just go blank anyway. There is no reason to continue from there except maybe to specialize your Nuetrino's (as pre up's or post down's etc) before you skip over their spins all together.

Lookin at this example whatever you fill it up with simply is physics nipple twister.

Ouch that's gotta hurt you are telling me you didn't count for the spins of a nuetrino correctly? Cuz honestly all you gotta know is 1/3 is pretty much gonna be the latter of the rest of them. That's for real what I believe I am looking at there.

Everytime I see someone break out into sin-1 and tanh anything I just go blank anyway. There is no reason to continue from there except maybe to specialize your Nuetrino's (as pre up's or post down's etc) before you skip over their spins all together.

Lookin at this example whatever you fill it up with simply is physics nipple twister.

File: 1634586116747-0.png (34.1 KB, 800x988, diffy_q_solu_1.png)

File: 1634586116747-1.png (32 KB, 810x857, diffy_q_solu_2.png)

File: 1634586116747-2.png (25.26 KB, 567x756, diffy_q_solu_3.png)

File: 1634586116747-3.png (16.45 KB, 688x426, diffy_q_solu_4.png)

File: 1634586116747-4.png (15.14 KB, 502x482, diffy_q_solu_5.png)

>>3627419

Finally got around to typing out the solution to this. Clearly a lengthy calculation - a mess of mostly algebra and u-substitutions along with integration by parts and partial fractions. Solving a quadratic even popped up as the first step. Had to break up the calculation into several images, but they're numbered in order.

Finally got around to typing out the solution to this. Clearly a lengthy calculation - a mess of mostly algebra and u-substitutions along with integration by parts and partial fractions. Solving a quadratic even popped up as the first step. Had to break up the calculation into several images, but they're numbered in order.

File: 1634586172293-0.png (33.6 KB, 1416x403, diffy_q_solu_6.png)

File: 1634586172293-1.png (36.91 KB, 1335x548, diffy_q_solu_7.png)

File: 1634586172293-2.png (27.49 KB, 1274x375, diffy_q_solu_8.png)

File: 1634586172293-3.png (12 KB, 1195x302, diffy_q_solu_9.png)

File: 1634586172293-4.png (71.83 KB, 1920x1080, graph_of_y.png)

>>3627419

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/igond1eqsb

Here's a link to the graphs with the solutions selected (same as last attached image). The deselected graphs are the solutions plugged into both sides of the initial differential equation - a visual demonstration that the solutions are correct, as the graphs align.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/igond1eqsb

Here's a link to the graphs with the solutions selected (same as last attached image). The deselected graphs are the solutions plugged into both sides of the initial differential equation - a visual demonstration that the solutions are correct, as the graphs align.

>>3629896

ok cuz, u telling me this is a differential quotient? or is it a quantum register you are making in fundamental quadratics. Anyhow the implication of goal posting begins when 1+1 has to equal 2. That is what is going on there.

ok cuz, u telling me this is a differential quotient? or is it a quantum register you are making in fundamental quadratics. Anyhow the implication of goal posting begins when 1+1 has to equal 2. That is what is going on there.

>>3629896

bro all i need to know is will this start my grill when i press the igniter.

bro all i need to know is will this start my grill when i press the igniter.

File: 1634675197621.jpg (159.86 KB, 1200x1200, fallout-76-a.jpg)

>>3630023

Lots of fuel you say?

Lots of fuel you say?

>>3630020

That problem I solved is known as a differential equation - a first-order nonlinear ordinary differential equation to be more precise. Differential equations describe how things smoothly vary over time or with respect to some other variable(s) other than time, such as distance. For instance, you could have a variable that depends on both distance and time in a partial differential equation.

>>3630022

Bro, I don't know the first thing about your grill. Well, except that it probably uses a piezo igniter. That said, mathematics often finds applications in unexpected places.

That problem I solved is known as a differential equation - a first-order nonlinear ordinary differential equation to be more precise. Differential equations describe how things smoothly vary over time or with respect to some other variable(s) other than time, such as distance. For instance, you could have a variable that depends on both distance and time in a partial differential equation.

>>3630022

Bro, I don't know the first thing about your grill. Well, except that it probably uses a piezo igniter. That said, mathematics often finds applications in unexpected places.

File: 1635630682082.png (5.08 KB, 693x146, functional_inverse_not_rec….png)

I came up with a good follow-up question. This is much easier than solving the actual differential equation. As the file name suggests, I'm referring to the functional inverse, not the multiplicative inverse (reciprocal).

>>3631350

ive just been poking it to get it running

ive just been poking it to get it running

File: 1636427319064-0.jpg (611.9 KB, 1536x2048, 5m073ezmrm241.jpg)

File: 1636427319064-1.jpg (892.87 KB, 2386x2245, o97d50rxjeg11.jpg)

File: 1636427319064-2.png (38.35 KB, 577x649, katia_managan_by_ta_na_dbz….png)

Ever wonder about the shape you sometimes see in coffee mugs? Well, here's the math behind it.

https://youtu.be/fJWnA4j0_ho

https://youtu.be/fJWnA4j0_ho

>>3631350

And as a true Theoretical Math-magician / academic you did not advice OP to just remove the battery from his piezo igniter after each season, since they will leak otherwise and destroy his igniter.

Have I earned a bunny-face in my report-card for this elegant solution ? Or maybe a Mickey….that would be nice.

And as a true Theoretical Math-magician / academic you did not advice OP to just remove the battery from his piezo igniter after each season, since they will leak otherwise and destroy his igniter.

Have I earned a bunny-face in my report-card for this elegant solution ? Or maybe a Mickey….that would be nice.

>>3632097

the battery is not an issue the quantum flux rate to igniting a tesseract due for particle annihilation is and always will be. The casualty of particles is not so easily contained in a vector space when super fluid is "in active states" there is a potential for "leaked" or run off DATA during the emission of particles in a field. The fallout is increased drastically and breaks from its containment space creating a large EMP or heat signature (plasma) which spreads rapidly through its timespace, causing an apocalyptic event obviously, but an apocalyptic event in motion from its source target. (Imagining a moving nuclear tornado that gives no fucks about anything including weather patterns) So kinda poking around with that kind of power-load ball in the air type and less of a brick that shocks you a little bit, is definitely the grill I'm referring to.

the battery is not an issue the quantum flux rate to igniting a tesseract due for particle annihilation is and always will be. The casualty of particles is not so easily contained in a vector space when super fluid is "in active states" there is a potential for "leaked" or run off DATA during the emission of particles in a field. The fallout is increased drastically and breaks from its containment space creating a large EMP or heat signature (plasma) which spreads rapidly through its timespace, causing an apocalyptic event obviously, but an apocalyptic event in motion from its source target. (Imagining a moving nuclear tornado that gives no fucks about anything including weather patterns) So kinda poking around with that kind of power-load ball in the air type and less of a brick that shocks you a little bit, is definitely the grill I'm referring to.

>>3632107

because how else would i be able to cook up dat sweet nuclear pasta.

because how else would i be able to cook up dat sweet nuclear pasta.

File: 1636488738061.png (20.49 KB, 894x293, ScientificStudyPlan(quantu….png)

It's quantum spaghetti Time.

File: 1636490204198.png (195.4 KB, 1024x284, Phase2.png)

The Real End Game.

>>3632107

So you are saying the universe will collapse into a singularity …AGAIN…and reboot through BigBang rev X.XX (since we can never understand nor know how many times this has already happened) and worse : No bunny stamp…… :(

So you are saying the universe will collapse into a singularity …AGAIN…and reboot through BigBang rev X.XX (since we can never understand nor know how many times this has already happened) and worse : No bunny stamp…… :(

>>3632121

If the universe is like a hard drive it will overwrite itself eventually after moving from physical energy to dark matter and polarize like a magnet during entropy it will break up the dark matter too. Causing a schism of it bricking like sticking a magnet to itself once it hits its first casualty. So singularity yes. And then the pieces will go everywhere in a massive light explosion. A big bang makes sense that it will get very dark and quiet then get very bright and deafening.

I am postulating trying to manipulate that into a form of pasta power so I can power a synthetic animatronic ai infused mobile database that can basically count as a clone-able waifu that maybe also teleports between layers of light in order to remodel herself with her own shadow imprint due to some form of nanotechnological prowess {recognizing casualty as it occurs (i.e. lightspeed travel within high energy particle fields or singularity):likely by preprogrammed vector remodeling}

If the universe is like a hard drive it will overwrite itself eventually after moving from physical energy to dark matter and polarize like a magnet during entropy it will break up the dark matter too. Causing a schism of it bricking like sticking a magnet to itself once it hits its first casualty. So singularity yes. And then the pieces will go everywhere in a massive light explosion. A big bang makes sense that it will get very dark and quiet then get very bright and deafening.

I am postulating trying to manipulate that into a form of pasta power so I can power a synthetic animatronic ai infused mobile database that can basically count as a clone-able waifu that maybe also teleports between layers of light in order to remodel herself with her own shadow imprint due to some form of nanotechnological prowess {recognizing casualty as it occurs (i.e. lightspeed travel within high energy particle fields or singularity):likely by preprogrammed vector remodeling}

>>3632149

The best case I have for this is due to a delta wave default of a universal low-energy constant, and recreating that via pasta (as singularity approaches) such that quantum teleportation may be able to port itself;using a tesseract(field container) in which the constant i.e. (residual energy field) is "zapped" to another location.

Once the port is "secured in practice" we can shove the "reactive" pasta-waifu that knows what it is and what its doing where (and where its from etc) through the process.

Therefore avoiding data loss because of the lowenergy buffer rate in casualty and also being capable of encoding its own signatures once its processed in the 'warp'.

The best case I have for this is due to a delta wave default of a universal low-energy constant, and recreating that via pasta (as singularity approaches) such that quantum teleportation may be able to port itself;using a tesseract(field container) in which the constant i.e. (residual energy field) is "zapped" to another location.

Once the port is "secured in practice" we can shove the "reactive" pasta-waifu that knows what it is and what its doing where (and where its from etc) through the process.

Therefore avoiding data loss because of the lowenergy buffer rate in casualty and also being capable of encoding its own signatures once its processed in the 'warp'.

>>3632152

It is basically like splitting water molecules in which also this is done in a vacuum the breaking of the chemical bonds create a flux that eventually will lose out a particle.

Now the water has no where to make itself so then the other particle just dies.

That creates a change in the signature we can trace and apply an encoding to. Porting more molecules into the framework of its locale.

Once the introuduction to more particles takes place the singularity is stabilized (however it requires a casualty or instance of energy and light especially in a vacuum space) So we have to coordinate shooting a photon.

So we have to do everything to make the port either way. ><. We end up zapping it with several ions for it to work so we just plant our own 'vector field' on top of the space we are using. So while "particle fluid" or otherwise energy fields are being "remodeled" we inject an encoding. Usually by a ion buffer(frequency) following a holographic data-print(particles). This primes the field to conduct our programmed-energy and materialize our particles.

We just also use particles and frequency formulas to script together an exact render of the last frameworks (our own organic or inorganic objects:'synethticwaifu'). It works out that the tesseract then deterioates into its surroundings as the process is finalized.

This usually occurs as a pulse or flash so when the introduction is made it normalizes over its own timespace ."Hyper-sonic activity stabilzes as the buffer deterioates" Of course the warp has to be done again per instance it is required.

It is basically like splitting water molecules in which also this is done in a vacuum the breaking of the chemical bonds create a flux that eventually will lose out a particle.

Now the water has no where to make itself so then the other particle just dies.

That creates a change in the signature we can trace and apply an encoding to. Porting more molecules into the framework of its locale.

Once the introuduction to more particles takes place the singularity is stabilized (however it requires a casualty or instance of energy and light especially in a vacuum space) So we have to coordinate shooting a photon.

So we have to do everything to make the port either way. ><. We end up zapping it with several ions for it to work so we just plant our own 'vector field' on top of the space we are using. So while "particle fluid" or otherwise energy fields are being "remodeled" we inject an encoding. Usually by a ion buffer(frequency) following a holographic data-print(particles). This primes the field to conduct our programmed-energy and materialize our particles.

We just also use particles and frequency formulas to script together an exact render of the last frameworks (our own organic or inorganic objects:'synethticwaifu'). It works out that the tesseract then deterioates into its surroundings as the process is finalized.

This usually occurs as a pulse or flash so when the introduction is made it normalizes over its own timespace ."Hyper-sonic activity stabilzes as the buffer deterioates" Of course the warp has to be done again per instance it is required.

>>3632155

Also I should probably mention if you are using quantum telemetry to transfer objects through a virtual tunnel or "straight up teleport things" you can basically pre render your objects to perform the function entirely for the next location.

Which is like "sending a robotic automatic laser printer" to manage its own warp space and recreate the same path for round trip. Then you would have essentially made a star gate. Being that also you can just do about anything from that point.

The basis for manipulating particle flux fields into giant star gates that also can "generate or out-source their own power" so then you can make a space-waifu and have her perform house calls.

Also I should probably mention if you are using quantum telemetry to transfer objects through a virtual tunnel or "straight up teleport things" you can basically pre render your objects to perform the function entirely for the next location.

Which is like "sending a robotic automatic laser printer" to manage its own warp space and recreate the same path for round trip. Then you would have essentially made a star gate. Being that also you can just do about anything from that point.

The basis for manipulating particle flux fields into giant star gates that also can "generate or out-source their own power" so then you can make a space-waifu and have her perform house calls.

Another issue I would like to mention is the case for time travel and quantum computing. That having some sort of encoded system that can more or less…save a world grid to an image state. Then can be reloaded upon command. "System and Source backup."

So having a image processor capable of world generation makes it very real and having a 'jump drive system' that is counterlocked and or also especially crypto-authenticated with a hashsum or key-code would ease the "amount of glitching" between loads. Some fusion of logic and most definitely we can "create a simulation" of the real world. So we can use 'save states.'

That and some fusion of proxy data banking and we could "create artificial time zones" between the image mounts (locally) over a world render. That would effectively then be used as a hypersonic warp (isolated object in space) which would basically be artificial time travel. In that the generated world existed from the save of an original world, it is applied with the 1. Counter-usage and 2. fusion of logic and proxies; that selectable epochs can be navigated via jump drives. "A stage with Image mounting"

Similar to a warp drive except it just happens for you. Of course the standard rules of time travel apply that if you don't have a jump drive you are stuck there and likely if the world image loses it's previous settings there's no going back for you as the source files are expired or something. That is my opinion because i think there would be "accuracy issues" as well with allocating "a spatial pocket for yourself" in which your destination would normalize from a (temporary time-bubble in which your hypersonic etc).

"Arrival via Jumping"

The problem is I believe crypto interferences can occur between normalizations hence why I mention accuracy falloff but if you have a fully mobilized ship it should be fine (because spacetime turbulence might actually be a thing here). I still think its possible under these details.

So having a image processor capable of world generation makes it very real and having a 'jump drive system' that is counterlocked and or also especially crypto-authenticated with a hashsum or key-code would ease the "amount of glitching" between loads. Some fusion of logic and most definitely we can "create a simulation" of the real world. So we can use 'save states.'

That and some fusion of proxy data banking and we could "create artificial time zones" between the image mounts (locally) over a world render. That would effectively then be used as a hypersonic warp (isolated object in space) which would basically be artificial time travel. In that the generated world existed from the save of an original world, it is applied with the 1. Counter-usage and 2. fusion of logic and proxies; that selectable epochs can be navigated via jump drives. "A stage with Image mounting"

Similar to a warp drive except it just happens for you. Of course the standard rules of time travel apply that if you don't have a jump drive you are stuck there and likely if the world image loses it's previous settings there's no going back for you as the source files are expired or something. That is my opinion because i think there would be "accuracy issues" as well with allocating "a spatial pocket for yourself" in which your destination would normalize from a (temporary time-bubble in which your hypersonic etc).

"Arrival via Jumping"

The problem is I believe crypto interferences can occur between normalizations hence why I mention accuracy falloff but if you have a fully mobilized ship it should be fine (because spacetime turbulence might actually be a thing here). I still think its possible under these details.

>>3632209

I had two details in addition.

1.

With warp-to positioning in which you can return from time travelling ports (under a standard warp) for awaiting pick up in time-traveling. A time bridge basically. (incase you get basically stranded you can fly to a sustained time-hub if your service has installed them)

And 2.

The case for multiple time jumps at once in which you arrive a t two destinations or simultaneous multi-zones. Which Is basically the preface for a time bridge existing in a hyper-lock of other time zones. It can monitor its position for isolated ship pick up so having a time-station in range would be useful as long as its outside the control zone of your destination (i.e. space).

But really it's more of an experimental suggestion not a real thing. As problems in multiplicity I know can basically occur. Your services would probably require some sort of travel license.

I don't want to engineer it right now but I feel there was a need for this information.

I had two details in addition.

1.

With warp-to positioning in which you can return from time travelling ports (under a standard warp) for awaiting pick up in time-traveling. A time bridge basically. (incase you get basically stranded you can fly to a sustained time-hub if your service has installed them)

And 2.

The case for multiple time jumps at once in which you arrive a t two destinations or simultaneous multi-zones. Which Is basically the preface for a time bridge existing in a hyper-lock of other time zones. It can monitor its position for isolated ship pick up so having a time-station in range would be useful as long as its outside the control zone of your destination (i.e. space).

But really it's more of an experimental suggestion not a real thing. As problems in multiplicity I know can basically occur. Your services would probably require some sort of travel license.

I don't want to engineer it right now but I feel there was a need for this information.

File: 1636785602491.jpeg (26.15 KB, 450x265, Ryn5wfe.jpeg)

>>3632097

Piezo igniters don't use batteries. They work by converting mechanical energy into electrical energy through the piezoelectric effect. Each contains a tiny spring-loaded hammer that hits a piezoelectric crystal (lead zirconate titanate). When the crystal is compressed, it generates enough voltage to create a spark.

Unfortunately, because your suggestion is based on a misunderstanding of how piezo igniters work, I cannot award you an animal sticker. But because you made an effort, you get a banana sticker. That's the best I can do.

Piezo igniters don't use batteries. They work by converting mechanical energy into electrical energy through the piezoelectric effect. Each contains a tiny spring-loaded hammer that hits a piezoelectric crystal (lead zirconate titanate). When the crystal is compressed, it generates enough voltage to create a spark.

Unfortunately, because your suggestion is based on a misunderstanding of how piezo igniters work, I cannot award you an animal sticker. But because you made an effort, you get a banana sticker. That's the best I can do.

File: 1636785679063-0.jpg (117.16 KB, 850x1150, EqWaDnsUwAA3M8u.jpg)

File: 1636785679063-1.png (17.01 KB, 600x450, dottie.png)

If I asked you for the solution to sin(x) = x, you'd likely have no difficulty providing the correct answer of x = 0. But what if I asked you the same of cos(x) = x? Not so obvious. The answer is approximately 0.7390851332. The solution to cos(x) = x is known as the Dottie number. It's named after a professor of French who noticed that when she punched any number into her calculator and repeatedly pressed the cos button, thereby taking the cosines of the outputs, the value displayed always converged to this constant. Give it a try! If you have a calculator handy, see how many times you have to press cos before all the displayed digits stay the same. Make sure your calculator is in radians. **ALWAYS!**

>>3632649

I believe that is what is referred to as scratch and sniff.

I believe that is what is referred to as scratch and sniff.

>>3632650

Imagine being a zero yet still generating your own base wave.

Imagine being a zero yet still generating your own base wave.

>>3632650

The constant is in a deviation of a measurable weight (why is it .7390851332.) Because the dottie number is a calculatory phenom by which the cos is (a mechanical redux of its ALU board?).

Or is it a dimensional inconsistency between signature and non-point values. I don't think so but the ratio of .739 is interesting because it is near to 1/3 or 1/4 that this might have something to do with particle theory and teetering between quantum states.

That is what always confused me about this number then I realize also probability might filter in now, that any result is a direct feedback of a 'mathematical inertia' (there are cases where math just defaults to unknown proofs; 1. curve instance must always be centered, 2. or a wave is already balanced by frequency in the "section it is not in interference", 3. distortion of space is over "time" constant….4. the cosine is .73.)

Is this because of even more eccentricities, making for a Quantum order of operations. (Something with limits and constraints of zero and its phase helps to define the vector, but only under conditions of its quad)

No real explanation. My pattern seeking brain says this is not a coincidence. It is -quantum probability- more than likely trying to round the corners in undetected ways. Skewing the rules of math to advance subjective truths as 'new theory', the question is not why but WHY Not? >INB4 Prob-tronics and GeoQuantology.

For REAL though, my opinion is this Phenom of (math eccentricities) is all pointing to A-Utopian Big-Bang Scenario where PERFECT was already made possible and what we see in front of US and EXPERIENCE is all rose-tinted glasses i.e. the Particle-Burn Out and Byproduct. We are experiencing the second hand reality. And the real world being the drip.

The constant is in a deviation of a measurable weight (why is it .7390851332.) Because the dottie number is a calculatory phenom by which the cos is (a mechanical redux of its ALU board?).

Or is it a dimensional inconsistency between signature and non-point values. I don't think so but the ratio of .739 is interesting because it is near to 1/3 or 1/4 that this might have something to do with particle theory and teetering between quantum states.

That is what always confused me about this number then I realize also probability might filter in now, that any result is a direct feedback of a 'mathematical inertia' (there are cases where math just defaults to unknown proofs; 1. curve instance must always be centered, 2. or a wave is already balanced by frequency in the "section it is not in interference", 3. distortion of space is over "time" constant….4. the cosine is .73.)

Is this because of even more eccentricities, making for a Quantum order of operations. (Something with limits and constraints of zero and its phase helps to define the vector, but only under conditions of its quad)

No real explanation. My pattern seeking brain says this is not a coincidence. It is -quantum probability- more than likely trying to round the corners in undetected ways. Skewing the rules of math to advance subjective truths as 'new theory', the question is not why but WHY Not? >INB4 Prob-tronics and GeoQuantology.

For REAL though, my opinion is this Phenom of (math eccentricities) is all pointing to A-Utopian Big-Bang Scenario where PERFECT was already made possible and what we see in front of US and EXPERIENCE is all rose-tinted glasses i.e. the Particle-Burn Out and Byproduct. We are experiencing the second hand reality. And the real world being the drip.

File: 1636937480580.jpg (157.33 KB, 1200x900, 8ca6edf35700d45fe5bdaa95a7….jpg)

>>3632820

if only my kaleidiscopes had this capability.

if only my kaleidiscopes had this capability.

File: 1636971217589.jpg (245.89 KB, 1199x628, photos-of-shadows-burned-i….jpg)

Among the phenom that occur in math so to does in particle science, for instance my main concern is the particle entropy being harnessed by geigar readouts. That each particle decay forms a microwave and a photon that in non-occupied space would travel infinitely {can be traced, can be detected upon with simulateneity.) In a confinement such as the LHC device can be used to generate a readout virtual to the absorbed signatures and thereby computational in-housed circuitry that manages the event signal (conforms it to technology). Rendering a calculation of a circuit (preferrably an image), and used as a virtual world render. (The image is encoded and decoded almost directly.) Like if wifi were to scan a house, and allow it virtual access to the smallest granulation of its particle render (per quality).

In the sake of quality. using accuracy checks via a "Computional geigar" and "lasergraph to re-habilate particles" in the enviroment from "random heatdeath". We can simulate the detection of reality itself, the LHC was probably designed to do this in the first place. By harnessing 'sporadic entropy' we can correalate a real world world projection even through basic wifi, almost even with raw sound convection (digital echolocation)(except in space) therefore we use NATURAL Microwaves). And set it to a monitor for real-time propogation. "Tracking events in our tendancy to explore and immerse ourselves". The holograph of the world in a conveyed network. OVERALL: We can begin to change how reality operates for ourselves as a connected society. Step 1."We already do this so just make it more intact."

Step 2. Now our virtual render that has a holograph encoded down to real time, we can operate in simultaneity (this is the whole point) to formulate a nonexistant projection into working real-world order. We can design our real world through virtual direction of particles. Making something that otherwise could not exist in physics. And my best bet is an entropy machine that doses particles to return energy. (Very expensive but free energy) Or you know…beautiful accidents.

File: 1639371144918.png (60.29 KB, 320x528, Computational Demonology.png)

Computational Demonology

Computational Demonology is the science of using maths and algorithms to interact with the fundamental fabric of reality, particularly the borders between universes.

https://quaap.com/D/ComputationalDemonology

Computational Demonology is the science of using maths and algorithms to interact with the fundamental fabric of reality, particularly the borders between universes.

https://quaap.com/D/ComputationalDemonology

File: 1640146254006-0.png (86.76 KB, 986x560, 2021-12-21-222337_986x560_….png)

File: 1640146254006-1.png (77.79 KB, 1551x311, 2021-12-21-223825_1551x311….png)

File: 1640146254006-2.png (79.06 KB, 1289x899, 2021-12-21-230913_1289x899….png)

I'm playing with taylor series as part of an on-going problem I'm trying to solve.

Right now, I'm specifically playing with the "periodicity" of the signs of the taylor polynomial terms and seeing how they affect the resulting function.

For example, I'm starting with one of the most well known taylor series, the one for e^x

= sum((x^n)/(n!)).

expanding the sum, we see every term is positive.

What if we have every even term be negative?

that's simply sum((-1)^n(x^n)/(n!)), which turns out to be e^-x.

every odd term negative turns out to be -e^-x.

All odd terms, predictably, is -e^x.

For simplicity's sake, and because it gets a bit annoying to explicitly describe the sums I want to consider, I will just write out the expansion of the taylor series. For example, y1+y2+y3+y4…yn, where yn is the nth taylor term. What happens when you modify the taylor polynomial of e^x (y1+y2+y3+y4+y5+y6+y7+y8+y9…) to be y1+y2-y3-y4+y5+y6-y7-y8… (every other two terms alternating in sign)?

Not surprisingly, if you know your taylor polynomials, it forms a periodic sinusoidal function. What is surprising (or maybe not so much), is that it's the taylor series for sqrt(2)sin(x-pi/4).

having sign alternate in groups of 3 (y1+y2+y3-y4-y5-y6+y7+y8+y9…) leads to a function that appears similar in form to something like e^x*sin(x)+1

Right now, I'm specifically playing with the "periodicity" of the signs of the taylor polynomial terms and seeing how they affect the resulting function.

For example, I'm starting with one of the most well known taylor series, the one for e^x

= sum((x^n)/(n!)).

expanding the sum, we see every term is positive.

What if we have every even term be negative?

that's simply sum((-1)^n(x^n)/(n!)), which turns out to be e^-x.

every odd term negative turns out to be -e^-x.

All odd terms, predictably, is -e^x.

For simplicity's sake, and because it gets a bit annoying to explicitly describe the sums I want to consider, I will just write out the expansion of the taylor series. For example, y1+y2+y3+y4…yn, where yn is the nth taylor term. What happens when you modify the taylor polynomial of e^x (y1+y2+y3+y4+y5+y6+y7+y8+y9…) to be y1+y2-y3-y4+y5+y6-y7-y8… (every other two terms alternating in sign)?

Not surprisingly, if you know your taylor polynomials, it forms a periodic sinusoidal function. What is surprising (or maybe not so much), is that it's the taylor series for sqrt(2)sin(x-pi/4).

having sign alternate in groups of 3 (y1+y2+y3-y4-y5-y6+y7+y8+y9…) leads to a function that appears similar in form to something like e^x*sin(x)+1

>>3638704

I'll definitely need to script this because there's no chance in hell I'm doing it by hand, but here's a fun one: taylor series of some function, but the sign of a term is decided based on randomly sampling a probability distribution.

I'll definitely need to script this because there's no chance in hell I'm doing it by hand, but here's a fun one: taylor series of some function, but the sign of a term is decided based on randomly sampling a probability distribution.

File: 1640146844282.jpg (36.36 KB, 400x400, 1596775045728.jpg)

2+2= your moms a whore!

File: 1640148852439.png (274.94 KB, 1085x895, 2021-12-21-234732_1085x895….png)

>>3638709

I have opened yet another few cans of worms for myself. I was counting in binary (0000 -> —-) to get the signs right on the combinations of the taylor polynomials and now it has me wondering what kind of shenanigans I can get up to, mapping the taylor polynomial terms to binary values and then applying them to a karnaugh map

I have opened yet another few cans of worms for myself. I was counting in binary (0000 -> —-) to get the signs right on the combinations of the taylor polynomials and now it has me wondering what kind of shenanigans I can get up to, mapping the taylor polynomial terms to binary values and then applying them to a karnaugh map

File: 1640156231547.png (7.29 MB, 5000x5000, 768e4ea1e4a5ad46ca1424f3d4….png)

>>3638704

I wonder how much calories in watts would I burn to walk, swim, fly to point A to B depending how high, low, and far or close it is.

I wonder how much calories in watts would I burn to walk, swim, fly to point A to B depending how high, low, and far or close it is.

File: 1640159203390-0.png (41.4 KB, 524x550, 2021-12-22-024128_524x550_….png)

File: 1640159203390-1.png (41.4 KB, 524x550, 2021-12-22-024128_524x550_….png)

File: 1640159203390-2.png (31.55 KB, 606x503, 2021-12-22-024143_606x503_….png)

File: 1640159203390-3.png (33.34 KB, 504x509, 2021-12-22-024155_504x509_….png)

File: 1640159203390-4.png (56.69 KB, 545x506, 2021-12-22-024210_545x506_….png)

>>3638714

observations so far.

I'm going to introduce more notation, apologies.

We were originally working on the 4th expansion of the taylor polynomial for e^x, so

1+x+x^2/2!+x^3/3!

now we're working on the *family* of polynomials, distinguished by the combinations of signs between them. We can represent the different members by letting 0 = negative, and 1 = positive.

p0 = 0000 = -1 -x -x^2/2! -x^3/3!

p1 = 0001 = -1 -x -x^2/2! +x^3/3!

p2 = 0010 = -1 -x +x^2/2! -x^3/3!

…

p15 = 1111 = 1+x+x^2/2!+x^3/3!

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/an1e6clojx

>1. fundamentally, even though there are 16 distinct functions, they "reduce" to transformations (translations and rotations) of just 2 functions

>2. polynomials whose binary representations are inverses (i.e. 0101 & 1010), are reflected about the x axis w.r.t. to each other (pretty obvious since it's equivalent to factoring out the negative sign). so p0 and p15 are mirrored about the x axis, p1 and p14 are mirrored about the x axis…

>3. these polynomials are pairs that are reflected about the y axis

p0 and p5 (0000 and 0101)

p1 and p4 (0001 and 0100)

p2 and p7 (0010 and 0111)

p3 and p6 (0011 and 0110)

by virtue of 2., the negations of these are y axis reflections of one another

p15 and p10 (1111 and 1010)

…

it's been a year since my boolean algebra/digital systems class so I forget some of the rules. This doesn't strike me as any particular boolean operation. The pattern seems to be (see pic)

>even n: add 5

>odd n: add 3

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/x0lltjnxdy

I'm sure there's a better way to represent this but my brain has shit the bed hard for some reason.

I expanded to 5 terms and plotted the y-axis reflection pairs. There's a definite pattern, enough that I think a recurrence relation/map for any amount of terms could be very easily derived.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jnnl8um4wq

observations so far.

I'm going to introduce more notation, apologies.

We were originally working on the 4th expansion of the taylor polynomial for e^x, so

1+x+x^2/2!+x^3/3!

now we're working on the *family* of polynomials, distinguished by the combinations of signs between them. We can represent the different members by letting 0 = negative, and 1 = positive.

p0 = 0000 = -1 -x -x^2/2! -x^3/3!

p1 = 0001 = -1 -x -x^2/2! +x^3/3!

p2 = 0010 = -1 -x +x^2/2! -x^3/3!

…

p15 = 1111 = 1+x+x^2/2!+x^3/3!

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/an1e6clojx

>1. fundamentally, even though there are 16 distinct functions, they "reduce" to transformations (translations and rotations) of just 2 functions

>2. polynomials whose binary representations are inverses (i.e. 0101 & 1010), are reflected about the x axis w.r.t. to each other (pretty obvious since it's equivalent to factoring out the negative sign). so p0 and p15 are mirrored about the x axis, p1 and p14 are mirrored about the x axis…

>3. these polynomials are pairs that are reflected about the y axis

p0 and p5 (0000 and 0101)

p1 and p4 (0001 and 0100)

p2 and p7 (0010 and 0111)

p3 and p6 (0011 and 0110)

by virtue of 2., the negations of these are y axis reflections of one another

p15 and p10 (1111 and 1010)

…

it's been a year since my boolean algebra/digital systems class so I forget some of the rules. This doesn't strike me as any particular boolean operation. The pattern seems to be (see pic)

>even n: add 5

>odd n: add 3

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/x0lltjnxdy

I'm sure there's a better way to represent this but my brain has shit the bed hard for some reason.

I expanded to 5 terms and plotted the y-axis reflection pairs. There's a definite pattern, enough that I think a recurrence relation/map for any amount of terms could be very easily derived.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jnnl8um4wq

File: 1640169764917-0.png (432.32 KB, 1400x986, infographic-map-mathematic….png)

File: 1640169764917-1.png (82.92 KB, 917x1024, Branches-of-Mathematics-1-….png)

File: 1640169764917-2.png (325.25 KB, 1476x2199, 35a0685e9ff10512459dd241cd….png)

File: 1640169764917-3.jpg (23.63 KB, 451x338, 14-20-52-images.jpg)

File: 1640169764917-4.jpg (631.1 KB, 2048x2048, afc7e-41677252_m.jpg)

File: 1640170390576-0.jpg (15.94 KB, 316x159, download.jpg)

File: 1640170390576-1.jpg (57.31 KB, 688x399, I01-16-quantumfoam.jpg)

File: 1640170390576-2.png (43.92 KB, 1200x913, Impossible_staircase.svg.png)

File: 1640170390576-3.jpg (75.12 KB, 700x700, aea2952fe78009fd9837b801a8….jpg)

File: 1640170390576-4.jpeg (694.63 KB, 3556x2000, j8iWe5b.jpeg)

what if quantum foam and Cosmic microwave background is a loop universe every thing is small but big is small our whole universe is a cell but in a human body as we go farther out it repeats a loop, what is this theory?

File: 1640170624235-0.jpg (26.23 KB, 602x401, main-qimg-8f7ec6c34f137038….jpg)

File: 1640170624235-1.jpg (14.12 KB, 243x207, images.jpg)

Is it called the Nutshell Theory?

>>3638730

This seems repititive as though you would just get the same plot for other functions in a way you're just "clocking" the functions. It seems that way because I don't really know what you are trying to get out other than zero'ing these values into a squared off area. Which is something you can just do having more than one graph at a different heading (cardinal).

This seems repititive as though you would just get the same plot for other functions in a way you're just "clocking" the functions. It seems that way because I don't really know what you are trying to get out other than zero'ing these values into a squared off area. Which is something you can just do having more than one graph at a different heading (cardinal).

>>3638765

>This seems repititive as though you would just get the same plot for other functions in a way you're just "clocking" the functions

that's what I thought too. However, it seems there's even more underlying this than I thought. Only certain classes of function seem to actually have polynomials that are y-axis mirrors of each other.

For example, ln(x+1), e(x), and 1/(1-x) all have a regularly repeating pattern of mirrored polynomials.

But, for some reason, cos(x) does not.

Now it's a question of

>describing the recurrence relation for expansions that do have mirror y polynomials

>finding what makes functions without mirror y polynomials not have mirror y polynomials.

>This seems repititive as though you would just get the same plot for other functions in a way you're just "clocking" the functions

that's what I thought too. However, it seems there's even more underlying this than I thought. Only certain classes of function seem to actually have polynomials that are y-axis mirrors of each other.

For example, ln(x+1), e(x), and 1/(1-x) all have a regularly repeating pattern of mirrored polynomials.

But, for some reason, cos(x) does not.

Now it's a question of

>describing the recurrence relation for expansions that do have mirror y polynomials

>finding what makes functions without mirror y polynomials not have mirror y polynomials.

>>3638769

This is just an opinion but let's say it can apply here:

1.At a glance you are just flipping the graph. The only reason you would need to complicate the graph with the same mapping is that there is an overlay to the function. This is just criss-crossing patterns together.

2.With the functions you are using, their overlay would be the new map on top of the base map. Even if you are making a new heading its basically the same path. (The Direction will always square off into a "small enclosure" because of their cardinal position around the origin even if the origin is designated through their implied function AS not zero.) It's the same thing except on its own page to a graph.

3. See THAT you have made two Squared areas in that design. Those are what I mean by clocking. Because you are using one overlay to another. No matter what it operates on the same frequency. Making a PRIORITY to any path or group of paths is the case for that such as "Degaussing a Monitor" or in math:"Impurities" in Measure.

The margins may represent a warp from one spot to the other where for instance you are "trafficing" rates. Such that SetA may be preferred to SetB in terms of Priority, the BOARD itself will lend favorability to the conditions that the overall Clocking would remain nominal.

This would cause a delay for one set over the other, but not effect the general frequency taking place on the board entirely. Which is good for managing heavier swathes of information in balance WITH "less work-costly" patterns. And has -only really to do with- Trafficing.

This is just an opinion but let's say it can apply here:

1.At a glance you are just flipping the graph. The only reason you would need to complicate the graph with the same mapping is that there is an overlay to the function. This is just criss-crossing patterns together.

2.With the functions you are using, their overlay would be the new map on top of the base map. Even if you are making a new heading its basically the same path. (The Direction will always square off into a "small enclosure" because of their cardinal position around the origin even if the origin is designated through their implied function AS not zero.) It's the same thing except on its own page to a graph.

3. See THAT you have made two Squared areas in that design. Those are what I mean by clocking. Because you are using one overlay to another. No matter what it operates on the same frequency. Making a PRIORITY to any path or group of paths is the case for that such as "Degaussing a Monitor" or in math:"Impurities" in Measure.

The margins may represent a warp from one spot to the other where for instance you are "trafficing" rates. Such that SetA may be preferred to SetB in terms of Priority, the BOARD itself will lend favorability to the conditions that the overall Clocking would remain nominal.

This would cause a delay for one set over the other, but not effect the general frequency taking place on the board entirely. Which is good for managing heavier swathes of information in balance WITH "less work-costly" patterns. And has -only really to do with- Trafficing.

>>3638770

Stacking these together because of inversions and etc. You are making a pattern. Then using the new scene to search for an expanded model. You have information that may lead to new information, but only through their functions/pattern. Finding anything outside those "terms" will likely involve some form of chainbreaking.

Where You will Use Chain breaking on the patterns you have to substitute an answer for the "expanded model" chart.

This would detail alot of things including:

Using that you would have

1.The Best-Guess Answer. The ones we know can work based off what we have. (It can be more than one depending on the length you want to go to with pattern strings)

2. The Unknown Answer (answers we don't have due to lack of information) but we can assume are possible.

3.The Rare Fit Answer (An answer that just exists elsewhere in math as some random polynomial/function)

4.Literally No answer.

5.Additionally an answer that may be considered "a nullset of situations in which things work out"

6.The Incredible Chaos Theory of there being some broken scenario in which it something broken makes it work.

7.A quantum cloud answer.

8:Your data might just be wrong and there is no such expansion. And the pattern is just a sequence.

Stacking these together because of inversions and etc. You are making a pattern. Then using the new scene to search for an expanded model. You have information that may lead to new information, but only through their functions/pattern. Finding anything outside those "terms" will likely involve some form of chainbreaking.

Where You will Use Chain breaking on the patterns you have to substitute an answer for the "expanded model" chart.

This would detail alot of things including:

Using that you would have

1.The Best-Guess Answer. The ones we know can work based off what we have. (It can be more than one depending on the length you want to go to with pattern strings)

2. The Unknown Answer (answers we don't have due to lack of information) but we can assume are possible.

3.The Rare Fit Answer (An answer that just exists elsewhere in math as some random polynomial/function)

4.Literally No answer.

5.Additionally an answer that may be considered "a nullset of situations in which things work out"

6.The Incredible Chaos Theory of there being some broken scenario in which it something broken makes it work.

7.A quantum cloud answer.

8:Your data might just be wrong and there is no such expansion. And the pattern is just a sequence.

>>3638773

9.also i think being half right or

10/having a actual probability drive

are enough to chance for being a good mod

9.also i think being half right or

10/having a actual probability drive

are enough to chance for being a good mod

File: 1640187548287.png (24.92 KB, 632x405, SomeDataBridge-CyclerModul….png)

>>3638775

Basically this would capture and render data to mod it. I guess it could be used as a very backwoods packet scrambler. I dunno what I really was going for other than holding a render for modifying under the above pretenses.

Basically this would capture and render data to mod it. I guess it could be used as a very backwoods packet scrambler. I dunno what I really was going for other than holding a render for modifying under the above pretenses.

>>3638779

Thinking to myself:

>Why would you even do this?

Because it could flip a bit and change everything.

Thinking to myself:

>Why would you even do this?

Because it could flip a bit and change everything.

File: 1641931511932.jpg (272.43 KB, 1215x1392, FB8CzUNXMAIUWn0.jpg)

Imagine there is an infinite line of light bulbs, each numbered (starting with #1) with its own switch controlling it. Initially all the lights are switched off. You perform a procedure that goes like this: first you go through and flip every switch, turning on all the lights. Then you go back to the beginning and flip every other switch starting with light #2. Then you go through flipping every third switch starting with light #3, and so on for all subsequent numbers. After you've completed this infinite procedure, which of the numbered lights are turned on? Why is this?

>>3641839

The point is to be lazy. and the complicated stuff will be reasonable to deal with eventually. Management skills and a 1000 lightbulbs with a little OCD and you might find a shortcut. At least, that is the optimisic POV. The human side tends to bonk things up and make it worse however. Basically if you realize the dependencies on getting one thing done in that mess that matters, you can zero in on it all.

The point is to be lazy. and the complicated stuff will be reasonable to deal with eventually. Management skills and a 1000 lightbulbs with a little OCD and you might find a shortcut. At least, that is the optimisic POV. The human side tends to bonk things up and make it worse however. Basically if you realize the dependencies on getting one thing done in that mess that matters, you can zero in on it all.

File: 1645225570725.gif (121.55 KB, 256x256, Nonsymmetric_velocity_time….gif)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

1 sec equals 10 seconds

1 sec equals 10 minutes

1 sec equals 10 hours

1 sec equals 10 days

1 sec equals 10 weeks

1 sec equals 10 months

1 sec equals 10 years

1 sec equals 10 centuries

1 sec equals 10 millenniums

1 sec equals 10 seconds

1 sec equals 10 minutes

1 sec equals 10 hours

1 sec equals 10 days

1 sec equals 10 weeks

1 sec equals 10 months

1 sec equals 10 years

1 sec equals 10 centuries

1 sec equals 10 millenniums

File: 1645226513438.png (858.95 KB, 960x532, m7htaxtv7w771.png)

I'm taking a course in linear control systems this semester and right now we're learning about state space representations of differential equations

I can feel this is Big Shit. If I can really get my head around the concept and get fluent in how it works, I think I'll be able to make major progress in personal math projects of mine

most specifically, one involving matrices of differential equations

I can feel this is Big Shit. If I can really get my head around the concept and get fluent in how it works, I think I'll be able to make major progress in personal math projects of mine

most specifically, one involving matrices of differential equations

File: 1645245137177.png (77.14 KB, 1865x700, 2022-02-18-233047_1865x700….png)

when you manage to derive the closed form solution of a random power series you shat out, from intuition alone

>>3647640

yeah what about it

>>3647640

yeah what about it

File: 1646286687078-0.png (783.28 KB, 1800x410, teaser.png)

File: 1646286687078-1.jpg (156.83 KB, 1200x546, figure2.jpg)

Well well well, looks like I stumbled across the answer to the question posed in the second post itt. "Repulsive curves" provide the solution. Check out the following resources for details.

https://youtu.be/M0RuBETA2f4

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kmcrane/Projects/RepulsiveCurves/index.html

>>3647640

>echo chamber

Nah, that's the humanities department. This is hard sciences.

https://youtu.be/M0RuBETA2f4

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kmcrane/Projects/RepulsiveCurves/index.html

>>3647640

>echo chamber

Nah, that's the humanities department. This is hard sciences.

>>3647652

1+1 = more water than you really have space for.

1+1 = more water than you really have space for.

>>3649447

integer of substance + (integer of substance) = integer of substance.

But I barely fit all that water into the tank with all that empty space. But its all the same. Let's just call it an echoe chamber despite it being black and white more than what it is.

integer of substance + (integer of substance) = integer of substance.

But I barely fit all that water into the tank with all that empty space. But its all the same. Let's just call it an echoe chamber despite it being black and white more than what it is.

>>3647640

>>3649447

>>3649448

Its complicated ok but lets say you work it out to a base10 you can then set it to a mod10 as the new deritive of the base. There you have the echo chamber scenarios you can make quadratic. They will average as a quotient to the whole dimensional set of XYZ in coordinate fashion. You will have achieved a vector plot doing this likely.

>>3649447

>>3649448

Its complicated ok but lets say you work it out to a base10 you can then set it to a mod10 as the new deritive of the base. There you have the echo chamber scenarios you can make quadratic. They will average as a quotient to the whole dimensional set of XYZ in coordinate fashion. You will have achieved a vector plot doing this likely.

>>3649450

You might not follow me but for me it works out Snug as a bug in an electrical plug.

You might not follow me but for me it works out Snug as a bug in an electrical plug.

>>3649451

and its the same reason why we have trouble touching nucleus without breaking the electron cloud. (surface contact of a nucleus will result in a nuclear heat death) it recognizes any impulse as a reason to cause retroactive half life.

and its the same reason why we have trouble touching nucleus without breaking the electron cloud. (surface contact of a nucleus will result in a nuclear heat death) it recognizes any impulse as a reason to cause retroactive half life.

>>3649454

and also can help trace quantum activity residually in order to predict where heatdeath occurs if you chart it right you will be able to automate causation and probability in quantum mechanics but im just some random dood lol.

and also can help trace quantum activity residually in order to predict where heatdeath occurs if you chart it right you will be able to automate causation and probability in quantum mechanics but im just some random dood lol.

>>3649455

After some deliberation of a real world application you might find it better just to settle for a 3d-Screen system that employs Sonar, maybe interactively, as a vector state imaging might be too advanced for even this type of mathematic, but would be more or less the same use. (VectorState Mapping Involves the unobservable universe)

After some deliberation of a real world application you might find it better just to settle for a 3d-Screen system that employs Sonar, maybe interactively, as a vector state imaging might be too advanced for even this type of mathematic, but would be more or less the same use. (VectorState Mapping Involves the unobservable universe)

File: 1646585856433-0.png (381.38 KB, 750x996, PBF094-Freaking-Vortex.png)

File: 1646585856433-1.png (272.24 KB, 800x1000, PBF-Big_Numbers.png)

>>3638762

Planet Inception?

Planet Inception?

File: 1646586099966-0.jpeg (52.85 KB, 750x538, voodoo-doll-335d2810-6da9….jpeg)

>>3649895

What happens if you pick up yourself up like a voodoo doll?

What happens if you pick up yourself up like a voodoo doll?

File: 1646588525938.png (423.19 KB, 630x500, Xdhfjt.png)

File: 1646588953878.jpg (11.97 KB, 480x360, youcantgoback.jpg)

File: 1647315250402.png (1.32 MB, 1085x1467, 1614300448.ecmajor_koboldp….png)

>still pi day in murica

Happy Pi Day!

Happy Pi Day!

File: 1647317111357.png (834.03 KB, 740x919, 1457971634.brianblackberry….png)

Pi day Challenge:

Imagine you have a floor made from floorboards, each of which runs the full length of the room and each with the same width. If you drop a toothpick with the same length as the width of a floorboard randomly, what is the probability the toothpick will lie across a crack in the floorboards?

Imagine you have a floor made from floorboards, each of which runs the full length of the room and each with the same width. If you drop a toothpick with the same length as the width of a floorboard randomly, what is the probability the toothpick will lie across a crack in the floorboards?

>>3650682

This is interesting because at first you might think this is a constant, but it's grossly changed by the dimensions of the room and how many floor boards you use.

Using three extremes for examples:

1 floor board = 0% chance for the toothpick to land on a crack.

Floor is 1 mile long, and you have two boards (1 line), about 50% chance it crosses the singular crack (only configuration it does not is damn near perfectly parallel anywhere or exactly as far as possibly from the line perpendicular to the line. The odds change at a 1/1 ratio as you rotate the stick. Upwards the room (Y axis) is basically irrelevant with a floor this long.

Now we have another room that's an inch long and two miles wide. Each toothpick is one mile long, and has to fit in an inch. There is one crack. We are now at basically 100% chance it falls on a crack. There are two points (really small vectors in reality) where you can drop the toothpick and not have it cross the line, each at the furthest point possible from the line. The minimal rotation available to the toothpick is basically meaningless.

The trick is to model these extremes in your answer, which I do not have the brain to do, but these three examples illustrate how the answer changes based on your input (board number, X and Y dimensions), which means the answer is an equation and not a definite number. Somebody smarter than me can take it from there.

This is interesting because at first you might think this is a constant, but it's grossly changed by the dimensions of the room and how many floor boards you use.

Using three extremes for examples:

1 floor board = 0% chance for the toothpick to land on a crack.

Floor is 1 mile long, and you have two boards (1 line), about 50% chance it crosses the singular crack (only configuration it does not is damn near perfectly parallel anywhere or exactly as far as possibly from the line perpendicular to the line. The odds change at a 1/1 ratio as you rotate the stick. Upwards the room (Y axis) is basically irrelevant with a floor this long.

Now we have another room that's an inch long and two miles wide. Each toothpick is one mile long, and has to fit in an inch. There is one crack. We are now at basically 100% chance it falls on a crack. There are two points (really small vectors in reality) where you can drop the toothpick and not have it cross the line, each at the furthest point possible from the line. The minimal rotation available to the toothpick is basically meaningless.

The trick is to model these extremes in your answer, which I do not have the brain to do, but these three examples illustrate how the answer changes based on your input (board number, X and Y dimensions), which means the answer is an equation and not a definite number. Somebody smarter than me can take it from there.

>>3650682

the probable chance is 1:100 if you think of a floor board as 99% board and 1% crack.

the probable chance is 1:100 if you think of a floor board as 99% board and 1% crack.

>>3649898

you will magically levitate much to the surprise of the scientific community. Thus end up on the Fire as a Heretic.

Stuff you bum with Marshmallows, think of the children

you will magically levitate much to the surprise of the scientific community. Thus end up on the Fire as a Heretic.

Stuff you bum with Marshmallows, think of the children

File: 1647719271169.jpg (133.75 KB, 1280x720, michael_penn_pi_day.jpg)

>>3650848

Ignore boundary influence - assume the room is infinite if you want. But all that's required to assume is that there are multiple floorboards of equal width to the toothpick length (which was specified), and that the floorboards are at least as long as the toothpick (which wasn't specified). These two conditions imply a single probability that's independent of the dimensions of the room. Do you know how to calculate this probability?

Pi Day video:

https://youtu.be/GToqKcd-yA4

Ignore boundary influence - assume the room is infinite if you want. But all that's required to assume is that there are multiple floorboards of equal width to the toothpick length (which was specified), and that the floorboards are at least as long as the toothpick (which wasn't specified). These two conditions imply a single probability that's independent of the dimensions of the room. Do you know how to calculate this probability?

Pi Day video:

https://youtu.be/GToqKcd-yA4

File: 1647734382532.gif (141.35 KB, 720x228, Pi-unrolled-720.gif)

>>3651206

actually its not 1:100 its .01% because of probable inclusions it simply does not define the answer, in the case for all answers there is always this .01% "oversight".

actually its not 1:100 its .01% because of probable inclusions it simply does not define the answer, in the case for all answers there is always this .01% "oversight".

>>3651206

This is such a dumb thing to mention because you arleady know the quotients are represented that..pi=pi. There are many formats of it included extensions of pi in a pattern.

But no one is saying the oversight. It is an unknown (even if its pi). Or written in some other value. Or variable. 1-2-3…and then just listed as an extension of what it already is. 4. And then 5 which isn't even necessary unless you are going for'Throughput Quantum Symphonium'm a full theory of that PI(1)=PI(2).

To explain we know it is probably that the answer is there. For the case that it occurs under the expression or paradigm. Numbers=Solved or Proof.

But to say we how figure it out iis completely dependent on the end result as well.

Now we have that the oversight occurs. So we say, the standard, or the variable, or the unknown, or the offset-way of saying its known, and then eventually a full quantum theory explaining the parameters and location of a black hole in quantum hyperspace, is basically a token of Pi.

This is such a dumb thing to mention because you arleady know the quotients are represented that..pi=pi. There are many formats of it included extensions of pi in a pattern.

But no one is saying the oversight. It is an unknown (even if its pi). Or written in some other value. Or variable. 1-2-3…and then just listed as an extension of what it already is. 4. And then 5 which isn't even necessary unless you are going for'Throughput Quantum Symphonium'm a full theory of that PI(1)=PI(2).

To explain we know it is probably that the answer is there. For the case that it occurs under the expression or paradigm. Numbers=Solved or Proof.

But to say we how figure it out iis completely dependent on the end result as well.

Now we have that the oversight occurs. So we say, the standard, or the variable, or the unknown, or the offset-way of saying its known, and then eventually a full quantum theory explaining the parameters and location of a black hole in quantum hyperspace, is basically a token of Pi.

>>3651282

There is the preface of the full pi plot, by my own reasoning, we can include substitions and eliminations of its conversions (in any quadratic) (sometimes quartic which is borderline insanity imo and quintic which boils down to what type of caliber do you prefer to take before bed)

That once you have plotted these (and a vector of that being the next iteration) You can then finally begin to convert the correct "undisturbed by the enviroment" measure of what that proof is really by 'term or zero-energy' Because being exact is not enough if you are also "defining it in a space-time" you need to balance that with every step in the pattern…then its still .01% chance it lands at all.

There is the preface of the full pi plot, by my own reasoning, we can include substitions and eliminations of its conversions (in any quadratic) (sometimes quartic which is borderline insanity imo and quintic which boils down to what type of caliber do you prefer to take before bed)

That once you have plotted these (and a vector of that being the next iteration) You can then finally begin to convert the correct "undisturbed by the enviroment" measure of what that proof is really by 'term or zero-energy' Because being exact is not enough if you are also "defining it in a space-time" you need to balance that with every step in the pattern…then its still .01% chance it lands at all.

File: 1647779780755.png (285.97 KB, 852x1908, How to change light waves.png)

>>3651285

I don't feel like explaining this again but this is pretty much how i would try to teach a complete noob about 'certainty'

I don't feel like explaining this again but this is pretty much how i would try to teach a complete noob about 'certainty'

>>3651206

if pi is consider 100% a whole of 1 its 1:100 chance if pi is then considered as a formfactor of quantum casaulty (itself in casuality so therefore 2=2/sqrt2) it is considered more in terms of .01% because there is more inclusion of probability.

if pi is consider 100% a whole of 1 its 1:100 chance if pi is then considered as a formfactor of quantum casaulty (itself in casuality so therefore 2=2/sqrt2) it is considered more in terms of .01% because there is more inclusion of probability.

>>3651294

literally its because you choose to call salt instead salt peter, but there is no real difference until you are trying to redefine something because of a .01% change in observation of when it was ever to begin with.

literally its because you choose to call salt instead salt peter, but there is no real difference until you are trying to redefine something because of a .01% change in observation of when it was ever to begin with.

File: 1647922556186.png (243.26 KB, 1920x1080, weasel_problems.png)

>>3650848

>>3651206

>These two conditions imply a single probability that's independent of the dimensions of the room.

Whoops, this part is wrong. I concluded that the boundary influences would always cancel out, based on absolutely nothing! Well, based on the fact that none of the explanations of this problem I've read mention boundary influences.

That said, the boundary effects*can* cancel out. The probability that a toothpick crosses a crack drops to 0 when the center of the toothpick lands within 1/2 the toothpicks length to a boundary (wall) parallel to the floorboards. But if my calculations are correct, the probability that a toothpick, the center of which lands within 1/2 its length to a wall running *perpendicular* to the floorboards, crosses a crack is approx 0.9259685260. So a rectangular room with parallel walls (wrt the floorboards) which are 0.4540795935 times the length of the perpendicular walls should have boundary effects that cancel out, leaving you with a total probability of a toothpick crossing a crack equal to the probability if there were no walls (infinite room). I'm not accounting for the corners, because I've already complicated the problem enough.

Anyway, the point is you want to ignore boundary influences. Unless you*really* want to overcomplicate things. And you don't need an infinite room, just one with sufficiently large dimensions. **The probability of a toothpick crossing a crack in the large room will be the same as for an infinite room ***if* you discount the instances when a toothpick lands such that its center is within 1/2 the toothpick's length to a wall. This is the probability I was inquiring about in >>3650682 - the probability for a toothpick landing in the bulk of the room, free from the angle-constraining effect of the walls.

>>3651206

>These two conditions imply a single probability that's independent of the dimensions of the room.

Whoops, this part is wrong. I concluded that the boundary influences would always cancel out, based on absolutely nothing! Well, based on the fact that none of the explanations of this problem I've read mention boundary influences.

That said, the boundary effects

Anyway, the point is you want to ignore boundary influences. Unless you

File: 1647922610880.jpg (423.42 KB, 1275x825, viete's_formula.jpg)

Fuck it. The answer is 2/pi, which is approx 0.6366197724. This is a problem in geometric probability from the 1700's, known as Buffon's needle. **This result means you can approximate pi by simply dumping a box of toothpicks on a wooden floor, counting, and then dividing the total number of toothpicks by the number that lie across cracks.** If the floorboards are twice as wide as the toothpicks are long, then your calculation will approximate pi. If the floorboard width and toothpick length are the same as I posed the problem, then you'd need to multiply your result by 2 to get a value approximating pi.

Here's a video showing how to solve Buffon's needle problem two ways - one explanation using calculus and another using just basic probability theory and geometric arguments:

https://youtu.be/szUH1rzwbAw

Here's a video showing how to solve Buffon's needle problem two ways - one explanation using calculus and another using just basic probability theory and geometric arguments:

https://youtu.be/szUH1rzwbAw

>>3651454

I can overcomplicate things by boundary influences being used marginally to the values involved also being used marginal saying that even with 100% chance there is a 0% chance that the toothpick is even there and that the floor lands on itself.

I can overcomplicate things by boundary influences being used marginally to the values involved also being used marginal saying that even with 100% chance there is a 0% chance that the toothpick is even there and that the floor lands on itself.

>>3651464

for instance the toothpick lands perfectly on a zero point…now we have a perfect and undetected polarized non-angle artifact in an immaculate cube…Schroedinger would have a seizure.

for instance the toothpick lands perfectly on a zero point…now we have a perfect and undetected polarized non-angle artifact in an immaculate cube…Schroedinger would have a seizure.

File: 1647944720107.jpeg (27.79 KB, 559x370, 1 UtctSDSNC_wcehC7-NpPNg.jpeg)

Anyways the "anamolous toothpick" reminds me of something happening like this. Where the idea of it disentegrates or "is moved out of sight" and just keeps phasing away everytime it is "defined". Like if you wired a ruperts drop to a trigger and shot it off, it would just be unpredictable. It's pure confetti.

File: 1647959254445.jpg (223.86 KB, 800x800, lee-websLO.jpg)

File: 1648059755834.jpg (308.28 KB, 1560x472, Screen-Shot-2021-11-12-at-….jpg)

I found this amusing. Recently Youtube recommended me these two videos:

https://youtu.be/BbX44YSsQ2I

https://youtu.be/5ddF5e-2SfM

The first shows a*Who Wants to Be a Millionaire* contestant (and the audience too) failing to get a question about which square number is the sum of two smaller square numbers. He consequently loses $15,000. The second video is about how ancient Babylonians understood Pythagorean triples 3,800 years ago.

>>3651454

>0.4540795935

Should be 0.4545079594. No use calculating all those digits if I miscopy them. The exact value I got is pi*Si(pi)/4 - 1, where Si() is the sine integral function. The exact value I got for the probability that, a toothpick which lands with its center within half its length to a wall running perpendicular to the length of the floorboards, also lies across a crack is Si(pi)/2. I'll explain how I got these results if anyone's interested.

>>3651497

That's pretty cool. Sounds trippy. I wonder what the webs in pic related would sound like.

https://youtu.be/BbX44YSsQ2I

https://youtu.be/5ddF5e-2SfM

The first shows a

>>3651454

>0.4540795935

Should be 0.4545079594. No use calculating all those digits if I miscopy them. The exact value I got is pi*Si(pi)/4 - 1, where Si() is the sine integral function. The exact value I got for the probability that, a toothpick which lands with its center within half its length to a wall running perpendicular to the length of the floorboards, also lies across a crack is Si(pi)/2. I'll explain how I got these results if anyone's interested.

>>3651497

That's pretty cool. Sounds trippy. I wonder what the webs in pic related would sound like.

>>3651604

til spider thoughts

weed looks like spider weed version

benzedrine shows vertigo

caffeine webs showing absolute beamer math

salt showing the 9 layers of hell

meth websalso a good study of a brain being hacked.

til spider thoughts

weed looks like spider weed version

benzedrine shows vertigo

caffeine webs showing absolute beamer math

salt showing the 9 layers of hell

meth websalso a good study of a brain being hacked.

File: 1651324763336.jpg (137.08 KB, 786x1342, HJ4fz6l.jpg)

File: 1651326093907.gif (5.37 MB, 620x420, kill it with fire.gif)

>>3655464

I'm pretty sure that inmate posts in this thread regularly.

I'm pretty sure that inmate posts in this thread regularly.

- Tinyboard + vichan 5.1.4 -

Tinyboard Copyright © 2010-2014 Tinyboard Development Group

vichan Copyright © 2012-2018 vichan-devel

All trademarks, copyrights, comments, and images on this page are owned by and are the responsibility of their respective parties.