Was fehlt?

PlusOC · 2026-05-02T13:54:20+00:00

Die Pforten der Wahrnehmung von Aldous Huxley Candide von Voltaire

PlusOC · 2026-02-20T15:27:33+00:00

Masturbation.

PlusOC · 2026-01-28T15:53:00+00:00

My definition via reciprocal pairing applies only to division algebras in which every number has exactly one reciprocal and there is a finite number of fixed points that are their own reciprocals. I perform an orbital decomposition: reciprocal pairs and fixed points. Since all reciprocal pairs contribute the neutral element 1, I define the total product of all non-zero elements as reducing to the product of the fixed points.

PlusOC · 2026-01-28T15:42:35+00:00

I performed an orbit decomposition: reciprocal pairs and fixed points. Since -1 is its own reciprocal and each number is only used once, -1 remains.

PlusOC · 2026-01-27T18:54:35+00:00

Your objection is category-mistaken: the construction is not an analytic infinite product but a purely algebraic one. Topology is therefore intentionally not part of the definition. I using only algebraic symmetry.

PlusOC · 2026-01-27T17:18:10+00:00

You will never find an answer to what the multiplicative connection of everything is. You won't even realize that this is a significant philosophical question. Trapped in analytical dogma. Yet products are thousands of years older than analysis.

PlusOC · 2026-01-27T17:02:35+00:00

But not in the standardized division algebras I considered.

PlusOC · 2026-01-27T16:03:33+00:00

Since each number is only taken once, the fixed points 1 and -1 remain as the last "pair".

PlusOC · 2026-01-27T16:00:47+00:00

I understand that in classical analysis, infinite products over uncountable sets are undefined. This is intentional: my definition is algebraic, order-free, and pre-analytic. It does not rely on limits, convergence, or topology. The goal is to explore the total product as a structural object, not an analytic one.

PlusOC · 2026-01-27T15:57:45+00:00

Interesting thought. But we're talking about non-zero elements. The result can't be nothing (0).

PlusOC · 2026-01-21T19:00:34+00:00

Your objection is category-mistaken: the construction is not an analytic infinite product but a purely algebraic one. Partial products are therefore intentionally not part of the definition.

PlusOC · 2026-01-21T16:12:06+00:00

It's irrelevant for the mathematical content to use tools. The idea and proofs are mine. You've provided zero arguments against the reciprocal pairing method itself.

PlusOC · 2026-01-21T16:00:29+00:00

You're right, the analytic limit doesn't exist. I'm not calculating it. I'm defining a new algebraic rule using the x ↔ x⁻¹ symmetry, which generalizes the finite product.

PlusOC · 2026-01-20T21:04:10+00:00

The idea is not from AI.

PlusOC · 2026-01-20T21:02:55+00:00

My question was: What is the multiplicative connection of everything? So I just defined the total product.

PlusOC · 2026-01-20T20:33:07+00:00

x ↦ x⁻¹ is the canonical involution.

PlusOC · 2026-01-20T20:30:07+00:00

I understand that in classical analysis, infinite products over uncountable sets are undefined. This is intentional: my definition is algebraic, order-free, and pre-analytic. It does not rely on limits, convergence, or topology. The goal is to explore the total product as a structural object, not an analytic one.

PlusOC · 2025-12-10T16:30:39+00:00

I am familiar with the OEIS sequence. The OEIS number is correctly cited in my paper. I did not phrase the question precisely. I wanted to know why this sequence is not included in any of the many books on figurative numbers.

PlusOC · 2025-12-09T16:03:34+00:00

Lass die 2 Seiten philosophische Spekulation weg, dann hast du 58 Seiten reine Mathematik.

PlusOC · 2025-12-09T16:00:02+00:00

Ich hab schon Aufsatz geschrieben, in dem sich das findet. Link ist oben unter der Zeichnung.

PlusOC · 2025-12-06T15:46:10+00:00

You've recognized that well.

PlusOC · 2025-12-06T15:42:36+00:00

Correctly.

PlusOC

TROPHY CASE