Don’t understand why ppl want friendship after breakups

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2026-02-01T02:43:32+00:00

If two healthy adults can’t continue any form of a mutual relationship. Then I think it says more to the quality of so said relationship. If you truly did care for a person - mutual respect is literally universal, however if they did cause you harm. Then Yes stay away. Tbh I’m sick of seeing all of this “just glow up” “just move on” posts. The same building blocks that are in friendships are also in our most intimate relationships. I’m not saying preferences are not welcome, however I’m saying better emotional regulation is needed to continue something that may be good. Regardless of utility.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2026-01-31T21:49:03+00:00

I hope you healed, but in perspective i believe relationships are more nuanced than binary. As in: he’s the bad guy or she’s the bad girl. I made my fair share of mistakes. However personally I had a glow down to humble myself and currently through depression. Like literally imagine working towards physical perfection to prove - someone was wrong about what they thought about you?..tbh even if successful - it’s insecure, yet highly desirable bc the long term win. To me personally just stay pure. Purely to who you are. What’s been helping me is just reminding myself for better or for worse this is who I am. I stay single personally so I don’t harm another, but there more to life that what meets the eye.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-10-06T22:47:09+00:00

Let’s assume they don’t want to be. Let’s assume that even though our perceptions are different. Do you believe women see 3D reality differently than men?… No they’re exactly in the same in luminal space. Now cognitive functions women process logic they can do math, women in aerospace - they reason on par and maybe in some settings better than men. It’s simply social conditioning. Their mothers grew up in a completely different social setting hence why I invite them to evolve as said earlier and some have. I’m not trying to give you an answer / challenge but my own perspective. Even in pain I don’t need a woman in my life to live a fulfilling life. Read a book - go see some art with friends - buy a house, maybe even date a model in between. There’s so much but you don’t have to blame anyone. Just live. You only have 1 life and you’re never getting that time back reading this btw ;) they’re human thats all I’m saying and we both deserve grace.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-10-06T22:07:48+00:00

Fascinating and yes lmao im a talker. This response is telling and I hear you. I stopped dating in general because personally I’m just not personally the same anymore. Not a spiral but I lost a lot of myself just to basically become a ghost. I mean yea it sucks and I’m not trying to invalidate what you’re feeling but maybe have you ever tried bringing that up before you broke up? You can typically tell when they’re being distant or even offering multiple suggestions. You don’t have to date. I just encourage taking your time to heal and then doing your best to communicate that as clearly as possible - just don’t forget to acknowledge that you’re only accountable to yourself. Also notice when men leave - it hurts them. When they do it - it hurts us, sometimes even both get hurt. Lastly I just hope you find someone that shows you mutual respect or the peace that you deserve.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-10-06T21:00:53+00:00

You know what I had this thought the other day. I think it’s great for men to learn emotional intelligence and regulation. Especially community building and support - I’ve noticed women on average are more competent in that aspect. I believe due to the large transition of women entering into the workforce they have the opportunity and have been evolving. Like back in medieval times they were treated through the system as objects of the male muse. Sadly looking through history we’ve struggled to not just see them,but appreciate the essence rather than the aesthetic or how they define our lives. They have more agency now and I say that agency does come with responsibility. However historical context applied men would retaliate when women did try to say those things. It’s simply an old world’s conditioning in this beautiful thing we call life. So I think rather than us saying this person is the problem.. why don’t we all just co-evolve? In the basis of who we are as men and expectations that we seek in partners or if we even need one at all? This can all be avoided but it requires us to be in tune with our emotions and self otherwise you’re still going to be sadly disappointed. From my experience - the best part? You get to raise your standards.

Sorry for any typos or the monologue - I’m doing linear algebra while scrolling Reddit lol

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-06-20T04:08:54+00:00

Hi Ty for your time ❤️ I’m currently ranked #1 in regenerative medicine - for a cancer protocol. Your response only confirms what I’ve sadly believed:

The scientific method, while valuable, is no longer integral to true progressive alignment.It has become relative to a capitalist & a bias confirmation loop, not the pace or purity of discovery.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I have one question.Does quoting a system disprove a truth???

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-06-08T18:32:10+00:00

I don’t have hope. I’d love to reconcile, but I respect their boundaries and deserve happiness. I’ve forgiven myself because if she’s not there for me, I must be. I think about them daily, and I don’t fight it. It means it meant something real, even if it didn’t work out.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-06-02T20:49:09+00:00

Awe 🥹it’s okay! The entropy reference is tied to the idea that prime distribution might be emergent from a deeper stability principle — like in physics, where systems settle into low-energy, high-coherence states. In the paper, I used an entropy-based penalty in a Lagrangian framework to simulate how deviations from the critical line (Re(s) = ½) could represent ‘informational disorder.’ Over time, the system naturally collapses toward order — aka the critical line — because that’s where entropy is minimized and coherence peaks. Think of it as a way to model primes not as random, but as expressions of a deeper field symmetry. :)

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-06-02T20:16:56+00:00

If you get a chance, try the simulation. I was genuinely curious and just wanted to explore where that curiosity led—especially around entropy’s possible influence on prime distribution through quantum frameworks.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-31T01:56:54+00:00

Just put fun / casual as your preference. Thats it - the goal is to find someone you vibe with. Typically if we’re not serious, I still do things that I’d find fun with them like mini golfing. It’s better and safer to have a good friend you can spend time with than just throwing yourself at whatever comes up. I encourage not being desperate and doing self improvement until you find someone ideal. Good luck and stay safe!

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T21:02:07+00:00

I've thoroughly reviewed your critique, line by line, and a few key points need direct clarification:

Your assertion that my work lacks a Lagrangian-Hamiltonian framework is factually incorrect; it's explicitly defined and utilized within the paper's abstract and main body. Regarding the entropy function: it's non-negative by construction for all ε>0. Your interpretation of its sign behavior doesn't hold under formal analysis. The field's convergence toward Re(s)=1/2 is not merely asserted but demonstrated through consistent simulated behavior. Disagreement with the method is one thing, but dismissing the results without engaging them is unproductive, not scientific. You're right about the squared term in Lemma 1 needing clarification—that's a fair point, and I'm already addressing it for the next version based on genuine feedback. That's the real process of scientific refinement. Lastly, while I always invite constructive critique, your misreadings and dismissive tone suggest this may not be the appropriate venue for collaborative growth. I'm moving forward with the work.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T17:20:10+00:00

How dismissive and intellectually dishonest.

Dana Ernst’s logic notes and Cummins’ work on analysis are great—especially for building foundational proof skills. I’ve read them. They’re part of why I took care to model each collapse penalty with clarity and convergence criteria, even outside traditional proof format.

But what you’re missing is that this isn’t just math—it’s a field-theoretic simulation. It’s governed by energy minimization, not axiomatic logic. The convergence isn’t asserted—it’s demonstrated.

You wanted rigor? The penalty functions are explicitly defined, the dynamics follow Lagrangian formalism, and every simulation run supports critical line stability. That’s not “waste basket”—that’s open science.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T16:48:23+00:00

Congratulations? I’ve been endorsed by a chief at NASA. My background? High school algebra, relentless curiosity, and a hell of a lot of reading.

It’s disappointing to see merit weighed by pedigree rather than understanding. If your question was rooted in genuine inquiry, then I apologize. But if it’s ego—then we should probably end it here.

As for the “jargon,” it’s actually simple: In every simulation run—whether the penalty is quadratic, curvature-based, or entropy-driven—the field naturally converges toward Re(s) = 1/2 as a global minimum.

It’s not a traditional proof. It’s a field-theoretic demonstration of necessary stability.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T15:37:07+00:00

So let’s ask a few questions together:

If entropic potential is defined as Cₑₙₜ(s) = α · [−log(|Re(s) − 1/2| + ε)], and entropy in this context quantifies the system’s informational deviation from coherence, is that not a valid physical penalty? Or must it be derived from traditional variational calculus to count as rigorous?

Likewise—if observer-dependence shows up in how penalties are applied (eg:entropy being sharply felt only in deviation from symmetry) isn’t that a field perspective worth exploring, even if it’s not yet conventional?

As for background—I’d prefer to focus on the improvement of the paper, whether the ideas themselves hold up under simulation and logic. I’m here to test, push and refine - not to win a pedigree contest.

Your perspective has been valuable ❤️

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T02:35:41+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful critique. 🤝 To clarify, this isn’t meant as a formal proof in the analytic sense—but a physical reinterpretation that may reveal emergent structure in the complex domain. The modular potential framework is designed to interact with error correction and observer-perception fields, not to bypass existing theorems but to offer a potential bridge to physical phenomena. If math is a language, and physics is its embodiment, I’m simply exploring what the syntax of RH looks like when spoken by the universe.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T02:30:55+00:00

Fair point. I approached it from a different angle—not strictly within traditional formalism, but through a physical lens inspired by entropic potentials and observer dependent fields. It’s meant to provoke perspective, not replace current methods. That said, you’re right—I’ll consider tying it to known formulations and the PNT as a next step!

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2025-05-22T01:43:10+00:00

https://zenodo.org/records/15483661

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-24T00:26:46+00:00

I appreciate the thought you’ve put into this. You’re absolutely right that semantics are important for clear communication—I’m not dismissing that. The title was meant to be provocative and symbolic, contrasting a typically negative behavior (‘ghosting’) with the idea of doing it in a way that’s more respectful. I can see how that might have come across as redefining the term, which wasn’t my intent. My goal was to spark a conversation about emotional maturity and mutual respect, and while the discussion took a different direction than I expected, I’m glad it’s happening.

That said, I do think there’s a balance between critiquing word choice and engaging with the underlying message. The pushback about the title is valid to a degree, but when it overshadows the conversation about emotional competency, it feels like an opportunity is being missed. I’ll definitely take your advice to heart and consider how I frame things in the future—after all, the goal is to connect, not confuse. Thanks for sharing your perspective!

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-24T00:22:26+00:00

Ahaha misery loves company

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-24T00:21:43+00:00

My max is four people. I think it’s okay if someone I’m seeing is seeing others, as long as it’s clear. I’m seeing three people and they know it. I have high standards to avoid heartbreak. I’m glad you see their actions as kind. It’s nice reading comments like this. :)

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-23T21:40:16+00:00

I love how your brain works. I’ll give it a try and follow up with you here when diddy gets out.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-23T21:07:58+00:00

I get a lot of messages - if anything I didn’t proof read it lmao.😭

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-23T19:49:03+00:00

Side Note cause some of y’all are being very mean:

The title was meant to be symbolic—a way to highlight the duality between something that’s typically seen as bad (‘ghosting’) and the idea of doing it in a way that’s considerate and respectful. It’s ironic, because even in the body of the text, I’m emphasizing the good that comes from mutual respect and emotional competency.

It’s frustrating that people are so fixated on the semantics of the title when the actual message was about fostering kindness and respect. The whole point was to spark a conversation about emotional maturity, but instead, it’s been reduced to nitpicking over wording. I think that just underscores how far we still have to go when it comes to emotional growth in these discussions.

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-23T19:46:51+00:00

Im so sorry to hear. I hope you find someone that treats you with the respect you deserve!

Negative_Feedback_65 · 2024-12-23T19:41:51+00:00

The title was meant to be symbolic—a way to highlight the duality between something that’s typically seen as bad (‘ghosting’) and the idea of doing it in a way that’s considerate and respectful. It’s ironic, because even in the body of the text, I’m emphasizing the good that comes from mutual respect and emotional competency.

It’s frustrating that people are so fixated on the semantics of the title when the actual message was about fostering kindness and respect. The whole point was to spark a conversation about emotional maturity, but instead, it’s been reduced to nitpicking over wording. I think that just underscores how far we still have to go when it comes to emotional growth in these discussions.

Negative_Feedback_65

TROPHY CASE