/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7624001]

Baby logic time

Me and my friend were arguing about picking up a spoon would be A -> B but my argument is that there is either a precursor or ordering that would make C a section of going to pick up the spoon that is only fully realized after the A -> B is complete

So /sci/ is there a C?

[Anonymous No.7624011]

What the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.7624026]

>>7624011
Does the action in A to B imply C

[Anonymous No.7624041]

youre saying that cognissance of the matter relies on a realized condition? i dont think we have the science for that. at least not publicly available.

it pretty much edges on the premise that we function at the sub atomic level and only then perceive here at the human level.


kind of like in mathematical matters of tetration. x^x^x... = 2 cannot equal two until the presumption that sqrt(2) can be shown to delegate a closed event that would represent 2. something such as sqrt2^sqrt2^(sqrt2^2), because as we know sqrt2^2=2.

[Anonymous No.7624065]

>>7624026
What the fuck are A and B?
What the fuck does this have to do with a spoon?

Learn some goddamn English and then come back.

[Anonymous No.7624071]

>>7624001
how about showing a proper example, so people know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.7624073]

>>7624041
since the mathematically represented effort is infinite, as a process, we would need to find a limit to the extent even if the process was infinite. we would apply a "do" function until A -> B occured and the infinite function at some returned by A -> B would return a conformable value at which point we'd derive C.

Depending on the schema the results may incur some deviancies, if it were done in realtime by a "less reliable" form like a human that could possibly drop the spoon and have to pick it up again, but if it were a reliable format with accounting for deviances on a separate level or with a more valued effort afforded to the planning such as an indistractable A you could simply assume C happened because the AI isnt doing A->B its doing all the bits that make an A function and those bits and processes are being tied to B function.

[Anonymous No.7624082]

>>7624065
go away fatso. those are variables.

>>7624073
Indistractable AI

[Anonymous No.7624104]

Isnt this the whole point of a degree?
You can expect A->B if they have C but you can't, or rather won't say, the conditions for A->B to exist unless you have knowlesge of C as the execution condition. That is that a C is explicitly stated and implied as a condition.

How expensive is the process and how scarce are the parts?

[Anonymous No.7624211]

>>7624073
>but if it were a reliable format with accounting for deviances on a separate level or with a more valued effort afforded to the planning such as an indistractable A

So would a good base average for the scalings of A to B connecting a format of B as an indivisible element of the procedure be something along the lines of the 'innate reserved potential' of B as a simplicity of the potential fragmentation of A? And that would leave room for the implied recurrent state of C as something that is connecting the implied recruited freelance state of A as a complicit non-fracturing but instead deviating to the point of infinite acute starting points and make for the foundation of the set of A to be accessible to C before the operation reaches a traceable contraction in C's origin as the set of B?

I think the metaphor would be better noted as picking up a newspaper on the bus

sorry if it's a little dense I can elaborate if it seems a little nonsensical

[Anonymous No.7624360]

>>7624211
>So would a good base average for the scalings of A to B connecting a format of B as an indivisible element of the procedure

>be something along the lines of the 'innate reserved potential' of B as a simplicity of the potential fragmentation of A?

>And that would leave room for the implied recurrent state of C as something that is connecting the implied recruited freelance state of A

>as a complicit non-fracturing but instead deviating to the point of infinite acute starting points

>and make for the foundation of the set of A to be accessible to C before the operation reaches a traceable contraction in C's origin as the set of B?

Bump for conformation

[Anonymous No.7624415]

>>7624211
Assuming I'm understanding you correctly...

Well, that would depend on what you're planning for. If you are picking up the newspaper on the bus so that you can keep up with the days events because the day brings about a conceivable state C through a window possibly alloted profinitely to the set A, then no. We just can't say that we can even read that newspaper. Maybe it's a different city. But if you are doing it to keep up with the weekly cartoons and know which newspaper you've picked up, then yes.

[Anonymous No.7624419]

>>7624415
cont.


If you want to do it as an abidance, you would abide and have been afforded the proper measures to do so as it is to abide. If you wanted to do this as a personal compliance, you might just plan for all of them and rigourously apply the foundations of any of the set of A to its prescribed scope as the Breadth. If you want to do this as a compliance but under terms you see fit for measures beyond the scope you've afforded yourself through the closed terms for A, B and C such as reading the newspaper to know what/where/why/when/how/who, or reading the newspaper to talk to that other person reading that same newspaper, or reading the newspaper because you want to avoid looking at anyone else on the bus but don't want to waste valuable time ( rigor! ) just pretending to read it then maybe it has more to do with the abidance to a conceivable state to something deemably achievable but not necessarily in line with the opportunities that have been set forth for you as an individual. You always got to remember that this does not apply only to you, I think. You could from there go depth heavy and apply the process of conduction to every conceivable person and possible occurance but the point in the matter that isn't so clearly stated is that this is meant for a conducive that lends itself to the "true" nature and so doesn't abide the whim of indiscrepency and instead affords itself the nature of "plasticity" in that it could possibly do the same thing just through reliable measures. Abstraction of the abstraction, so to speak.

Excuse my candor, I'm not very pedantic as a rule, though not implying that I do not oblige rule. It's just that science as a fact is homeomorphic and exclusivity is not the nature of it as a tool for seeking. Whether we've described a science here is not the case of the matter, as stated above, even if it seems to be the "ruling to which it occured".

[Anonymous No.7624441]

Outside of the claims to validity in the form of pure abidance to a law in description rather than in application you couldn't reasonably say that C denotes A. You could posit plausibility in the matter as it weighs against other prime states of the course but you cannot outright claim a course from A to B as the innate reserved potential of the prescribed and aliennated state of C with bearing to any precise rulings on the matter between consignable states of C. C isn't different, to be certain, the facts can be re-applied to account for that BUT the matters of C as they apply to the context, rule out a favorable opinion as the ultimate conjecture leading to a conclusion.

That's just like your opinion, man.

If Asub123124 gets you to B from whence you need make no claims towards A then C couldn't legally account for B as any particular state either. This would not even be a term of confusion, it would simply be found lacking in the level of rhetoric to which the appointed processes can conceivably account for their environment.

Text here, doesn't mean it's been written on paper, kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.7624445]

If P then Q, but if Q then not necessarily P, right?

[Anonymous No.7624470]

>>7624001
I'm the dude that's been replying to you...

Would it make even more sense, and be relevant, if I were to surmise that he dared you to post this here?
Why? Because maybe this thread has been written here before you and he figured someone somewhere else had thought about this and that you would be better suited the analogy of confronting C as a percursor to A->B in which you now have precise definition to any and all terms possible to you as A->B written as an abstraction to the now abstract state that could possibly exist in tetration? Lucky for you, you mentioned the newspaper.

[Anonymous No.7624497]

>>7624001
Not sure if philosophy or schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.7624504]

>>7624415
>>7624419
You're elaborating on a semantic

>>7624441
>Outside of the claims to validity in the form of pure abidance to a law in description rather than in application you couldn't reasonably say that C denotes A.
Here I thought that the mechanics of something was engineering, and hence application, but you raise an interesting point in determining the difference between description and application;
it be said that application is an after the fact of description, now in principle C would be just that, so in the case of the nuance of fragmenting the nature of description you meet application, can C be seen as an altercation in the causality bounds of, as has been recently proven, how the future causes the past but in more of a sectoring of how the application is future and description is present*? Can this be what intent on an elementary scale looks like*?
>*Is this an appropriate approximation of that structure of time? Application as the fallout of description as the potential of what the encumbered point of dilation of potential is available to, that being in reference to the object or context in question?
As to say that A->B->C but where B is omitted causality do to it's exhausted potential states and phases and by such station have a sort of set of all sets standard to it? I mean with this in question what logically constitutes potential?

[Anonymous No.7624598]

>>7624001
Is this a troll thread?

How in the bloody fuck do get a logical implication from picking up a spoon?

That's not even a complete sentence, much less a conditional.

It's not even P -> Q, not even taking C into account at all.

[Anonymous No.7624606]

>>7624598
The action orientated process is what the OP is talking about

[Anonymous No.7624616]

>>7624445
Duh

[Anonymous No.7624966]

Bump

[Anonymous No.7625000]

I'm still here OP but I need to get some food. I have a hand injury and I'm holding off on going to the doctor because I think it's just bruising. And I'm poor. It also makes me very hungry, though, so I want to be fresh when I tackle your next step.

[Anonymous No.7625248]

>>7624504
>You're elaborating on a semantic
I just didn't want those wires to cross. You sound like you're pretty close.

>Can this be what intent on an elementary scale looks like*?
Exactly!

>As to say that A->B->C but where B is [deferred] causality [due] to it's exhausted potential states and phases and by such station have a sort of set of all sets standard to it? I mean with this in question what logically constitutes potential?
This is almost borderline determinism where it is assumed that all states in a super position account for all possibilities and not just as an accruement of "the" state of possibilities with logical inbounding as not occured but rather appointed. While it could be that they are appointed, the implication of potential is not a "promise" but rather a discovery that we do not yet have the appropriate segue for. Like super position states as you "create" them but where we do not have the quantum computers to appoint such heavy calculation to, especially within the particular alloted timeframes this "potential" adheres to. Potential might be equal logical inference where the logical qualifier adapts to means delegated or relegated by and for the terms as they can feasibly "combine", if that makes any or some sense.

>>7624598
I don't bend over to pick up spoons, I wouldn't dream to describe how you pick up your spoons is how you get logical implication. Instead I allow you the privilege of describing it yourself. As you would. He's constructing the framework as the terms to which the events become sustainable or suspended to preclude and include the terms themselves. Think of that as the limits to the "equation". If that doesn't make too much sense, read George Polya's book "Mathematical and Plausible Reasoning: Induction and Analogy".

[Anonymous No.7625288]

>>7625248
dang it, I had a pretty good explanation of schrodingers cat as it applies to this but I suddenly closed my tab or pressed escape. Fuck this, I'll just link you to an earlier write up. If your grasp of the language here is telling of your potential then maybe it'll still make sense to you despite the context.

Here are a few links to post in the same thread:
>>7623441
>>7624626
I think that you can follow through to the rest of the thread from 626 post and get a lot of good info.

[Anonymous No.7625303]

>>7625248
>segue
Had to google it, one of my new fav terms

>determinism
it's a point to wrestle with for sure when B can be considered just able to be dropped in in any point in the equation of action by the means of an almost superficial plot twist of 'oh but you've already done that even before you did it' by the means of 'C' -> D(the action come to fruition) to the point of not quite predicting it, but being able to go about the action without narrating it in the ridiculously minimalist scale that the thought Everette's too.

>... but rather appointed.
Then where would you situate the station of A if not D when there and at that to the point of locality; ... a little off topic but the binding's of gravity are obscurely obtuse when put into a so called flat land of the delegation of mathematics

> ... is not a "promise" but rather a discovery that we do not yet have the appropriate segue for.
hhmmm, well I would argue that A-> {~} ->D could make the case for a form of telekinesis in where the place in question is in suspension of C->B where D is delegating B as a subset of A, this is assuming we're functioning on absolutes and that the segues of existance are functioning compromises of each other and not fracturings
>ikr /x/; but that's what the data says

[Anonymous No.7625304]

All these dubs

[Anonymous No.7625387]

>>7625303
not /x/ at all, this is the kind of thing "simultaneous" time implies.

What you have just tapped into is our notion of "number theory" where each consecutive value denotes some relationship therein to the prior value or values.

A is a 1 which can be minute or expanse as identity.
2 a combination of the efforts described by 1 or B
3 is a prime state, or a particular "do" variant with bindings to the identity state and it's descript place in the combination evaluated prior or C
4 being an expanse case alloted a more concentrated effort made fruitful by the gestures one can purport or portend to the measures described in the identity case to be complicit with the actions described here. Here having all prior notions carry as you described here:
>hhmmm, well I would argue that A-> {~} ->D could make the case for a form of telekinesis in where the place in question is in suspension of C->B where D is delegating B as a subset of A, this is assuming we're functioning on [primes] and that the segues of existance are functioning compromises of each other and not fracturings
just with a slight tinge because, to me anyway, absolutes describes a relationship to a natural state that is being deferred for ease of compartmentalization but not allowing for cases in retrieval as if by some irrational nature this was appointed and not endowed by virtue/grace, considering we are describing segues of existence as functioning compromises..

It isn't paranormal, not really, it's just not glyphic. What can be said about it is that much like the diferential states of some or a product value the order here is described by the means to both transference and continuity.

This is why we use the square root of some value to account for a compacted/compressed state of the same thing and a minimizing measure through which one can portend a similar relationship as a sound "implication".given that the original state is indeed prime. I believe this is the basis to encryption.

[Anonymous No.7625430]

maybe if this thread is here tomorrow we can continue this connection further, perhaps even make it to 10 :)

Maybe by then we'll have gathered enough courage to attempt something beyond anonymous communication

:O

:O

D:

[Anonymous No.7626140]

>>7625387
>number theory
Yeah that came across my mind when I was putting across the original post, but it fits more with the Fibonacci sequence than actually numbers when considering phi into 1 past the initial pairing of 1's where 1 becomes 2 and the 2 becomes 3 etc etc; for example when traveling 'in':; A(2or3or5) -> {C([1] and inner)} -> B(1or2), B makes A plausible but C catches the continuum sequence and makes B a sort of set of C as B itself doesn't carry the sequence any further than it's perception of a single accountment of the sequence allows and as such does C take up the mantle and exacerbate the sequence beyond a single section which makes for D making A essentially a straight line; which is a little off topic... weird to grasp, mind boggling to apply and fun for the whole family when understood, simply: the nature of a tangent in correspondence with scaling integrated entropy

that's all the time I got atm but I'll be back later

[Anonymous No.7626166]

is this thread an elaborate troll what the fuck is going on

[Anonymous No.7626426]

>>7626140
What you said is exactly I thought it fit numbers as a whole much better. You made mention of a 'good base average for the scalings of' and appointed that to the relationship between A to B but, for some reason, and you can fault me for this if you want, it occured to me that in following the continuum A essentially reoccurs over and over, yes? Well in saying that it can be said that B occurs as often as it, just in varying states and the relationship becomes a more formal one where A and B occur for the sake of recurring to C and then from there to D for the "sake" ( I just woke up and haven't eaten, at least my hand doesn't hurt as much today ) of recurring, except that after the first iteration of the value set will notably transmutate towards a dimensionless and whole state and from there we will continue to append the clause with a 'dimensionful' state yet again. If we do one thing over and over, or 'plan' for it, we essentially do not apply it to the dimensions and yet it acts as a base for use in the dimensions. The 5th dimension to me always having been a sort place for "consideration" would make sense in that we use our linear experience in the 4th dimension to plot towards a breadth of more full experience in the 5th, much like in the A -> B relationship except now it's whole A -> D permutations with inclusive 'heady' 'A's. Heady as in lead but not as in compliant. :D So, like, 5 is plausible now and from there we sort of start over, except that in this case moving on to the next number requires the breadth of the 'exercise' to fulfill the conditions that make 6 possible. Where like 1->2 describes a combinatorial nature and 4 is the description of the realm of possibilities in a more full and concentrated combination, cont ->

[Anonymous No.7626445]

>>7626426 ( excuse the almost educational theory approach, I just word it how I learned it )
6 now does the same in its accounting for a combination of fuller efforts except that unlike the combination that occurs with 2 and 4, 6 is a combination of prime states and from there is represented as two similar primes 3 + 3 for the super position in NP Completeness where 2 and 4 were a combination in P Complete. This complete form then used to account for the next prime state under the same ruling that allowed for 5, a dimensionless state as the breadth of the "possible" dimensions contained therein now having a 3rd scoped dimension applied to it.

A simpler explanation:
1 is the full 'thing'
2 is growth in natural accordance as "defined" by 1
3 is the intergration of 2 by conduit or catalyst, so these new dimensioned states are applied to 2 as a dimensionless state
4 is the intergration of the 3 as 3 is now treated as a dimensionless state and 4 applies itself.
5 is 4 as the dimensionless state now applying and internal revue rather than as an outward expansion, like in a tesseract, and as such is used to represent the valued current state to the whole as if it were a consideration to the particular point in time.
6 could then be the combination of the prime states and telling of potential as momentum where the state describes a transmutation between a dimensionless state and a dimensioned one. So instead of aiming for breadth as we have been it now "aims" for depth.

Okay, I should get to work. But before I go, I read your latest post again and it kind of describes the same thing except in geometric proportions where I believe mine is a sort attempt at "real" analysis. But I could be wrong, I'm no mathematician in many senses but rather as a sort of transmutation where I as the dimensioned state link to this dimensionless state in my considerations.

I was wondering yesterday, you think we'll ever talk about anything not mathy/logical ? This is kind of cool.

[Anonymous No.7626448]

>>7626426
fuck off you schizophrenic windbag

[Anonymous No.7626457]

>>7626448

[Anonymous No.7626465]

>>7624073
>>7624211
>>7624415
>>7624419
>>7624441
>>7624504
>>7625248
>>7625288
>>7625303
>>7625387
>>7626140
>>7626426
>>7626445

holy shit you stupid ass schizophrenic popsci faggots are really triggering me, seriously shut the FUCK up and go study

[Anonymous No.7626467]

>>7626445
btw I was just trying to make a joke at the end where I compared myself to a dimensioned state. I did not mean to come off as "heady". I simply thought it would be interesting to compound the relationship we describe here as something a bit beyond the whole autonomous nature of most people, whereby they refuse to conduct themselves outside of the breadth of "proper communication", such as >>7626448
has shown.

[Anonymous No.7626473]

>>7626465

[Anonymous No.7626476]

>>7626467
>wah don't make fun of me, that's not proper communication!
fuck off you schizophrenic windbag

[Anonymous No.7626481]

>>7626473
what the fuck is this shit supposed to be? stop shitting up the board

[Anonymous No.7626500]

>>7626473
Who is this fluid druid?

[Anonymous No.7626515]

>>7626476
So how's your dad?

[Anonymous No.7626523]

>>7624001
>doesnt ever define what a and b are
>retarded example
>rest of post is gibberish
I really dont even know what youre getting at here, why dont you try again

[Anonymous No.7627202]

>>7626523
Those variables are what we have been talking about the whole thread? Did you even let the elementary points of the structure be considered by the aspect that is your incurrence?


>>7626515
lol'd

>>7626426
>>7626445
>as the dimensioned state link to this dimensionless state in my considerations.
I'll take Holograms Reinterationing of Scaling Spacial Relation for 800 Alex; your dimensionless self is an individually propelled thing of the implied reconstitution of the internal redescriptive state of being still or commonly connect by the same source

>>7626426
>... that in following the continuum A essentially reoccurs over and over, yes?
Well it has more innate description as C after B, being as a whole point: A; by the grounds of any given object having equal baring over another {object} has concurrence to another kind of A point that is internal to the bounds of what can be seen as the continued elaboration of what the conditions of 'relativity' are as they scale into and even concur wholly with what the considerations of definitions are from the same A->D, making our fifth dimension: E state in terms of conceptual entropy reaching past the 'perspective' of a condition as an allocation of further enrichment of the least possible measurement of a given moment, which is best said as a ripple travelling equally around a bubble to the point where there reaches a flat point and the secondary dip, as the force of the rendition; reaches the C state

more to come....

[Anonymous No.7627210]

>>7627202
>...state of being still or commonly connect by the same source

..state of being still or commonly connected* by the same source

I shouldve proof read that Xo

But the last bit is reasonably sound after you take it apart

[Anonymous No.7627217]

I'm really having trouble understanding how people like this can exist. Do they just enjoy the feeling of seeming like they're intelligent, even though literally no one thinks so? Is it a ruse? Is it just one guy samefagging? Is it a real life mental illness? So many questions, so few answers.

[Anonymous No.7627221]

>>7627202
>>7627210
>more to come

please no, stop, it's painful to see

[Anonymous No.7627252]

>>7626426
>...will notably transmutate towards a dimensionless and whole state...
D is a future presence most notable as not E ( > >>7627202), which is our stable variable, but what can be reflected on as a 6th dimensional state of F, ....

>... and from there we will continue to append the clause with a 'dimensionful' state yet again.
and as F denotes there are the potential insets in the system that offset B as a reliable source of A, this can also be intuitively noted as the further potentials of {what is as C} given that we reside as the same relativity baring 'objects' otherwise we end up with trade and more potential energy is generated which can be seen as a 7th dimensional concurrence...

>.... If we do one thing over and over, or 'plan' for it, we essentially do not apply it to the dimensions and yet it acts as a base for use in the dimensions.
as G where A is more prominent than E and makes the perception that breaks the constancy of G, now this alone says we are primarily will orientated but only by the dual rendition between what is holding us to not so much eventuality as inclusion of diversity driven systematics scaling to the application of C,E a subject of A,F as a climax of G,D as concurring with E acting with A of what can be seen as the orientation of G

Am I getting this right because this really looks like some dope data on the analyzation of continuum

more to come....

[Anonymous No.7627272]

>>7626426
>Heady as in lead but not as in compliant. :D
I like what you're saying here, it's similar to rightful ownership and gives baring to what you said before this as what is already primed and set as an availability to what I was referring to in regards to the rendition so far as how the insubstantial of D as a compartmental but having the as mentioned state of C applied to it as a pattern of formal logic and have its situation outlined in F making D look like it stemmed from A, attitude is altitude as I've heard the saying go

This all reminds me of a tetrahedrons structure as referable to the 'collapse' that happens when presenting a side covering a vector or side that was, or can be considered rather, the original rendition for why memory as an objective came into balance

[Anonymous No.7627332]

>>7626445
>1 is the full 'thing'
>2 is growth in natural accordance as "defined" by 1
>3 is the intergration of 2 by conduit or catalyst, so these new dimensioned states are applied to 2 as a dimensionless state
>4 is the intergration of the 3 as 3 is now treated as a dimensionless state and 4 applies itself.
>5 is 4 as the dimensionless state now applying and internal revue rather than as an outward expansion, like in a tesseract, and as such is used to represent the valued current state to the whole as if it were a consideration to the particular point in time.
You're going way to far into detail on things that are much earlier and with omission which is not allowable when wanting to have a serious discussion about this

1: 1 has no bounderies, it is not defined
2: Growth as bound by one is indefinite to the point of expansion beyond itself: Ultimate Shrink, you now have 2 dimensions; they are not bound to each other in any way except they're sexually confused about who's in who

3: The catalyst is simply the 'swing' factor of 2's portion, accompanied by, here we go, that 0.00...01/2 chance that they meet eachother at a point and become the tips of an, annnd here we go again, 0.00...01 degree, which is compatibly noted as being infinitely far apart and infinitely close together as being subject to a reductionist principle of being basically 1, as a concept that can delegate anything on either sides of 0 making either A: 2 sides, B: 1 point, or C: A horizontal width of a radius worth of a spike into a 'whole', but you can just go ahead and torus all three and even more fractal reorientations into a pattern of a torus and have you...

>.. breadth as we have been it now "aims" for depth.
6th; where the peruantions of the impressions on the sides of the torus mingle, exchange and dialate as they approach a potential fulcrums of blending trading and overall densification of the already contracting and expanding nature of fractals that's occuring

[Anonymous No.7627336]

>>7627332
>... 6th; where the peruantions of the impressions on the side

Permutations*

[Anonymous No.7627338]

>>7627252
>>7627272
>>7627332
do you have a PhD in shitposting? this is really impressive and making me VERY uncomfortable right now

[Anonymous No.7627339]

>>7626445
> >>7627332
Sorry to tear you up a little there but I like precision and I think about this stuff alot

[Anonymous No.7627344]

>>7627338

[Anonymous No.7627647]

>>7627338
>found this being cited in the reference sheets

[Anonymous No.7627755]

>>7627338
no it's just string theory on in a conceptual rendition as apposed to an analogy form or as can be said is concept to knowledge as such is to such as such in such a way that it can be such renditioned in an allegory of intuition to wisdom as intuition being conceptual and knowledge being based as wisdom...

>>7627221
>>7627217
>>7626523
>>7626476
>>7626448
>>7624497

.... do any of you have a notable diagrams we can elaborate on? Otherwise it kinnnda looks like you're just shit posting

[Anonymous No.7627935]

just woke up again, ill get to responding a little later, i think im going to have to really pull apart your text on notepad to make sure im getting it right

[Guess what namefag I am and ge(...) No.7628199]

>>7627935
Here I'll outline the base line

A is innate reserved potential

B is reaction

C is the precursor to constant

D is the constant as A as...

E is the where the state of C is the constant of (F) but where C is a condition of D as compromising A as an individual rendition of a body of some such, but can also be seen as just A through D with the conditions of (G)

F has the conditions that if A then B but this is conclusion with D as a relative or whole body that is effecting B from A which is where C comes in as a trigger mechanism, as opposed to an inceptional in a dependence of D, as is supplied by the stability of E as a force that is providing the as for mentioned metaphor of the 'rippled', where the head of the ripple causes a C->A, by the means of probability allocating itself it the least common factor, this last bit holds true up until behavior at least, but that's where (G) comes in

G is as the conditions of C where the constant is E but the acting body is fully B; if you really think hard 'bout it, is an explosion without fission...
...and in my Opinion is one of the conditions that effects sub-elementary particles concocting of emotions, just with the ripple effect of E in mind


It might be easier to think of these as dimensions 1 through 7 and it should be noted that these are constructed as a very 'umbrella' approach to the theatrics and broadly situatable applications of M. Theory in everyday life

Also, kudos to poster for sticking in there, I can get really anal and appreciate your company in this matter

[Anonymous No.7628635]

Im still going at it but you mean kind of like enumeration in programming?

class A is now in "Aggro" or the whole program is "Paused".

[Anonymous No.7628782]

>>7628635
I think I'm missing what you're trying to say?
All the systems must be active for the process to be shall we say syntactic, as in to say occurring in that order, but the conditions of the dimensions more postpone their earlier counter parts into an ever elaborating kaleidoscope on the sets of A->(C)B/A(C)->B? ... ?

oh sorry I just got the programming allegory
Well the basis for the provocation can be as simply noted as gravity or charge depending on the constants of F(>>7627252)

But as to say what the 'paused' is... well I was actually talking about this yesterday but it's not that relevant to trying to elaborate on the point of how the construction operates

[Anonymous No.7629654]

OP you've put together a pretty solid rendition of string theory with your accomplice there

kind of impressed

[Anonymous No.7629872]

I feel like I have witnessed the birth of new level of shitposting.
This is beyond anything I have ever seen... Even beyond mental illness. It's literally pages of words that make no sense whatsoever, but from a distance it seems that it contains information. It's beautiful.

[Anonymous No.7630249]

>>7629872
Honestly though, isn't it all just masturbation?

[Anonymous No.7631436]

I think I've caught up to you, to be honest I didn't try for two days because I was stuck trying to deal with some home issues that I'm sure you don't care about or can full well discriminate to be proliferate, though not assuming it to be your nature but rather therefore as a semblance to the oeill du prince and not the unafforded port au prince precipice. I have been thinking on how heavy the cosmos' joke lies on me in a rut when I've notably been planning towards a more complete state of the construction yet for some reason I can't help but feel that maybe I'm a little too involved in the matter as a full and indiscriminate matter not involving any informal litigates towards a ceonceivable statute as due process. But I may just be meandering after eating some week old imitation crab, and of course the ill effects of taking someone's motif at face value. Especially in matters of logic.

Reading back now. Thanks for mulling this over with me as an indulgence, even though I kind of jumped into your thread and started on. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone willing to attempt discussion on such a matter if not through some obfuscative technique. I also want to say that I haven't caught a hint of your "anal" attitude, if it even is, I just kind of feel you might be a bit dejected towards your goal if indeed it is a scholastic effort, in which case you have none, or if coming along to the point it's become just to make sure we see eye to eye..

Sorry about this quick wording, I was writing up a reply earlier and suddenly came back to the window to find that everything had been deleted somehow. Really pissed me off.

[Anonymous No.7631439]

Anyway, to continue...

>I'll take Holograms Reinterationing of Scaling Spatial Relation for 800 Alex ( What is "Photographic memory now means what?" ); your dimensionless self is an individually propelled thing of the implied reconstitution of the internal redescriptive state of being still or commonly connect by the same source
This...was fucking beautiful. Finally, somebody else said it. ;) Is what I would say if I didn't feel it implied a more henceforth effort at a logistical tenure through which one tended to seeking assylum from discrimination, or very loud pops about the ear. Both in the natural sense and further in the more tongue in cheek implication of what I presumably have posited or was hinted to be your own intent. It's strange that the bearing holds so yet you had only chosen the prescribed oeill du prince and not the more angular precipice to the point du prince.

Guy, you're blowing my mind. I'd been wondering for some time WHY I'd been struggling with myself on matters to do with trusting people, and less broadly -to do with special considerations in real time- even seemingly nice people that carry the burden of a very specific kind that I don't want to relate here for gesture bearing as inclination and motif unto which the claims made are the claims undone and its conjugate affordance of reinteruation unavailed by the prospects of separate "anxieties" as they breach the surface of the "mind".

[Anonymous No.7631443]

This fifth dimension then occurs as a recollect point availed only by the merits of intent whether it were outflux or influx, I hope the order of the two doesn't precipice the means of "retrieval". It's just that this also reminds me of trauma and that trauma could so in its own right precipice the conjunction of a spacetime quantal interaction that might refer to an ambiguous nature whereupon whim becomes brevy and is such then accorded a right beyond the premise upon which we are here to observe "this". I can't even go back to seeing this as a point of construction without first dealing with this in this matter as resolutely against the better judgements I have as based against the untimely demise of reason as the ultimate culprit in matter absolving the integrated proofs that account for the nature of a concurrent proof that of which may resound to afford a deemably "extreme" quantal interaction such as the premise undoubtedly yet assuredly supply considerations due to the nature of what might be esteemed as true intent and not just the nature to posit one's such upon the average of the 'innate reserved potential' to which one might instill a greater majority of the...magnitude?

[Anonymous No.7631447]

Reading this, I was reminded of a time when I was struck by the awareness of one such to preclude the extreme nature whereby the petulant afford themselves a collateral prescript. Not quite vilification but something fore it. Vindication?
You sure this whole thread wasn't put here just for me to find and for you to scoff at me through? This isn't revolutionary ( nor should it be, as an non-compliant respect ), I've been and thought about this type of thing for a long time but the general make up of the intuition I've derived from this familiarity of thought has always led me to include myself as the forth held in eventuality rather than the cited clause upon which one might clarify eventuality as a forethought. The difference in this leading me to believe, now, that there is a lacking efficacy in my own dramatization of the events ( FUCK. NO. And not that I'm stubborn or anything but it all holds yet only through a recollect pattern here now held seemingly unafforded to an ounce of truth verse "truth" ) whereupon I ascribed a foundation that of which I uphold in mere eventuality, now, due to the nature of the precipiced point to which this all seemingly appears to give "faith".

[Anonymous No.7631449]

Does then this follow a truer or just more convincing vestige, even after the internment of the eventuality was to be but a compression of the efforts that one is afforded if not through the delegations of the binding authority that "naturally" guides the qualm that seeks availment of the surrounding nature to which it prescribes the language through that of which we are now ever managing to communicate? I don't mean to "hinder" your progress, the progress we are making, but I can't equally expect as much in such brevy interpretation of the deallocation of the forebourne to be stated, in your figure G, amalglamation? Am I off here? Are you more broadly inscribing matters here or am I affording you "indecipherable" pretense and carrying your jollies for you to spare you the footprint? Excuse me a bit but, not that this is sudden, might this be what you meant by anal? Or is it just that I am a little too "involved in the matter" of this description?

[Anonymous No.7631485]

Btw your posts read as if you and a bunch of friends huddled over the computer to make a point and made efforts to rotate the junction as exclusive. But then torus does seem mangled instead of uniform so I may be missing something. Or will be.

[M. Fractals No.7631498]

>>7631436
>quick wording
no that read off just fine, I prefer a bit of a quicker flow to the imo fractured tempo of the english language, I'm not well versed in other languages but I understand that their rhythm is much more situated in the, so to speak, pilot wave that your post is reacting as

>the rest of it
Sure if we were hanging out we'd chat about what's going on in close or immediate lives in our atmosphere, that's life, it's jazzy
As for the crab bit, they're a creature with very unique traits and at that hardy and strong if not all that flexible, they can get pretty fast though

>>7631439
>affordance of reinteruation unavailed by the prospects of separate "anxieties" as they breach the surface of the "mind".
Yeah the process of interruption is a hard one to manage, gains momentum much to fast and is to passive to be able to take any direct action at the time, as in the system of anxiety anyways

[M. Fractals No.7631519]

>>7631443
Can you please specify which post that you're refering to, in >>7627252 your post is outlined as C(as the third occuring dimension as they can be titled 'continuum dimensions'), E(as the 5th dimension)

>>7631447
sorry are you the same guy that I was replying to in >>7631498?
It's not revolutionary it's string theory with a conceptual rhythm instead of a data one
>myself as the forth held in eventuality
you my friend are very perceptive and empathetic about and to yourself and the processes that you may or may not be ignorant of that are transpiring around you, go to put some of the descriptions together as letters as they're put and try to outline the rhythm
The state of a 4th construct as a formally devised piece of reality having the potential of infinite shadow via the means of the cross sections of the universe and the projections that go on 'outside' our initial baring of relativity of the things that define said shadow can be noted as a force of fields of mixed holograms casting said shadows of larger bodies
in short...
>Body->Edge->Projection->Shadow
String theory is a real fuckin kick when you get into it

[M. Fractals No.7631523]

>>7631519
also
>>myself as the forth held in eventuality
>as a* fourth held in eventuality

[Anonymous No.7631528]

What do you supposed follows then?

Compromise? as Communicable
and after that...
Edict of Choice? as Determinable
and then...
Status? as Confirmation
and finally
Entity? as Authority

I would really appreciate being corrected on the matter. On any point of it and perhaps a re-elaboration on the matters as I have seen fit to gauge a reiteruation on your own posited points.

I am probably rushing this, aren't I?

[enough with the name faggory No.7631538]

>>7631449
>Or is it just that I am a little too "involved in the matter" of this description?
idk if that's what you think of ; if buttstuff is your thing idc, I know I'm gunna try it at some point myself

>... to spare you the footprint?
Footprints in the sand really, what we're talking about in this thread is semantics compared to the further depths of the portions; I'm good at putting my words in tight sequencing; generally you find this in shorter phrasing and it hits harder, but as it stretches, yes, the aggitation of the waves crashing irregularily or just fizzling inexplicably can get quite absurd... although I must say you're a talented writer, really good expression

>G, amalgamation?
Dimensions are products of each other, I was just feeling inventive about specificy
For example D as the fourth dimension can be seen as E the fifth dimension in the occlusion of the process of, as noted in >>7628782 as {A->(C)B}/{A(C)->B}

[Anonymous No.7631540]

>>7627755
>>7628199
>>7628635
>>7628782
>>7631436
>>7631439
>>7631443
>>7631447
>>7631449
>>7631485
>>7631498
>>7631519
>>7631523
>>7631528
>>7631538

Jesus shut the fuck up schizophrenic pieces of shit, it stopped being funny around >>7627647 and now it's just annoying, fuck off

[Anonymous No.7631545]

>>7631528
ight, imma try a go at that format

> so then...
Scaling? as then Friction
and from that
Decipherability? Difficulty
so
Setting... Environment: Background

..and is such that that we encounter everything from genetics to psychology

[Anonymous No.7631548]

>>7631540
so sorry, because you've lost interest you want to complain?

ITS THE FUCKING INTERNET, JUST DO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, OR ARE YOU REALLY SO FUCKING SHALLOW AS TO BROWSE ONE FUCKING SITE AND NOTHING ELSE?
GROW UP

[Anonymous No.7631549]

>>7631548
...caps..

>pic related
>am canadian

[Anonymous No.7631551]

>>7631528
ermm...maybe corrected isn't the right word for it, especially considering the vagueness of the bias the precludes the anselm. Scorn me instead of correct. I hold myself responsible for veritable truth and thus far you haven't made too many efforts, except in doing so inadvertently, to cohort the ensured spacial considerations but I still feel this fear that I can't help but feel sterns the considerations that took place on an effort about me. Probably unrelated but it all just fits so well that I can't help but feel as if there was a group effort, in the realm of your own logic, that has "manifested" over me in the guise of penumbra.

>as a* fourth held in eventuality
This is interesting. Not because it might apply to me, thank you I think, but because it can be used this way. If we truly function at a level as premised by the 6th dimension and aren't just held to the concoctions of one's possible will to knowledge then the outlines above might serve to adjunct.

It feels like a good thing but I'm not so sure that I'm being more than a test dummy to your cause...

[Anonymous No.7631552]

>>7631548
How about you? You dont like me telling you idiots you're schizophrenic faggots, so you whine at me?

ITS THE FUCKING INTERNET, JUST DO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE, OR ARE YOU REALLY SO FUCKING SHALLOW AS TO BROWSE ONE FUCKING SITE AND NOTHING ELSE?
GROW UP

if I see people being retards, i'm going to call them retards.
retard

[Anonymous No.7631556]

>>7631545
Would you look at that!

It's all temporary!


And it makes more sense now that you're Canadian. Not as telling of your own nature, but of the setting upon which you correlate.

Anything you can share with regard to the original purpose and intent of this thread and following posts?

[Anonymous No.7631557]

>>7631556
>Anything you can share with regard to the original purpose and intent of this thread and following posts?

Made solely for this particular brand of shitposting, it's going to keep flooding with this shit until you idiots get bored

[Anonymous No.7631562]

>>7631552
Where the shit does mental illness come into fact with M. Theory?

I mean like... the only thing I can think of is that you think that existence is just some psych trip, which in a kind of truth, for humans anyways, it is; but where is your goal in just being an ass? Is that really what satisfies you?
Serious question there, lets talk about this poster

>>7631551
>... that took place on an effort about me.
Buddhism is about compassion, I passively have an aggressive empathy, just how it worked out that I'm like this, yours is a little more homely; all 'traits' are innate in all things if you really want make your way from the base of the tree to a leaf, the roots being just the same but as a summation, where the tip of the leaf is the base of the tree and the roots are the many little parts that lead up to it

>... and aren't just held to the concoctions of one's possible will to knowledge then the outlines above might serve to adjunct.
I like how you said this, very concise; adjunct as a state is the truer state of being, this I'm familiar with, and it is a very notable figure of concept in terms of it's simple catatonic beauty

[Anonymous No.7631568]

>>7631556
>It's all temporary!
What do you mean by this?
Sure like universal heat death or whatever the fuq you want to brand it with; but do elaborate

[Anonymous No.7631569]

>>7631562
>...adjunct as a state is the...
...adjunct as a phase* is the...

[Anonymous No.7631570]

>>7627221
was this you, OP?

It, funny enough, fits well with an experience I've related to the posts you responded to. I have said that before, and for reasons to do with a willful ignorance that was based on the testimony to good intentions.

>Over-baring female

I actually assumed you meant reception in this matter. Visual as per the linked post >>7627221, audible as per the post linked to by the visual >>7627210
and then as the breadth of perception >>7627202

I've been shot at in trust. Steer clear of the mexican american woman.

[Anonymous No.7631571]

I wonder if OP programmed a shitposting generator or if he is doing that by hand

[Anonymous No.7631574]

>>7631552
I don't really mind you using that word. I'm not schizophrenic and my budday here doesn't seem to be either. I do mind you levelling the playing field without having coursed to par a meeting without attempting to relay any true message besides the opinion you all, your ilk and you, seem to hold. It might be akin to me calling your obesity a disease.

[Anonymous No.7631578]

>>7631570
heh, no I'm not the only one with a personality around here

[Anonymous No.7631580]

>>7631574
>you're fat lol!
top tier posting bro, there no "true message" in this load of shit, anyone with half a brain can see that, you're really idiotic if you took this crap seriously

[Anonymous No.7631581]

>>7631568
I just meant that after the meta-critical points that follow suit the predication of time at the 4th dimension, everything becomes a factor of time it seems. The direction, while not meaningless, is coincided in the term temporary which I felt was notable given that in the United States the pejorative is handled quite negatively. And obstusely. It seemed to just pop up, hopefully it is no longer on the rise.

[Anonymous No.7631588]

>>7631580
>well that's like, your opinion man.jpg

>>7631581
I'm going to bed, nice talking with you, you're a well read fellow, pairs well with my tangential intuition; good night

[Anonymous No.7631592]

>>7631588
>tangential intuition
is it because it always misses? idiot

[Anonymous No.7631594]

>>7631580
It's not that you're fat, it's that it's pervasive beyond the ubiquitous "nature" you seem to give it. I'm not trying to "beat" you, I was raised around you people. I know better by now. But I don't understand why you think every bit of science has to be as serious as the lessons your mom put you through in instilling them in you.

Gravity is not a temporal concept, incase you haven't learned...She just wants you out of the house because you remind her of him.

But still, there isn't a "true message" and that's partly the point in learning it, I think. If what serves you is to not be idiotic, I supposed then that I'm faltering on the topic of superposition as it stems from a lacking NP subset. Probably as a lacking in jurisprudence as entitlement. Probably from having been raised around people like you.

I'm older now but things like this really take you back. And they kind of make you grateful, maybe not to your own parents, but of the whole experience.

Oh yeah and finally, it's not that I called you fat, it's that it only takes a single response from you for me to know that inconformity bothers you so much as almost a predicated principle to your humanity. Hence your desire to lash out at the supposed straw man that was ill-conceived in your junctures to this discussion.

[Anonymous No.7631604]

>>7631594
Yeah, you're some james-bond supervillian mastermind or some shit and everything I say was planned carefully, blah blah blah

I know your type, incredibly retarded and with a huge ass desire for people to think you're smart. You're not doing science. You're shitposting and it's apparent for anyone who spent more than 5 minutes on the internet. Stop trying to make a persona and save face, just fucking be yourself.

What the fuck do you even mean "raised around people like you"? What am I like, faggot?

[Anonymous No.7631606]

>>7631588
I agree. About the pairing. We should manage another meeting of the minds soon, in less tempermental waters. We can make video games or fix a pipe between our computers. I'll do the coding and then we can do funny stuff because it's fun.

Night, dude.

>>7631592
2 more bullets left!

[Anonymous No.7631610]

>>7631606
>in less temperamental waters

yes please, fuck off, god knows why you faggots decided to hold your shitfest here when it's apparent you don't even browse 4chan

[Anonymous No.7631621]

>>7631594
are you ok? are you referencing some character from some cartoon? fat, dad passed away, mom was harsh and is mean, angry... are you asking for help?

[Anonymous No.7631622]

>>7631604
That's the kicker, dude! I didn't plan shit to do with you!

Very few people think I'm smart but I would be lying if I didn't want people to eventually, or at least hopefully, think I'm smart. It would take a lot of the strain away from being seen as a tool or as incumbent.

This thread might not be science in the sense that we allocated a direct format for dissemination and reproduceability but it's not any less based on the founding premise.

I am shitposting, fuck yeah, but I'm not making a person. I just can't deal with "y'alls'" gasping for breath manner of speech and rote. Still, in being "myself" as a manner of prose seems ill advised in the current juncture because I am ultimately the dude and you guys hate that guy for a whole different set of reasons. It won't make it any easier.

Raised around people like you: Intolerant people. I was raised Christian and to be servile. You are like every other angry despot that thinks this place was wrung on the lives of the many and tend to treating yourself as the few or the one.

I'm at least indulging your charm and wit with a true response. The most I'll get out of you is that you'll repeat what I say or simply lash out with picket sign rhetoric. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.7631627]

>>7631610
mother fucker I've been here since like 2004. eat a dick.

>>7631621
I never said your dad passed away...I didn't even mean that. You did.

Funny enough that you bring that up, though, because I have a friend that fits that criteria and suddenly I feel like an asshole again. Good job douchebag. I'll be back tomorrow to shit on your day.

[Anonymous No.7631631]

>>7631622
desu this post is whiny crap but it's miles better than the retarded shit you were spouting before

what dude are you? why do we hate the guy?
intolerant is up for discussion, entitled is not. the only reason I put effort into calling out this kind of shit is i hope people will notice what they're doing and become a little more self-aware. acting retarded will get you nowhere, not here, not anywhere. so fix yourself.

[Anonymous No.7631633]

>>7631627
you cant have been here more than a month lmao, you would have been told to fuck off and shut up enough at this point to either change or leave

[Anonymous No.7631641]

>>7631631
Towards what end, son? Why are you so contextually based in up-in-the-air?

Don't worry about which dude I am, that's my whole point. I'm not your dude. That should be enough. Why do you hate him? I don't know, but y'all always find a reason. Without fail.

And before I deject the plot to your post, you have put up 0 effort. Replying is not effort. I am plenty self-aware, my friend. I lived a long life up til now. There is nothing to fix without making claims of maladjustment and proliferation of fault to a degree you all mismanage anyway.

No one is acting retarded. I happen to think that British manner of speech is a bit more involved than the sneeze guard approach at life you all take because "muh gene pool". Stop living at their whims for the sake of greater whims and learn to take lead for yourself and not on the premise of "grandeur" you fucking influx psycho. I would hang out with you regardless of any of that. I just think you should make sure to re-assess your evaluations on what constitutes a level of pragmatism that will make for more than a level of distinction that paves the way for more levels just in order to solidify the claim through little less than oppressive efforts. Calm your tits, man.

[Anonymous No.7631648]

>>7631641
and to your reply...

Do it the scientific way, figure it out yourself. Use the context. Introspection. Rumination. If you need more facts or the syntax cannot afford your newer concepts, append append append.

[Anonymous No.7631657]

>>7631641
there's no effort needed at this point when i've already done it dozens of times, but it takes effort to find the right way to call out and reach to self awareness.

you are maladjusted. you don't need me to tell you that, what you might want to know is how. all that "british manner of speech" game you're doing and convoluting what you want to say on purpose is part of it. it makes you off-putting and makes you seem autistic as fuck, except for other pretentious teens that happen to be doing the same because they don't know better

i'm not trying to fit in here, I basically do whatever the fuck I want. but social interaction has standards, and if you're going to fuck it up on purpose, you're going to send messages you don't want to and make it a blurry fucking mess. learn the game first, then if you want you can be quirky when you know how to actually communicate. like, I come off as a direct, stingy ass, and that's exactly the way I'm presenting myself. with your convoluted mess you might want to appear cultured or whatever, but you end up coming off as autistic. some people might even take it worse, and read you as petulant and demeaning.

[Anonymous No.7631659]

>>7631648
see, shit like this. trying to play the "i can read your mind" game instead of talking like a fucking human being

cut that shit

[Anonymous No.7631662]

>>7631657
Dude, you can't be a month over 18 if you think coming off as autistic means anything. Same for "cultured". The british manner of speech avoids the navigable playing field kids like you create in a tenuous discussion and affords the speaker a greater breadth of knowledge to work with. It's like I phrase things to ring a british tongue. I use it because it lets the reader follow each and every word simply and precisely with no great adjunct to compound meaning in the prose. It also makes it functional on the grounds that the flow supercedes the need to fit too tightly within a space that isn't detailed as a debate genre. If you're doing science to relay points of merit with other people and think being "cross with folk" about it makes a shit of a difference to anyone but you and your waifu you have a long lonely life full of nothingness and nihilism ahead of you. You may as well wave by to the girl and hi to the ger. You will need it to maintain sanity in keeping with the "social standards". What a retarded concept, btw. And thanks for the socialization. One gold star for you. Have a gas.

He understood plenty well what was being said but there were a few pretentions and apprehensions of my own to account for in the detailings, those of which I think fit rather well in the discussion given the plausible notions and their own incumbents.

You don't come off as anything but grumpy, son. The only people that might read it as petulant and demeaning are people that don't read. And that's okay, there's youtube for that now.

[Anonymous No.7631665]

>>7631662
It's not like I phrase things to ring in a british tongue, I was raised on Bill Waterman comics and old british encyclopedias!

[Anonymous No.7631668]

PS. Self-Awareness is not a state of mind.

[Anonymous No.7631769]

>>7624001
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm

[OP No.7632469]

>>7631604
Made me chuckle

>>7631592
No because the natural state of relativity is the implied conic superlative of eventuality, light space and light do not desist, they simply slow down to more principled supernumerary condition, as has been such since the big bang and hence all the fallout that we call particle physics when it can be better said as Warp Tabulation
In the same way we once thought there was junk DNA we will one day think the same of 'negligible' frequencies

>>7631606
>making a video game
Yeah that thought occured to me while I was writting out the sects of D, that new processor that 'thinks like a brain'; the picture of it was basically a bunch of ends of transistors placed in a square shape around an empty space; supposedly the things got like 4 times the processing power of our best chip so far... kind of like a rug of electron systematics; imo just with what we have here and that we could make an implant and plug our selves into the matrix ;)

>>7631627
> >>7631610
>mother fucker I've been here since like 2004. eat a dick
>pic
made me lol

>>7631631
kindly fuck off if you're not going to add the OP

[OP No.7632484]

>>7631769
>Substance
We're talking dimensions here, 'nuff said

>Cause
Again that's been what I've been trying to establish the bounds of

>Community
The outline of the structure of the dimensions of string theory as applied to the variations of scaling application as noted in this thread can be said to be well established in their potential placement in regards to the natural order of ordering with the as noted various applications to the scales of reality from particle interaction to the natural course of intention

In short, the potential use of your post is just masturbation with scissors for the potential of what can be put together with the outlined foundations noted in the thread

[Anonymous No.7632628]

sup dude, so they made a new board.

Im catching up on the walking dead right now. I did mean to ask, though, how do you propose the 3 dimensions youve set forth in your earlier post, friction; difficulty; environment: background, fit into your prior descriptions of the subsequent dimensions. At least friction anyway. I also cant help but feel like we skipped over something...

[OP No.7632710]

>>7632628
>friction
That would be C,F
> >>7627252
>as F denotes there are the potential insets in the system that offset B as a reliable source of A
As a transitional as a paradox set outcome of F, or sixth d, that can be determined as what permeates C that results in what can be constituted as what looks like friction

>difficulty
subject to what is already built but it can be seen as a sort of freelance provision of speed of the system, the hardest part of creating a 3d environment is suspending instant, at least on a scale of operation as opposed to processing anyway

>I also cant help but feel like we skipped over something...
well it's not a system of hierarchy so you might be having a bit of mental indigestion :P
Science as it is established is subject to a cross referencing of each other with what can be seen as a hierarchy of layers of depth with the suspension of the practicality of looking for common variable sets and set systems in their renditions of their respective fields
>mfw

[Anonymous No.7632850]

>>7632710

[Anonymous No.7632907]

>>7631662
it doesn't read as british, is doesn't read as "breadth of knowledge", it reads as a teen trying hard to appear smart and makes it convoluted and annoying. it's not "british manner of speech", if you talk like this in england people will be put off and annoyed as well.

what the fuck is "cross with folk"? i study math and people who study math talk like I do. simple, to the point and clear. what do you mean "by to the girl and hi to the ger"? keep sanity? dude, being able to communicate makes life easier in every way, for you and everyone else


nothing was being said, you both just pretended to be having a conversation and it was clear to everyone you were spouting shit. the "discussion" is you being retarded.

[Anonymous No.7632910]

>>7632469
>add to the OP
>faggots still pretending they're having a meaningful discussion

everyone knows you're spouting ad-hoc bullshit

[Anonymous No.7632950]

>>7632910
Help me in the right direction then if you really think that the forms illustrated in this are better than half the shit that /sci/ see's daily

[Anonymous No.7632955]

>>7632950
>forms illustrated in this

there are no forms, there's no coherence, you're pretending to say things and you're not.

the right direction is stop acting retarded, and formulate a real problem.

[Anonymous No.7632973]

>>7632950
I think you mean worse than

[Anonymous No.7633036]

oh no feminism on patrol, lets just ignore them and maybe theyll go away. thus far they havent presented anything beyond and opinion i doubt anything we say now will change their minds.

i used to want to learn linguistics but merica got in the way of that again and again.

[Anonymous No.7633050]

>>7632955
>forms in this thread
> >>7628199
> >>7627202
> >>7627252

These are as simple as you can put the system of string theory without going into multiple universes; you're either retarded or in highschool if you can't wrap your head around the fact that these are dimensions of causality as variables

My cohort and I were simply having a discussion on the elaboration of the OP's content

[Anonymous No.7633367]

>>7633050
>still trying to make people believe you were making sense

lmao keep trying faggot, you're spouting bullshit and playing pretend-scientist and it's fucking embarrassing

[Anonymous No.7633405]

>>7633367
>coming back to the thread two and a half hours later to shit post
OP must've hit a nerve