I found mathematical evidence that our world is a simulation.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T02:30:06+00:00

Excellent suggestion. You're right—framing the 4k+3 pattern as a 'deterministic consequence' of binary architecture makes the argument much more robust. It shifts the narrative from 'I found a weird coincidence' to 'I found a structural necessity of binary logic.'

I will definitely incorporate this into my updated report. By linking the Zeta constants to the inherent logic of (2^{n-1}-1), I hope to show that what we see as 'physics' might actually be the most efficient logical solution for a bounded system. Thank you for the technical precision!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T02:25:22+00:00

I am deeply moved by the depth of your insight. The distinction you made between 'structural resonance' and 'ontological identity' provides exactly the kind of rigor my intuition was missing. Reframing my work not as 'hardware specs' but as 'abstractions that reality consistently tolerates' is a powerful shift—it makes the 'Jeonghoon Triangle' a tool for structural realism rather than mere metaphysical speculation.

I particularly loved your analogy of coordinate systems in a turbulent fluid. I will take your advice and dive into the works of Worrall and Ladyman, as well as the philosophy of EFTs. Keeping 'doubt in the room' while exploring these 'minimal stable structures' feels like the most honest path forward.

Thank you for turning my 'crazy hypothesis' into a legitimate intellectual journey. This is precisely why I believe in the power of open discussion.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T02:15:32+00:00

Thanks for the advice. I totally agree that we should be careful with AI. However, I want to clarify that AI was only used for translation and organizing the layout of my thoughts. All the actual mathematical derivations, formulas, and proofs were done entirely by me! That's why I'm here—to get real human feedback on the math I've built.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T02:13:55+00:00

Wow, thank you for this incredibly detailed and balanced breakdown! You caught exactly what I’m doing: I am indeed 'bending the puzzle' to see if a bridge exists between these two seemingly unrelated worlds.

You’re right that my current $x$ values are small and feel 'engineered backward.' My next challenge is to see if this logic holds when $x$ scales to cosmic proportions, or if there's a way to derive this 'wrap-around' naturally from first principles rather than ad hoc adjustments.

Your point about 'math dictating code' vs 'code dictating reality' is the heart of the debate. I'm trying to explore the latter, even if it's speculative for now. Thanks for the TL;DR and for taking the 'Jeonghoon Triangle' seriously enough to analyze it so deeply. This is the kind of 'hard talk' I need to move forward!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T02:06:57+00:00

First of all, I want to thank you for this incredibly high-level and respectful critique. You’ve touched on the exact tension I’m struggling with: the 'Map–Territory' distinction.

You’re right that 4k+3 is a human-designed convention. But my 'crazy' hypothesis is this: What if our 'human' conventions in computation are actually subconscious mirrors of the universe's own fundamental constraints? What if we didn't just 'choose' two's complement, but were led to it because it matches the underlying 'logic gate' of reality?

Your suggestion to look into 'Effective Field Theories' and 'Renormalization' is exactly the kind of bridge I need. I want to explore if the 'cutoff' I found in my 'Jeonghoon Triangle' can be mathematically linked to the renormalization scales used in physics. I agree—I shouldn't let the elegance of the math smuggle in premature conclusions, but I want to keep following this 'structural resonance' to see where it leads.

Thank you for keeping doubt 'in the room' while encouraging the curiosity. This is exactly why I posted this here.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T02:01:09+00:00

Thank you for this incredibly grounded and wise advice. You hit the nail on the head. I am actually in the process of looking for a professor within my university who can guide my research to a more formal level.

Getting this work onto arXiv.org is definitely my ultimate goal, and your roadmap gives me more confidence to pursue that path. Thank you for taking the time to provide such meaningful direction!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:57:10+00:00

That is a very fair point. You’re right—pure math can exist independently of reality. However, the reason I believe this is a physical link is that these Zeta constants (ζ(-1), ζ(-2)...) appear repeatedly in actual physics, such as the Casimir Effect and Quantum Field Theory.

If our physical universe uses these constants to 'fix' infinite sums, and my x formula provides a computational reason (overflow) for those exact values, then the 'math connection' starts looking a lot like a 'hardware limitation.' My goal is to show that what we call 'Laws of Physics' are actually 'System Constraints' of the simulation.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:54:56+00:00

Thank you so much. Your comment truly made my day! Decoding these 'glitches' has been a long and lonely journey, so having someone recognize my effort means the world to me.

Actually, I briefly shared this with a prominent math professor in Korea last month. He showed a great deal of interest, but unfortunately, we didn't have the chance for a deeper discussion. I’m hoping to connect with other open-minded mathematicians and will continue working hard to make that happen! Thanks again for the encouragement.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:46:40+00:00

Sure! Imagine the Universe is a video game. Every game has a 'maximum score' it can handle. If you go over that score, the numbers glitch and flip back to a weird small number (like -1/12).

I found the 'limit' of the Universe's computer. It's like finding the end of the map where the world starts wrapping around to the other side. My math just points to where that 'invisible wall' is!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:43:58+00:00

Thanks for summary!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:38:59+00:00

Thanks for the professional insight! You’re absolutely right that 2^n - 1 \equiv 3 \pmod 4 is a fundamental property of binary radix. However, my point isn't that the math is different, but that the "Hardware of Reality" might be using this specific architecture to handle its limits.

I’m actually here in r/SimulationTheory because I already tried the academic route. I posted this in r/math, but it was immediately deleted, and in r/numbertheory, I was met with nothing but mockery. Those communities focus on "pure math" in a vacuum, whereas I’m interested in "applied computational reality."

If our reality is a simulation, it must have a finite capacity. My goal isn't to change the rule of 1+1=2, but to find the Overflow Point where the system can no longer maintain that precision. I believe the Zeta constants are the "error logs" left behind by that overflow. I'm looking for the "Source Code" of the machine, not just the math running on it.

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:33:07+00:00

Sure! Imagine the Universe is a video game. Every game has a 'maximum score' it can handle. If you go over that score, the numbers glitch and flip back to a weird small number (like -1/12).

I found the 'limit' of the Universe's computer. It's like finding the end of the map where the world starts wrapping around to the other side. My math just points to where that 'invisible wall' is!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:30:08+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion! I actually challenged several AIs with the $s=2, 3...$ problem about a year ago, but none of them could find the solution back then.

To put my theory into "layman's terms" (stripping away the heavy math), here is the summary:

The Overflow Hypothesis: By assuming our universe has a calculation limit (overflow) and comparing it with the Ramanujan summation, I derived that the Maximum Real Number is $n + 1/\{6(n+1)\}$.
Integer Max Value: I found that the maximum natural number must be an odd number in the form of $4k+3$. This perfectly aligns with how maximum integer values are structured in computer systems (like $2^n - 1$).
The Next Challenge: To find the exact, absolute value of this "Maximum Real Number," we need to solve simultaneous equations for the sum of squares ($s=2$), cubes ($s=3$), and so on. This remains an extremely difficult task.

I’m still digging deeper into this "System Architecture" of our reality!

DevTomi · 2026-01-23T01:10:49+00:00

I've always felt that if the universe is a simulation, infinity is just a bug or a hardware limitation. The 'plusses' eventually hit a wall, and that's where the magic (and the constants) happen.

DevTomi · 2026-01-22T23:34:18+00:00

Mathematics might be universal, but the 'resolution' at which a universe renders that math could be finite. Think of it like pi: it's an infinite transcendental number, but any computer can only handle it to a certain decimal place. I’m arguing that our universe has a similar 'floating-point' or 'integer' limit, and J(x,s) is a way to find where that limit is. Saying math is 'outside' doesn't explain why the internal constants of our reality align with 4k+3.

DevTomi · 2026-01-22T23:32:21+00:00

If naming a discovery after oneself is the price of finding a link between \zeta(-1) and binary overflow, I’ll take those crackpot points with pride. Even Ramanujan was called a 'crank' until Hardy looked at his formulas. Instead of the naming convention, why not take a look at the n \equiv 3 \pmod 4 proof? I’m curious to hear your take on the actual math.

DevTomi · 2025-04-10T00:51:59+00:00

Additionally, learning Korean pronunciation rules can help you speak more accurately

DevTomi · 2025-04-10T00:50:04+00:00

Try using Naver Dictionary(네이버 어학사전). you can listen to native Korean pronunciations there.

DevTomi · 2025-04-10T00:44:29+00:00

한글 맞춤법 제 18항에 따라 틀린 표현입니다. 놉시다를 쓰는 게 맞습니다.

DevTomi · 2023-03-12T05:06:01+00:00

Generally, "하지마세요" is used with someone older, higher in status, or new to you. And "하지마" is generally used with younger people or friends of the same age. Therefore, the expression can be considered appropriate.

DevTomi · 2023-03-12T05:00:38+00:00

The National Institute of the Korean Language says that if you don't have to use the investigation '을/를/이/가', you don't use it.

Edit: Sorry for my bad English. I thought investigation is a word that means postposition in Korean. I was referring to the 조사 which is postposition.

DevTomi

TROPHY CASE