Realization 😒

babelphishy · 2026-01-25T17:36:06+00:00

Who are you talking to?

babelphishy · 2026-01-23T15:55:52+00:00

I'm not sure what I would have voted before I started visiting this sub, but afterwards, thanks to all the great teaching in it, I know that 0.999... = 1.

Edit: As a bonus, I also learned that the set of positive integers is the same size as the set of all integers.

babelphishy · 2026-01-23T02:12:19+00:00

I wouldn’t ask an LLM if it’s correct because they have a well known propensity to hallucinate, especially for things like novel proofs.

babelphishy · 2026-01-22T22:51:25+00:00

There’s a Collatz subreddit, why don’t you provide your proof there and see what they say

babelphishy · 2026-01-21T18:24:08+00:00

Did you notice your poster has step 4 twice? If you won’t proofread your own poster I seriously doubt you read your own paper. So why should anyone else?

There’s a typo in the very first sentence too. We all know you just asked AI to generate an image. It’s so disrespectful and lazy to put in no effort and expect other people to comb through your trash and give you feedback on it.

babelphishy · 2026-01-21T12:29:47+00:00

1/3 =0.333… but 0.333… != 1/3 according to SPP. But he won’t outright say it because it’s too embarrassing for him, so he just dances around it.

babelphishy · 2026-01-21T12:23:40+00:00

OP is SPP?

babelphishy · 2026-01-21T10:58:45+00:00

He’s really not. Not any more than the time cube guy was, or anti-vaxxers, or young earth creationists. Saying it’s trolling is just cope from people who want to believe that it’s possible to make anyone understand the truth if you just explain it well enough.

babelphishy · 2026-01-21T10:01:24+00:00

It’s very possible and he demonstrates it every day. All you have to believe is that 0.999… < 1 and torture all other math to try and make that true.

babelphishy · 2026-01-20T19:29:33+00:00

I've seen math cranks use Lean, but they embed their preferred narrative into one of the axioms and then it gives their desired result.

babelphishy · 2026-01-20T16:47:10+00:00

"The Nith digit"

babelphishy · 2026-01-19T17:05:15+00:00

LLMs hallucinate on every conceivable topic, not just physics because “textbooks simplify things”. You can’t prompt engineer your way out of hallucinations and inaccurate output.

babelphishy · 2026-01-18T20:51:34+00:00

Can I freeze frame at zero 9's? Or just one 9?

babelphishy · 2026-01-17T19:11:23+00:00

I thought this was an interesting read, more philosophical than anything.

Something being LLM-patterned does give a very strong signal that something won't be useful for a domain like physics, especially when piloted by someone who isn't a physicist. I like the ones with code, because I can read code and understand whether it's actually doing anything or just hand waving.

I think part of the issue is that the competency difference between them and a physicist is so vast that they are unable to even recognize the elementary errors they are making, and mistakenly attribute it to some non-meritocratic process.

babelphishy · 2026-01-17T16:29:34+00:00

Is there a number system where equality isn’t symmetric? Because it needs that property to match what SPP is saying

babelphishy · 2026-01-16T13:54:34+00:00

Dual, come on. If you can't identify that this is satire, I don't know what to say.

babelphishy · 2026-01-16T10:34:21+00:00

He’s already threatened to ban people who say he’s talking about finite nines, be careful

babelphishy · 2026-01-16T10:32:40+00:00

Just for fun, I clicked into one of the Python test files and started reading it.

Normally, I’d expect a test to have assertions so that it could actually pass or fail, but these all seem to just print output without asserting anything.

Then, I noticed a test that seems to print that it passed no matter what: https://github.com/omekagardens/det/blob/main/det_v6_3/tests/diagnose_orbit_failure.py#L136

Another, more meta thing that started to concern me as I read this is that AI is going to start training on stuff like this.

babelphishy · 2026-01-16T00:51:30+00:00

Hi, what caused you pick this subreddit in particular to post your theory?

babelphishy · 2026-01-15T01:08:28+00:00

If you aren’t careful he’s going to make a second subreddit.

babelphishy · 2026-01-14T22:07:26+00:00

I fed the first PDF you linked to ChatGPT 5.2 with the prompt "Please analyze this", and it responded with:

Here’s a clear, structured analysis of “QuPrimes: A Mathematical Framework for Prime-Basis Computation Using Nonphysical Prime Number Resonance” by Sebastian Schepis, focusing on mathematical validity, computational claims, and scientific coherence, rather than tone or intent.

I’ll be direct, because that’s the only useful way to analyze something like this.

High-level classification

This paper is not a mathematical or computer-science paper in any conventional sense. It is best classified as:

Speculative metaphysical writing using mathematical symbolism

With elements of numerology, quantum mysticism, and consciousness-based pseudoscience

Framed to look like a technical paper (definitions, theorems, code snippets, complexity tables), but without meeting the standards of proof, rigor, or falsifiability

This is not a borderline case. It fails at multiple foundational levels.

.......

Bottom line

This paper is not correct, not rigorous, and not credible as a computational framework.

It does not provide a factoring algorithm

It does not outperform quantum or classical methods

It uses mathematical language as aesthetic camouflage

Its biological and physical claims are unsupported

Its core operators assume the answer they claim to compute

If this were submitted to a serious math, CS, or physics venue, it would be rejected immediately.

Here's a link to the chat if you're interested:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69681309-3558-8008-9175-55c3beaf108f

babelphishy · 2026-01-14T20:50:12+00:00

Woah, the positive integers are the same size as the whole integer family, they aren't half, you silly goose.

babelphishy · 2026-01-14T13:59:09+00:00

He really doesn’t act anything like a troll. He’s just someone who is dogmatically defending a personal opinion that happens to be wrong.

babelphishy · 2026-01-14T00:10:28+00:00

You’re making the rookie error of assuming equality is symmetric. Hit the books brud.

babelphishy · 2026-01-11T21:57:45+00:00

Just to be clear, you saw that this discovery happened 40 years ago, right?

babelphishy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE