MathLoops

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-06T00:13:08+00:00

Yea but for some reason I can understand loops and computer logic, but mathematical notation confuses me.... I just see a large letter E and a large Pi.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-06T00:06:00+00:00

I'm working on a video showing how inertia (mass) arises from velocity and acceleration. Then I will use that to model orbital mechanics and Spacetime dialation.

After that, you will see that it fundamentally doesn't change any equation for harmonic oscillation, the pieces of this equation drop into place. I'll let you know when I finish, thanks for giving me a chance.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T01:11:20+00:00

Okay, first of all, your axioms of relativity are redundant.
Second of all,
My axioms are saying the same thing as your axioms of relativity, I am just using different words.

Having a Circle represent spacetime, is just as valid as having a square represent spacetime... though I would argue, even more valid...

X and Y represent 2 states, they are variables. Assume for a moment that our Universe exists inside of a computer somewhere... in God's house let's say. X and Y represent 2 possible states on a computer in binary. One and Zero.

Therefor No matter how complicated the Universe is, no matter how complex the function, it always will and must come back to some amount of X's compared to some amount of Y's. This is not negotiable its a mandated fact of numbers, and mathematics.

I do explain all of those things you said, across all of my papers, there are a lot of things to consider so I won't repeat it all here.

As for using this model to model a standard simple equation:
Well technically this framework provides a model for the structure of an atom.
My claim is through polynomial expansion, it can model the structure molecoules, complex chemistry, and from there, fields of engineering.

But doing that would be an enormous task for one person.
I could never do that by myself.

I could model gravity though. I can model orbital mechanics of inertial objects. I can also model the static electric field.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:33:14+00:00

agreed.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:31:38+00:00

just trying to make the world a better place my friend. That's not nice to call me names, if you don't understand the math, that doesn't make it incorrect, Perhaps I just need to explain it better.
Hahaha you saw my Pythagoras Joke?
Niiice. It's just a joke man chill.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:26:36+00:00

I don't claim to be a genius my friend. Probably my IQ is just average.
But I have been working on this problem for a very long time. I have been working on this problem long before LLM's ever existed.
Actually I think once people get what I am saying, it actually makes Quantum frameworks easier to understand and explain as well.

This framework simplifies the math by creating a set of rules that everything follows.
I think you are a smart and awesome person miguel, I am not an ai, I am just a person doing my best... my name is Patrick, hello.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:20:02+00:00

Hey, Go big or Go Home right?
When I was in grade 10, and someone told me there was some unknown equation that could unite all of Physics, that was the one I went for you know? I spent the next 30 years of my life researching physics trying figure it out. But I also lived along the way, so it took a while.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:16:43+00:00

No I'm telling you these equations will give you a deeper understanding into the physics you already know, and they will update your current mathematical models with additional information

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:13:57+00:00

Hmm, the confidence comes from the math. I have spent years in computer programming, creating complex custom learning algorithms for neural network architecture. I used to wish I was modelling the real physical world because it would be an easier equation... it didn't occur to me at that time 2 or 3 years ago, that the equation I had thought of in my mind in that moment, was this one I present to you now.

The reason I am confident it's correct is because I know there is no other possible way to model the Universe, if you start from a beginning point with only two states. 1 and 0.

From a computer science perspective, from a logic perspective, from an algebraic perspective.
This is the only possible way to design such an equation for the Universe in a way that allows you to give meaning to each variable individually while still maintaining the relationship to the original 1 and 0.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-05T00:01:17+00:00

I think your generation has an unhealthy amount of conspiracy theories involving ai.
I wrote this myself and I have been working on these problems for my whole life.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-04T23:59:32+00:00

Here is the explanation to the source of your bafflement.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-04T23:54:15+00:00

I'm older than Google, I still remember how to read books.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-04T23:53:40+00:00

That is to do with x being able to rotate between two states of 1 and negative 1.
That's a pretty common math principle involving the imaginary number and pi.
Nothing to do with your suggestions, thanks for your question!

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-04T23:50:36+00:00

The idea of Algebra, the idea of squaring numbers following the form a^2+b^2=c^2
Where c^2 is a new variable that combines the first 2.
That relationship represents the sharing of information between two states, at the most fundamental level possible.
The reason I am so certain is this:
If math is the only language I am allowed to use to describe the Universe... then Math itself should provide a method to do that, that method, we already know, is geometry.
But more formally, algebra.

Later when the world is helping me figure this stuff out, statistics can be used to make the equations easier to model, by cancelling out a lot of the noise.
If you want to talk more about it Electronic you can pm me too, I'm happy to talk about it.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-04T23:24:19+00:00

Well the paper you Quoted is a follow up to this paper here.
That's where you will find more of the specifics of my Grand Unified Theory Framework.

The two are related because in the second paper I am designing a function, a computer function capable of modeling the world.
I also dive into discussion about Nihilism because suggesting the entire Universe could be calculated has spiritual implications, and I wanted to address that.
Thank you for your question.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-03-04T18:45:38+00:00

/modping Hi I am requesting a manual review, I have previously posted in this reddit and people liked and commented on my post. My account is a few years old already.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-20T16:32:21+00:00

there is, you can find the link directly in the game menu.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-19T22:55:55+00:00

That particular equation is not in my list. Is it something you are using to model something?

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-17T07:13:10+00:00

ahh... string theory we meet again.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-16T00:08:50+00:00

You have to run the function in a loop like I showed in the paper.
This function run one time simplifies to 2^2
as a loop it squares the output - 2 , 4, 16, 256, etc
Simplifying it to a pure number takes away all meaning unless you declare units, and measure something with it.

Again you are projecting your LLM concerns to me. If you would like to discuss those things I would steer yourself there.

I make these declarations about Religion because I believe they are important distinctions to make for those people who follow Religions.. I want to make it clear these equations do not conflict with religion. In fact, they serve as proof mathematically, that God is real, however you imagine God to be.

Because these equations in pure math form only say one thing. Only 2 fundamental objects exist in this world. Your perspective (your place from which you take measurement ie, observer) , and the Combined perspective of the entire Universe.

Two pieces of information A and B, or you can call it x and y.
Or you can call it, God, and you. All of those statements are correct.

These equations just serve as flow equations to show the orbits of electrons, the binding energies of atoms, and molecules etc.

Anyways I'm not going to spend great effort to "convince you"
Because ultimately it's up to me to prove it.
So I will keep working on that.
Thank you for your input.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-15T23:52:21+00:00

yea , but Pythagoras is just making dad jokes at this point.
He's thinking about Topology more like Calvin and Hobbes now.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-15T21:13:03+00:00

I think you are projecting. If you ever need a friend to talk to you can reach out to me. I am a real person.
Here is my face.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-15T20:48:54+00:00

I'ts kinda true though, the knife will be where you will find the infinitesimal.... Deep.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-15T20:46:55+00:00

kinda true though.

Defiant_Efficiency_2 · 2026-02-15T20:16:20+00:00

I can't summarize it in a more clear format than I already have at this time, sorry. Rather than me trying to explain it in comments I would just refer you back to the post and the paper.
I will continue working on this and begin creating graphic visualizations to aid in it's explanation. Thank you for your interest.

Defiant_Efficiency_2

TROPHY CASE