/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10142269
Are you literally retarded?

kinda, but if you tell me why, i can help solve what ailes ya. like, what was I wrong about?

>>10142269
this looks like what a 7 year old who decided to play pretend as a scientist would draw

>>10142269
Let's see, is this exactly what your theory states? (using latex notation)

[math]
\array{
&& && +\infty &&&&P = Density \; is \\
&& +-+ Density && \big\uparrow && ++-P &&\; energy
\\
& && \searrow && \swarrow &&&approaching
\\
& & -+\infty \longleftarrow&&
\overset{zero}0
&&\longrightarrow +-\infty&&
0
\\
& &&
\nearrow && \nwarrow
\\
&& --+P &&\big\downarrow &&
-+-P \\
&& && -\infty
} [/math]

so that means

[math] \frac{\infty}{0} = nothing \; (nun)[/math]

[math] \frac{0}{\infty} = ALL \; (yon)[/math]

[math] \frac{\infty}{0} \pm \frac{0}{\infty} = Everything [/math]

[math] \mathbf{Karl \; II's \; Theory \; of} [/math]
[math] ^{Ki\hat{m}ble} \; \mathbf{Everything} [/math]

[math] \bigg\lVert{\biggl(\frac{+}{-}/\frac{-}{+}\biggl)}\bigg\rVert = quantum [/math]

[math] \div = complexity [/math]

>>10142269
Is this what schizophrenia looks like?

>>10142269
can you tell me what this means? what does that diagram symbolize?
because mathematically inf/0 = 0 doesn't make sense

Oh I know, I think this is why you're angry.
I didn't include absolutes into the equation.
so if it's everything, it should include every absolute and non-absolutes at the same time.

I think you guys are making things too complicated, it's everything so it needs a broad generalized idea. A basic formula. And I am aware to do that you need a formula that states something in it's opposites infinitely. Which my graph shows but not my formula.

>makes theory of everything
>wants to use it to make stuff cheaper
i believe in you, OP. unlike the greedy cunts in academia jerking each other off with handfuls of grant money, you want to make a difference.

so it must be something like,
|(+/-)/(-/+)|=idk what combination of the two goes here and it's opposites = (+/-)/(-/+)
I just need a symbol for this if it's not already made?

>>10142323
Just check the formalization of the [math] \mathbb{R} [/math] on Proofwiki
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Real_Number/Axioms
This defines the continuum.

Then check the [math] \mathbb{Z} [/math] for numbers in the complex plane.
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Complex_Number/Construction_from_Cayley-Dickson_Construction

Then check the definition of quaternions:
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Quaternion

Now the first three equations just restate the number line.
Quantum mechanics is defined in complex numbers therefore it follows that you can use twice the amount of [math] \pm [/math]. (And it's also reminiscent of bra-ket notation)
But now the complexity definition is just ridiculous (does it mean multiplication over multiplication? or dot over dot?)

so you want vectors and line and points huh?
okay.

sorry, it's the opposite, points are density, vectors are mass lol sry

guys how can you see latex? do I have to install an extension or something? I have 4chanx. Is there a setting on there?

>>10142273
I laughed way too hard.

had previous one incorrect

>>10142312
i love /sci/

corrections

I tried getting peoples input on technology today, but I guess it wasn't replied too enough
-_-'
I was going for application. But oh well, maybe you guys can help.

>>>/g/68504665

>>10142312
jfc the dedication

>>10143029
yeah, i know right :D, I want more people to help with specifics, if it doesn't work with any programming language or format then it's incorrect. and then it'll need to be adjusted accordingly.

>>10143140
Just in case you aren't joking, i want you to realize that you are genuinely mentally ill and NOTHING in the OP is physically meaningful.

>>10143150
just explain exactly what I'm missing or got wrong, it's a very general theory, just go into specifics on how it doesn't apply. Is it inf/0?
i think infinity or any number really is the perfect counter to zero. which is why it's unquantifiably simple. do i need to adjust for that? explain how not or any other problem and then we go from there. please i know it seems weird but i think it's in the right direction. just check the whole thread then decide.

i used divide by 0 because you can never reach zero but always get closer division wise. just check the whole thing. idk what i did wrong but i hope you can help.

>>10143170
It's meaningless. It does't predict any physical phenomena. It's just a bunch of notation that YOU made up. It's "not even wrong"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>10142269
How would this be usable/applicable in any way?

>>10143180
dude, all theories are made up firstly. secondly taking a step back and being more general with a subject or goal can help understand what's wrong with an overall concept. So a very generalized idea of everything can help with pinpointing what you want to work correctly and change in any formula. Much like a work of art, stand back and/or flip the page and see if the overall symmetry looks like shit and stop doing guess work. That's what I want in my formula.

>>10143208
All theories are made up, but they have to have predictive power to be a theory. Yours does not have any power (and the last two lines are straight up gibberish, at that).

What do you mean, is it just because i'm not using punctuation correctly. Like no proper syntax? I just typed like I talk sometimes. Like in run on sentences. Are you trollin me bro ;3 do yoou like me?

Okay, division is like an ultimate modifier when it comes to complexity. Enough of it can multiply and divide to decimals/remainders which is something x - + can't even do combined.

the line above my idea of complexity is possibly quantum, or possibly the complexity that goes into approaching absolute quantum or absolute quantum. Of which I have no idea what symbol it represents, if there even is one.

and + is the complete opposite of division as a modifier. It's answers are always so impossibly finite and simple that it almost feels just like approaching 0 when it comes to it's answers :T

>>10143294
But is division really the ultimate modifier when it comes to complexity? Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_algorithm#Newton%E2%80%93Raphson_division
A division can be calculated in this way only using multiplication and subtraction to the extent that the computational complexity of multiplication is equivalent to that of division up to a multiplicative constant.

sorry about the earlier "do you like me" crap, it taints the conversation. but rather than me reading up specifics on specific types of complexity. Tell me what you learned about it and how it goes against mine. Cuz by the looks of it, it doesn't seem to go against mine. he uses it...alot. Just give me a complexity formula without the use of division or what goes into it. then tell me

I wish all schizophrenics would leave this board

eh, having somewhat of a hive mind ain't bad. The multiple voices in ur head can help give you a lot of alternative perspectives ;D <3 xoxo ...yeah i just like flirting, and I still want to do this but I'm a bit bored.