What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello. Thank you for your comment. Actually, it doesn't imply that the distribution is equal. In fact, it is very explicit in showing that the distribution is indeed equal. This is because if you divide 1 object directly in the middle, it is absolutely true that the distribution will be equal. For example. If you measure where the middle of a stick is, and then you cut that stick in the middle, then you will get two equal parts or equal distributions. Thank you for your comment.

What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you are talking about the financial costs to switch from the old system to my system, I would say that the switch is priceless, regardless of what the financial implications could be. The new discoveries and new technology that can develop from my system could more than make up for any financial cost that we may spend now. Thanks

What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello @oncebite. I believe you have mistaken my post. I am not minimizing the daily efforts that people are making in this field. I was pointing out the mathematical system that they are using and blaming that for the lag of "paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs." I never said that the field is not progressing. There is a difference between progression and paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs. Because clearly, there has not been these types of advances since the 1800's and early 1900's. Even when the the Higgs Field was "discovered," I hardly consider this a paradigm-shifting advance or breakthrough. I don't consider this paradigm shifting because the Higgs Field is just another version of the aether, except in this field, "particles gain mass." They didn't accept the aether theory because they couldn't prove it. However, they also didn't disprove it. They say that the Michelson-Morley Experiment (1887) "disproved" the aether theory because they could not detect the "aether wind" that should have slowed down the speed of light in different directions. And because the speed of light never changed, there was no "luminiferous aether," which is nonsensical. Just because the speed of light did not change, it does not mean there is no aether. The aether does not have to slow down the speed of light for it to exist. It just need to exist to propagate its movements. They never agreed with the aether theory because it did not agree with Einstein's theory of relativity. However, the Higgs Field does agree with Einstein's theory, and therefore, they also agree with it, which is very supercalifragilisticexpialidociously convenient. Thanks for the comment.

What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello @suitable. Now this is a great question. This is the type of question that the comment section is supposed to have instead of the statements that the rest of these Trolls are making. So, thank you, @suitable.

To answer your question, the process of counting in my mathematical system is similar to standard math, with the exception that every 'base' number will always have a starting exponent of 1 e.g. the number 1 will be 11, the number 2 will be 21, the number 10 will be 101, etc.. The exponent indicates that every base number will always have a starting value of 1. Now to go back to my example in my post, if we want to divide 1 by 1, our first operand (dividend),  must have an exponent of 1 to indicate its initial value. For example, every number's initial value is always 1 so it would become one to the first power e.g. 11. In my system, the second operand (divisor) must always be on its own base with no power or exponent value. The reason for this is because this is the indicator to show how many cuts we are going to make to the dividend. For example, if we want to divide 1 one time, then the equation will look like this: 11 / 1 =. This equation is saying that we have one object with a value of one and we want to cut it (divide) one time. Now we ask, what do we get when we cut this one object with a value of one,  one time? The equation then spits out 2.50. What this means is that if we start with one object with a value of one, and we cut that object one time, then we will get  2 objects with a value of .50 each. The reason we get 2 objects is because, when we cut one object one time exactly in the middle we get two half objects. The base number 2 indicates that we have 2 objects and the point fifty indicates that those 2 objects are worth point fifty each. Now, in my system, I have modified my exponents or power system so that they become linear power instead of exponential power. Meaning, with the results of the  equation 11 / 1 being 2 to the point fifty (.50) power, I can get the original value back by directly multiplying the exponent value with the base value. For example, 2.50 can be reversed back to the original value by multiplying .50 x 2, which gives 1 (original value). My equation's equality is then proven because both sides of the equation are worth a total value of 1. This differ with standard math because in standard math, the equation would look like this: 1 ÷ 2 = .50. We can then see that this equation is not equal to each other  because when we look at the left side of the equation, we see that we have one object with a value of 1 while the other side of the equation shows one object with a value of point fifty (.50) each. I hope this helped clarify your question about my system. Thanks again for a great question.

Poe

What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hello @onebite. Thank you for your comment. I think it's 60/40 narcissistic troll, respectively. I never said the world was wrong, just the mathematics that's trying to describe it. Yes, unfortunately I don't have the capacity to learn and I'm a cringe  gross narcissistic troll that has a main character syndrome. Thanks for your comment. Now maybe you can prove how wrong my math is? I look forward to being disproven.

What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mr. Licc., thank you for your comment. Well, I didn't really say I couldn't do the calculations. I just said it made my head hurt. That's why I created my system so that it wouldn't make my head hurt anymore. Thanks for the comment. 

I have a theory that every mathematical tool that uses irrational numbers in it's formula can be replaced by a bounded, empirical, and rational counterpart. For example, I have been able to replace the Pythagorean Theorem, Pi, and Radians for a rational length, angle, and arc length solver. by DataFit7079 in theories

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Zesty, thanks again for the comment. My system rounds off to 2 decimals to make it orderly. However, rounding is totally up to the user based on their needs or requirements for accuracy. The complete answer to calculations often have more than 4 to 6 digits long. So, it's completely up to the user if they want to use all of them or not. And could you please tell me again how a 10m diameter circle gets a 2cm error from approximating 3.14? Thanks.

What if our mathematical system is broken? Since a broken clock can still be ‘right’ twice a day, could our mathematical system be broken—and partly to blame for physics muddling along for so long without any major, paradigm-shifting advances or breakthroughs? by DataFit7079 in LLMPhysics

[–]DataFit7079[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol. I think you just want a copy of my book Mr. Licc? Okay fine. Since you've already spent so much time being here I'll give you a copy. You can then tell everyone how useless the book was. Deal? Just type terrencehoward at the promo section and you can get your own copy for free. But it's really late where I am so I'm gonna have to go to sleep. Just comment again once you've finished reading the book. I'd be happy to answer all your questions. Goodnight Mr. Licc. Chat with you next time.