|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 10, 2010 20:35:32 GMT
Well, it all starts with a number UKot (Universal kot). That is the summation of every atom in the universe from center to outer ring, with every other part of existence being in Bose-Einstein condensate. That makes those a single atom.
UKot= (All atoms (approx 1.04 googol) +1)
Then, you take the Infinitium Function (A system taking ∑3 and using wing-tip notation, a form of Knuth's up arrow notation, which puts the answer to each sigma through sigmatic notation, then summing up that all as y. Y is Sigma'd, that number is Sigma'd, and that becomes a variable. It repeats to a point.) Then, take a layer of the Infinitius Theorem (Number of Infinitium functions used per layer= Layer Number Triple sigma Layer if above 1)
Each layer has increasing rate of expansion and at Layer 35, no number can be added.
Level 1= ~10.10134 UKot
Level 35= Incalculable by known means, as when it is reached, nothing exists elsewise to consider in the equation.
The Infinitius Theorem basically is used to convert raw analogue into digital, to use analogue type logic alongside binary, creating something called Abythhian-Numeric logic.
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Oct 10, 2010 20:39:58 GMT
What is sigma?
Isn't ∑3 equal to 3?
What is wing tip notation?
Who is Knuth?
What is up arrow notation?
How does knowing how many atoms there are in the universe have any bearing upon analog and digital logic? How can you use the two side by side without converting between them?
Is this another load of crap?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 10, 2010 20:52:22 GMT
What is sigma? Isn't ∑3 equal to 3? What is wing tip notation? Who is Knuth? What is up arrow notation? How does knowing how many atoms there are in the universe have any bearing upon analog and digital logic? How can you use the two side by side without converting between them? Is this another load of crap? 1. Yes, but it is Sigma twice or Sigma(3 x 3). 2. I made wing tip notation. It's to modify Knuth's up arrow notation so it uses sigmatic formation instead of exponents. 3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth4. To sum up the universe, then use all possible variables of all possible timelines for all possible actions in all possible universes, you make an analogue number that is a 1 for every possible thing that is capable of existence at any and every time in history and future. Since you can't go higher, you've made it into 1. 1 of every part existence could possibly be worth of 1's, you've summed it up. Binary states on as 1, and 0 as off. No number is higher than everything, nor anything lower than nothing. 0 becomes binary 0, The highest number becomes 1. 5. No, it's taking efficiency of variables, and using them to choose a best path in any endeavor. The Kotidic path is doing everything as perfectly as possible in any part of existence, considering all variables. Trauma of incidence is where the Kotidic path is needed for the slightest success.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Oct 10, 2010 20:53:59 GMT
What is sigma? Isn't ∑3 equal to 3? What is wing tip notation? Who is Knuth? What is up arrow notation? How does knowing how many atoms there are in the universe have any bearing upon analog and digital logic? How can you use the two side by side without converting between them? Is this another load of crap? A Greek letter Depends I don't care A dude A way to represent hyperintergers used by Knuth This is the spam board Yes
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Oct 10, 2010 20:55:50 GMT
Hyperoperations, not hyperintergers
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Oct 10, 2010 21:10:17 GMT
Ukot ≈ 1.04 * 10100 + 1
Yn = Yn-1 ↑k 3 Y1 = Ukot ↑k 3
Y35 = (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Ukot ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3) ↑k 3)
...where k is some counting number that specifies the hyperoperation?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 10, 2010 21:16:34 GMT
YES! You got it!
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Oct 10, 2010 21:22:03 GMT
Iteration pwns hyperoperations.
|
|
|
Post by microfarad on Oct 10, 2010 23:05:03 GMT
And this means what exactly?
Is this all about summing up the universe's atoms?
Is it about binary and analog numbers?
Is it about finding that events will lead to others?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 10, 2010 23:12:36 GMT
And this means what exactly? Is this all about summing up the universe's atoms? Is it about binary and analog numbers? Is it about finding that events will lead to others? Binary sums EVERYTHING up as 0 and 1. Either something is or it isn't. Total prescence or Total devoid. On and off.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Oct 11, 2010 0:53:40 GMT
I'm sorry, I lost you at "Well".
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 11, 2010 7:11:09 GMT
Wow... I'm confused... I'm doing 10th and even some 11th grade maths and I even asked the brightest people in my class... and I only understand it by a fraction of a hair...
It's really confusing... I don't want to ask my maths teacher though as I'm not actually allowed using the laptop during class... (like I am now)
But I'll triple read this thread later to see if I completely understand it then.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Oct 11, 2010 13:40:42 GMT
Well I'm doing college maths.... He is saying the there is a number for every possibility of arrangement of atoms, and that can be expressed as a binary number.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 11, 2010 14:38:18 GMT
Wait, you are doing college maths? (as well as veers I'm assuming)
How old are you guys? Jeez... I've never been pwnt at maths before... XD (except by two people) Heh... Now it's four people... (Although it's hardly fair as you probably have done waaaay more maths than I have)
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 11, 2010 19:25:25 GMT
I'm not even 20, nor in college.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 11, 2010 19:50:02 GMT
Well I'm not even 16... -.-
Heh... I do understand some of it now... although I don't really see a point to it. What is the point?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 11, 2010 21:14:20 GMT
It's for efficiency of variables.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 12, 2010 6:51:35 GMT
But everyone knows variables are very efficient. That's why they were made.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 12, 2010 20:15:12 GMT
No, I'm talking about this:
Kot = (AllVars = MaxEfficiency)|Apex
So, offset by apex, Kot is all variables at levels that define a specific function being the best they can be, making it so you can't physically do any one thing better.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Oct 12, 2010 20:40:35 GMT
So this whole thread is about perfection?
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 12, 2010 21:14:58 GMT
No, it's about efficiency. Variables can be effective, but they only have one truly best point.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 14, 2010 14:35:53 GMT
Although the only variables I know are x, y and z. Me and my silly-non-college maths.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Oct 14, 2010 23:01:02 GMT
I think this "explanation" needs an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 15, 2010 5:50:58 GMT
My one or Kurai's one?
Oh well I have a government external maths exam on tuesday... to test how smart our school is... Although this thread won't really be of help as I highly doubt they'll ask a similar question to the first post...
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Oct 18, 2010 21:55:53 GMT
Indubitably.
|
|
|
Post by ~Memzak~ on Oct 19, 2010 5:27:09 GMT
Oh great. The exam is today. I have about one hour left...
The good news is that it doesn't really count for marks... and even if it did I wouldn't have studied anyways...
|
|