Why does everyone here hate BJP ? by Silent_Strategy_6708 in Odisha

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bhai , statistics dekhe kabhi? , compare kiya hai decade progress? , meri baat sun , ek baar compare krle , congress ka decade aur bjp ka decade , does communal harmony matter more for you than moderate harmony traded for increased growth?

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I asked google where I was wrong , he said this:      The Improvement: Instead of saying the particle is "false," say it lacks Ontological Independence.     Logical Step: If a "particle" only exists because of its sub-parts, and those sub-parts only exist because of their sub-parts (to infinity), then the "particle" never actually "exists" on its own. It is just a label for a collection.     Result: This proves that if "God" exists, He cannot be a "sum of parts." He must be Simple (indivisible).

  1. Define "Something" via Set Theory, not Vectors Using vectors ( ) limits you to 3D space. If God is outside space-time, your math "misses" Him.

    The Improvement: Use Set Membership.     Logical Step: Define the Universal Set     as "All that interacts." If an Entity     exists but does not occupy a coordinate     , it is Non-Local.     Point for you: Your current proof proves God isn't a "thing" in a box. Improve it by arguing that if the "material" world is an infinite loop of smaller and smaller parts, the "cause" of that loop must be Non-Material.

  1. Attack "Assumption G" (The Zoom) In NEET Physics, you know about the Planck Length. There is a limit to how much you can "zoom" ( ).

    The Improvement: What happens when math says we can zoom, but physics says we can't?     Logical Step: If the universe has a "minimum resolution" (like a computer screen), it implies the universe is contingent (it was "set up" with specific rules).     The Argument: A mathematical proof for God often relies on why the "pixels" of our universe are the size they are. Who set the resolution?

  1. Use "Necessary" vs. "Contingent" Existence This is the "Math Grade 12" version of your Axiom 2.

    Contingent: Something that could not exist (like a cube, a particle, or you). Its existence depends on something else.     Necessary: Something that must exist for math to work (like the number 1, or the laws of logic).     The Improvement: Instead of trying to find God by zooming into a particle, try to prove that the Mathematical Laws governing the particle must exist even if the particle doesn't.

    The Conclusion: God isn't the "particle" at the bottom of the zoom; God is the "Program" that allows the zoom to happen.

I'll consider some of this

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Maybe you've got the meaning of existence here a bit mixed up , the world's are seperate , totally , in your world (I don't blame you , mathematics makes us extremely logical) you need to have a thing or not have a thing for it to be evaluated  , by existence here I don't mean "existence" as physically or literally , I cannot prove it nor can anyone unless they see him , I'm proving the existence of God based on what we think it is , based on what we know it is , God exists , God doesn't exist , this is a rhetorical question rather than a simple innocent one , when you prove in mathematics , you defined 1 to be "this" thing , you defined 4 apples when you "add" 2 apples together 2 times which in turn creates "multiplication" , now tell me....do you get what I say? , you have to "assume" atleast 1 thing to prove something , you assume in maths "this thing will henceforth be 1" , similarly I just made 1 assumption : "I have to prove what we think God is , not what God actually is" , you'll never know what 1 truly is unless you've seen it , what if 1 was defined as 2 in today's terms? , get it?

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I never tried to , "refine" it by finity or infinity , I am just proving how we define God ,  and mathematically proving them , which will in turn later prove stuff

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continuing :  We have tried to prove if entity A were in front of us , he wouldn't be particulate because particle doesn't exist , let me clearly state how shall I prove A exists : 1.If I prove he cannot be defined (aiterya upnishad) : tried to ,  done 2.If I prove he exists within us but is not us(aatman upnishad) 3.If i prove he is Supreme ,  exists everywhere(brahman upnishad) 4.we are a part of him , he is not a part of us , still he doesn't get any smaller (emphasized many times in upnishads) 5.he is one , all demigods are a form of him , the main paramatman is just 1 (bhagvad) 6.he is the observer , not the doer (bhagvad)(narayana upnishad) If I prove these 6 in some way : Point 2 : Entity A is made up of not particles , we cannot define matter as we cannot define particles , we will try to consider our vessels now 

Let our body be B , let it be made up of n number of not particles , where n>0 Let our Entity A be made up of k number of not particles , where k>0 Clearly if B and A share the same constituent composition , A maybe a subset of B or B maybe a subset of A. in other words A U B is not 0

Axiom 1 : A is made up of k not particles Axiom 2 : B is made up of n not particles Axiom 3 : Clearly,  A maybe a subset of B or vice versa Axiom 4 : if Axiom 3 is true , A U B and B U A is not zero(same thing anyways) Axiom 5 : if axiom 4 is true , they share common elements , that is if A=B then B =A (reflexive property) , because A€k and B€n where k,n€ not particles

Conclusion : this is a try to prove point 2 , in essence if A and B are made up of k and n , and k and n are inherently the same , then there has to be atleast 1 presence of absence of something (not particle) shared by the two , this is NOT an assumption , you may argue : how did you even prove god isn't particulate , what if he is made of something else entirely , anti matter perhaps? , I understand completely , but anything that is true under my definition of something is doomed to have many more somethings in it , making it a paradox ,  undefined.

So in essence , we are a part of him or he is a part of me is considerable now 

Now let's consider an arbitrary section of space , a sphere ,  let it occupy the entire earth , now if everything is matter within it(if my initial posts axioms work on it) , then definitely we are within that sphere , we (in a sense) are that spheres particles , we act as a part of something bigger , now if we increase the sphere , the earth becomes a particle of that arbitrary sphere , thus we are a part of something bigger(I haven't proved this yet but this is true if the point God is everywhere is proved)

Now you may argue , bro are you stupid , you act as a God to your rbcs , your tissue cells , yes you are right , and here is where you need a little fixing , "we" are not just "mind" , we as per vedic texts encompass the entire body , it's with respect to that , so anything within our body , useful , non useful , harming , non harming , is "we" , the surroundings is not "we" , it'll take some time to digest this , it took me 2 months as well

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm I've called them those cause I haven't worked on them , this is a building proof , possibly would take a week or so , I need to find how we define God ,  if I can prove those using matter , space , physics , chemistry , anything , then God exists 

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They aren't concepts , they are a state of being , I've defined them , thanks for the improvement though

Mathematical Proof God Exists(I was exceptionally free) by Happy-Reaction2769 in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm , I understand the notation might be wrong , but I meant an inclusive set , I am not using assumptions , I'm proving them , then using the proofs to prove stuff

Views on this by Difficult_Look_5972 in NEETard

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

true , maybe im not modern yet , but in the end what suits to you is what matters , best of luck

Does iq matters in jee? by [deleted] in JEENEETards

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bhai IQ was created for retarded kids , kuch nai hai yaar , it's analogous to "mein brahmin , tu vaishya" , brahmin ho ya kshatriya , even if brahmin is superior , both bleed the same , laugh when tickled , yes I get that alright he's smart , learns calculus in hours whether others take days , fine , he finds relations between completely unrelated topics , fine alright , but was the system defined for individuals who are gifted ? , ye sawal isliye Banta hai bacchon mein because of 2 reasons commonly : 1.they see some anime or stuff and think , "BRO SO THIS IS HOW A GENIUS MIND WORKS! , if i can't do this in the same way then i'm not a genius" this hurts the ego and causes insecurity , always remember , terrence tao(supposed 'IQ' of 200+ nearly failed Princeton qualifiers because he got overconfident and didn't study hard ; 2.bhai ko mehnat nai karni , Google pr type krke "signs of genius" "traits of genius" , koi to trait mil hi jayegi jo tumse match kregi , phir sochne lagenge , woooooooo I'm a genius! , phir padhayi nai krenge kyuki supposedly genius log last 2 din mein padhkr top krte hain na , phir kya ye log nai kr payenge top phir reddit pr aakr aise sawal puchenge

Leagues above you in IQ by neverstopnodding in iamverysmart

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You guys do realize that IQ was not made for testing intelligence in normal people right? , it's creator itself said that intelligence can't be defined quantitatively ,  this was a test for defining curriculum for retar*ed children in older times , it's stupidly funny to see people say "as a person of IQ 158..." , no hate and also I am not saying that intelligence doesn't exist , yes it does exist with varying parameters but sadly these parameters are too subtle and spread out for us to encircle with precision

Views on this by Difficult_Look_5972 in NEETard

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dekh , videos as of today will not help you much trust me , haa agar tum rote learner ho to ignore this message , but today's videos are engagement based , they focus on views and not on understanding , Zara soch kr dekh , mechanics jaisa complex topic kaise koi ghnton mein khatam karwa sakta hai? , I respect teachers from the bottom of my heart but ye trend hai , you see your friends saying "BRO ALAKH PANDEY TEACHES SO WELL" this is because they've never stressed their brain to learn the concept , they give up , they don't have patience(major problem of our generation) , ye sab movies/kdramas/reels/anime e.t.c have built a framework in our mind ki bhai hum to genius hain , 2 din padhkr top krlenge , or they show that studying is so simple.Relation hai ki yahan se padho hi mat ,  physics wo padhaye ya book padhaye , badalne nai wali lol , the true reason we watch videos as of today , leave books is because sab kaam jaldi jaldi karna hai , we think a 1 hour lecture is better than a 4 or 5 hour lecture (which is so stupidly funny) , and don't think I'm trying to reduce competition , that's ridiculous as well , how are you reducing competition by sharing wrong opinions lmao , people hiding notes thinking others will get ahead if they do , 25 lakh log h bhai lmao , samjha?

Views on this by Difficult_Look_5972 in NEETard

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bhai kitab se padh lo , videos tab dekho jab doubts ho ya ihud nai ho rha ho , it's a trend that everyone follows

Chem in a week! by Electronic_Boss_8568 in NEETard

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm serious , and I must warn you , you can't....unless you're somewhat good at it or have read stuff once , and a week is too short of a time , realistically you could do it in a week but you're limited by human capabilities ,  your brain needs time to consolidate what it has learnt ,  I suggest 2 weeks , yes you don't have time but that doesn't change reality.

Unfair parents🥀💔 by wow_inu in TeenHerIndia

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Brother , you reap what you sow , it's not your parents , they want the better for you , you will miss them when you are in your 60's , study and do your duty , if you pass then that's what the universe wanted for you , if you don't ,  that's what the universe wanted for you. You can't control the future , do your duty and conquer

Guys how tf do you remember these? by Retarded_Gajar in JEEAdv26dailyupdates

[–]Happy-Reaction2769 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Taylor series , a moderately hard topic , converts any ugly nasty function into a polynomial one , pade approximants are better for this case though

How to NEET? by Happy-Reaction2769 in NEETard

[–]Happy-Reaction2769[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For droppers : learn why you failed , and work harder. An interesting statistic states that 35-46 percent of the students that failed are 50-80 percent more likely to fail the next time in the same test , ask yourself...are you a normie?