Legacy Blog 13: O l w (One letters words, in Lesser Speech)

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

We dive further today into the concept of HyperWords. These are not the same as hypertext, which many of you nerds out there use to make your profiles pretty. Hypertext is, AT MOST, a 3.1-dimensional idea (i.e. its boundaries start to break into other space, which is also discussed here today). As for the said topic, how can something like Identitiy be written in these HyperWords? What are HyperWords? Why is the W capatialized?

We shall tackle those in reverse square order (in this scenario, object 3 becomes object 1, object 2 becomes object 4, and object 1 becomes object 9). Keep in mind these lists start at 1 to avoid any confusion. Lists, as a RULE, start at 0. Why? Well, it’s a rule, so obey it. Then again, we just said we’ll start at 1 (well, actually at 3, but you get the idea), so we’re breaking rules! Note I did not list 9 elements. I toy with you reader. The transformation (1., 2., 3.) –> (9., 4., 1.) is a perfectly reasonable move as long as we understand what we’re talking about. We could say (1., 2., 3.) –> (cow., sheep., fish.), but that’s just stupid. A fish isn’t a barnyard animal.

Returning from that tangent back to topic 1 (3), the W is capitalized because HyperWords need a significance beyond hyperwords. We could have HYPERWORDS, or HYPERWORDS, but HyperWords will do for now. Our notation from previous entries tells us contructs have the form A and Construct. We do not want to confuse ourselves. Also, HyperWords looks cool.

HyperWords may not come of to you and me as written words, but they share the same purpose. Join me, reader, in asking what a word really is. You might say this post is written is words, and you give your response in spoken or written words. That’s fine if we want to define “words,” but what is a single word? If you say a word is a string of symbols or an emitted sound from the vocal cords with a meaning given by a reader’s or speaker’s mind, you’re getting closer. Very warm. We should consider another property about words: their infinitude. Transifinitude, really. You may say, reader, that sldkfjloksagaoioihilgosah (pronunciation is uncertain) is not a word. That isn’t true. You simply can’t place any meaning to it. Neither can I, so don’t get out your handkerchief yet. A is a word. B is a word, etc. Aa is a word, Ab is a word, etc. Eventually sldkfjloksagaoioihilgosah is indeed a word, when the right combination of English symbols is reached. We should not forget that there are more words than anyone could ever understand, even the greatest linguists, as long as we do not associate meaning to them.

4 (2) and 9 (1): HyperWords define your meaning as soon as you do. In other words, they have no meaning until you give them meaning. How can this be? Most humans can’t speak until age 2. How can they live two years without meaning??? A human processes HyperWords as soon as he/she has a working brain. Unfortunately, I can’t write a HyperWord out for you (I would need nine dimensions of computer screen to do so), but I can give you a mathematical model for one. Each written word is a string made of symbols. The symbols have a ciphertext numerical equivalent; in standard form A = 1, B = 2, etc. Notice how strings essentially occupy one dimension, in that we read them from left to right or right to left. I challenge anyone not familiar with written Arabic to try to write right to left in English so that the final product appears the same as if he/she had written it from left to right. Although words written on paper appear in two dimensions, humans don’t read them in two dimensions. To be super-technical, words appear in a very small third dimension, too, in both written and spoken form. Spoken words are just wave equations. We can create two integrals then for “written” and “spoken” HyperWords.


Note that (1) is for the written, and (2) is for the spoken.

(The reader should note that gestures are words by definition. That integral is similar to the integral for the spoken word, but we shan’t mention it today.)

In this way, we can find HyperWords that describe Indentity. Both Hyperwords and Identity are Ninth-Dimensional Constructs. The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh, in conventional spatial-temporal theories, are the final boundaries for any and all matter and energy. You may shift them to Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, and Twenty-Sixth if it suits your theory better. Notice the word “loop” in the integrals. They are not conventional integrals—rather they are summing up all the infinitesimal self-reference cycles in every spatial-temporal dimension. By self-reference cycles I mean every single neural impact on a human’s mind caused by the word. Let’s return to the point about being meaningless until age 2. The child brain still processes words, which make self-reference cycles. By inter-dimensional wave transfer, these reference-cycles define Selves all the way into the Ninth, and encompass all Presence of the thinking human below. (To keep your head fresh, Presence is the higher-dimensional equivalent of mass.)

To wrap up, we should address the last (first) point addressed. The signals that make up the Internet move though the connection wires at about the speed of light. At that velocity, matter and energy starts its breakage into the Fourth, but won’t complete. If you were an Internet transmission signal, you would feel like Tyrannosaurs tore you apart about 1000 times (the amount of times it happens when people own The Lost World: Jurassic Park on video). With that, reader, I bid you good day.

Legacy Blog 12: 1 + 1 = 1 (Sadly not a sequel to 2 + 2 = 1)

Sunday, December 31, 2006

We have tackled the idea of Identity in previous entries, and shall dive into further detail today, boys and girls. Recently, I have been appointed “Soda Jerk!!!!1!”. Perhaps Soda Jerk!!!!1! makes a nest in my toes. Ah! and we shan’t forget AHOV Inc., whom many know as my AIM screenname. Today’s discussion focuses on what true Identity is as it applies to the World we know, and the Indentity of the author of these blogs.

To begin, take a moment and ask yourself, “Who am I?” Simple question. You may answer, “Insert a Name Here” or “Insert First and Last Name Here”. I would answer that way too. You may also have dozens more points worth of IQ than I do (that rhymes!) and tune out now. If so, good-bye. If neither option applies to you, keep reading anyway. The first option I listed corresponds to a name. Most children’s parents give them a name, unless of course they are Adam Sandler in Big Daddy. Most would say the name suffices as the identity of a person. To all English majors, recite with me how characters are described by

1. What they do,

2. What they say, and

3. What others say about them.

True to form, if Reality were a book for, say, Colonel Sanders in Heaven, I would appear a subversive and confusing character. Reader, you may also make Colonel Sanders cringe as he leafs through the pages of the Book.

A character with several names will not confuse a reader. A character’s hypocrisy will. I shall only speak for myself when I say, “I am a hypocrite.” Ah, but if I am a hypocrite, how can you hold that I will not act differently from what I say? In declaring “I am a hypocrite,” I must not be one. Great! Then again, how can we follow the pattern to say that I will act differently from what I say if I am not, in fact, a hypocrite? I preach no self-confessional, reader, I only give you a prime example of Identity beyond our understanding.

I borrow Douglas R. Hoffstadter’s terminology of Strange Loops to procede. You may recall from my previous entry my three guidelines for selfhood. Realize that “self” is as much an abstraction as “number” is. The title of this blog has no relevence to “2 + 2 = 1” at all. The popular 2ge+her song “U + Me = Us” can be subsituted to 1 + 1 = 1. If you’re a stickler and count characters in a string, we’ll work with 1 + 2 = 2. Either way, neither is true by the laws of Set Theory and Number Theory. That is, of course, if we hold numbers to be numbers. Such a trivial idea slips under the noses of most practicing mathematicians, and likely presents a waste of time to everyone else. After all, how can we develop entire fields of knowledge and thousands of years of practice of mathematics if the underlying ideas are false? It might turn out the idea of the number has no substance in our world. Even if it did, it would need the dreaded units to go with it. My theories and readings tell me that a seperate reality may host pure and simple numbers, whose markings on our reality are very weird. Consider 2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995…, the number of natural exponential growth. Inasmuch as many apparent contradictions but actually Strange Loops result from an “Abstraction” (notice the quotation marks) like numbers, the same also occurs with an “Abstraction” like selves.

“Abstractions” are really contructs unavailable to full human processing. That does not nagate their existence. Only contradiction would arise if ideas were false. Strange Loops result when something is weirdly true. Sadly I cannot fully describe my Identity without using Ninth-Dimensional HyperWords. I can claim all my aliases as myself. My chosen name is Exxor. You may know me as the guy who writes these lengthy entries every whoknowswhen. You may know me as a former student of Waverly High School. You may know me as a current student at the University of Michigan. I could list adjectives for myself, but people generally deal me those. What do I think of myself?

Legacy Blog 11: i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = -1 (This relates to the previous title. Can you see why?)

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Readers, to begin, my sincerest apologies for such a break in time between this and the previos blog. The 32nd dimension just has higher degree manifolds (including 64-D manifolds if we take into account configuration space!).

As our first exercize, consider the mind. Plainly, you, the reader, have a mind or else you couldn’t read this far. What is it, though? Can you touch it? Can you smell it? Your mind can sense all sorts of stimuli… but can it sense itself? A large question in both philosophy and cosmology (which should be intertwined anyway) is the idea of matterless minds. That’s right, minds that exist without technically “existing.” The idea may also appeal to theologists, who carefully study the idea of God and his presence among human beings. God, according to some points of view, is the omniscient, omnipotent force that governs all, and sublimes all material nonsense below Him. It is indeed humbling to think that a person has no complete control over his or her life. I shall not state my point of view on God, but I will venture to say that He is a prime example of a matterless mind.

All humans have brains, and therefore have minds. I suppose this is the reverse of a famous quote by Des Cartes, “I think therefore I am.” To the best of what I know, the mind is a form of self-referring energy. It calls itself “I.” “I” has no meaning beyond a person’s self-reference. My brain may be subconsciously calculating all my actions, but my mind continues to loop the calculations inside itself. I would exist with only a brain. But without a mind, I cannot write this sentence (or at least it won’t mean anything to me). Notice how the previous sentence refers to itself. Notice how the previous sentence referred to the sentence before it. Even though these sentences are products of my mind, they have become their own loops as soon as they were typed. They are very simple “selves.”

I dare to use “I” even in non-self-reference. On planet Earth, there are well over six billion Is. Each I is independent of every other I, in that is an I. By its own definition, it makes itself. Such begins a “strange loop” (Douglas R. Hofstadter, GEB). The fact that I refers to itself implies that it exists. Consider the following:

The following sentence is false.

The previous sentence was true.

Now how in the Hell does that make sense? Notice I just referred to the previous set of sentences as “that” implying at the very least it is its own entity. By the fact that it encloses itself and will not allow any further information (if you don’t believe me, go through the two sentences again), it is a self.

Here are some principles on selves:

1. Each self is independent.

2. Each self has its own perception of reality.

3. Each self is eternally self-referring.

Perhaps this leads into what some call “souls,” i.e. what lives on past the body. The brain may die, but the mind has no beginning or end, just like a Mobius Strip (see A x B = -B x A). To conclude, reader, consider how I refer to you as “you,” whilst technically you are an I.

Legacy Blog 10: I <3 U (The construct I has less presence than three times that of the construct U)

Friday, May 12, 2006

Hello, readers! A few of you who bother to read my math-related, witty titles may wonder what presence is. Presence is sort of like mass in higher dimensions. We’ll go deeper into that concept later in this blog. I appreciate all of you who have waited so long for the release of a new blog. After they throw me in a looney bin one day, you can say you knew me when I was sane.

On to important matters. Many of you may be familiar with the idea of looking at a person in the distance, placing your fingers in front of your view, and pinching the head of that person. It’s an old Kids in the Hall joke. Picture this if you will: you can actually pinch that person’s head from that distance, and quite possibly flatten his or her skull (I wouldn’t recommend doing this). The reason it appears you can’t is because you don’t “believe” you can. Notice how the verb “believe” is in quotations. “Belief” is the abandonment of current-dimensional thought. For a simple example, consult Blue’s Clues. Steve or Joe (Steve is way better) can jump into pictures hanging around his house because he forgets about his 3-D form and “believes.” To keep children’s brains from exploding, Nick Jr. still makes Steve appear 3-D, when really he should look like the projection of Steve on to a two-plane. Using these ideas, “believe” there is no distance between you and your friend. Only then do your pinching fingers and his or her head lie on the same two-plane, and crushing it becomes possible (but your friend may not enjoy it). Similarly, 2-D constructs may bend into the three-plane. The perfect example is DoodleBob on an episode of SpongeBob titles “Frankendoodle.” SpongeBob eloquently recites how DoodleBob was trapped in the 3-D world.

Now picture 4-D beings (like Tralfamadoreans) pinching their friends’ heads in the distance by only “believing.” The same applies for 5-D, 6-D, 7-D, 8-D, and (God forbid) 9-D beings. The Head-Pinching Theory (as it will now be called) only requires a subtraction of the highest dimensions. Notice how this falls perfectly parallel to the ideas uniting M-theory and string theory, in that cutting the equator of a higher-dimensional equivalent of a sphere leaves a string of one less dimension. As for an idea like time-travel, which is adding a dimension of travel instead of subtracting one, “belief” also is the way. Reader, please do not make the foolish assumption that if you believe you can travel 20 years in the future, you will. That’s just silly. To time travel, a person must recongize the four-plane. You must “believe,” not believe. I have tried many times to see the four-plane, but came up short. Please let me know if you see any folds or bends in the four-plane. If you do, all we need to do is tug on them a little and we’ll travel through time. Neat.

Now for the idea of presence. Presence is a less-than-ninth-dimensional construct desribing how much of something there is. For example, in three dimensions, objects have presence measured in kilograms. This makes presence equivalent to mass in three dimensions. How then is presence measured in other dimensions? We first need to identify what a kilogram is. The traditional definition of mass is the amount of matter an object has. But mass can be converted to energy and vice-versa using the ideas of Einstein and that really ugly guy, de Broglie. Citing string theory, particles with mass are really just strings vibrating at certain frequencies. Objects, then, are trillions of notes from of strings with well-built harmonies. Mass is therefore a simple way to obeserve presence. It is the third-dimensional impression of the string vibrations.

Let us now define the basic unit of inter-dimensional jump, the hovinc. Starting with 1 kg x 1 hovinc^0 = 1 kg, for three dimensions, presence in the first dimension is measured by the unit kghovinc^-2; in the second, kghovinc^-1; in the fourth, kghovinc; in the fifth, kghovinc^2; and so on. Let’s say I have a mass of 50 kg (I don’t) in three dimensions. I have a presence in the fourth dimension of 50 kghovincs. Easy. What’s your presence in the other dimensions? (Ladies may keep their answers private.) This train of thought allows us to develop mathematical models for higher-dimensional physics.

Before we define forces in other dimensions, we need to redefine motion and acceleration. The Universe can be best modeled by a massive orchestra (we’re talking MASSIVE). The songs and symphonies are all there, except every note and rhythm is played at once. Non-metaphorically, this means there is no such thing as motion. Motion is the passing of measures in the music of the Universe. The players are so sophisticated, however, that they can play every note at once. Motion is the apparent phenomenon of the Universe changing position. Human eyes can only read note for note in the music, and do not understand what really occurs. When it comes to looking at the Universe as a whole, everything is everywhere and everywhen (everywhern for short). Humans simply can’t tell this because they are only aware of their note in the song. Newton defined force as the product of mass and acceleration. Acceleration is really just the way the notes are written. In three dimensions, 1 kgm/s^2 = 1 N. In four dimensions, where acceleration is in the units s/m^2 (the amount of time per meter in the fifth dimension per meter in the fifth dimension), the unit for force is kghovinc x s/m^2. I would seriously like to rename this unit. Send me suggestions.

That’s all for now. This blog has really inspired me to think even more outside-of-the-box. You may now call the psych ward and have them take me away. Fare well!

Legacy Blog 9: 2 + 2 = 1

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Greetings, readers. I haven’t released a blog in a while, and today seemed like a superb day to do it. I have made a breakthrough. Oppositivity is much more than what I originally conceived. It turns out that trinary opposites may exist. At that, quaternary, quinternary, hexanary (if that isn’t a word, it is now) may also compose many contructs in the field of R.

Allow me to explain. In trinary oppositivity, each of the three objects is the complete opposite of the other two. In quaternary, each is the complete opposite of the other three. The reader may question how this works. Plainly, the convention of and – can no longer be used. Let us instead develop symbols of oppositive orientation, beginning, for simplicity, with tertiary. Say the construct A is the complete opposite of B and C, while B is the complete opposite of A and C, and C is the complete opposite of A and B. So, then, what is one with respect to another? In binary oppositivity, A = -B if A and B are opposites. But -A = B. A construct’s identity is defined as A (or A). In a tertiary system, the first construct is labeled A, the second B, and third C. The system will use <,^, and > to differentiate the oppositivity of the system. The symbols do not mean less than, to the power of, or greater than in this notation. The symbols shall be known as left (<), up (^), and right (>).

The identity of the system can be a number of equations

<A = ^B = >C

<B = >A = ^C

<C = >B = ^A

Wowsers. What a neat little trick we have. The reader may wonder why such a method would ever be needed. Trinary oppositivity can occur throughout the membranes of reality, but there is no clear example of it in three dimensions. Once I dicover more exciting properties about higher base opposites, I shall post them. I will edit this blog with new information. Stay tuned!

Legacy Blog 8: i^i is real

Thursday, February 16, 2006

I bring great news, readers. I returned to THE SPOT WHERE EVERYTHING BEGINS AND EVERYTHING ENDS the other day. Please note that whenever mentioning this place, all letters must be capitalized. Though it was not as powerful as my previous visit, it still excited me to be there. The last time I was there it was a cold, clear February day, and I had just sold two dozen Walking Tacos during a cheerleading competition. When I stood in THE SPOT WHERE EVERYTHING BEGINS AND EVERYTHING ENDS, I espcaped reality for a minute. At the time I had no idea what happened. Returning to THE SPOT WHERE EVRYTHING BEGINS AND EVERYTHING ENDS the other day made me realize that selling Walking Tacos at a cheerleading competition on a cold, clear February day rips reality enough for one person to slide through, but only under those circumstances.

While I was outside reality, I had no form. I regret not being outside reality for longer… I could have learned so much. Maybe I couldn’t have. I didn’t really have a brain. That explains why I can’t recall anything. I conjecture that I must have transcended even the eleventh dimension into, dare I say, the twelfth. Dimensions beyond the third of truth may not really be dimensions… but planes of non-existence. How then did I return from a place outside the eleventh? Who knows? In any case, we can picture reality as an enclosed “sphere” (or it’s eleven-dimensional equivalent) and things that exist are contained in it. If a thing doesn’t exist, it is not in the “sphere.” If everything exits, everything is in our reality. Try not to lose me after this next thought. Nothing is still something. The fact we can call it nothing indeed implies it is something. Something is contained in everything (which we will denote as E[S]). To the best that we can, we will label that which resides outside reality as < >. It cannot have a name or else it is something. We should not even address it with the pronoun “it.” Henceforth, it shall always be called “< >.”

So, to wrap up:

E is the contruct of everything. The opposite of E is < >.

S is something.

e(X) is the existence function. If e(X) = 1, X exists. If e(X) = 0, X does not exist.

R is the whole field of reality. The opposite of reality is -R.

Def: For all X in R, e(X) = 1. For all X in -R, e(X) = 0

Theorem 1: e(S) = 1

Proof: I exist.

Theorem 2: If e(X) = 0, X = < >

Proof: < > does not exist.

Theorem 3: E[S]

Proof: See Archimedean Principle

Theorem 4: R[S]

Proof: See Theorem 1

Theorem 5: R[E]

Proof: Because S falls into both, there is no place in E that could be outside of R.

Yay! We proved everything exists! I may discuss in later blogs things called < >, which are elements of < >. I have to think for a while about those, though. Stay tuned!

Legacy Blog 7: pi and 2^(1/2) were also born on day omega…

Saturday, February 04, 2006

This is an update to my previous blog. Another ninth dimensional construct that weighs down on us is oppositivity. I am not sure if that is a word, but it shall be used as one now. Oppositivity, obviously, is an object’s quality of being the opposite of another object. Oppositivity is hardly seen in the human world. No human is completely opposite from another. Even if they act very differently, they are not opposities. Positive versus negative charges and matter versus antimatter are the only true opposites known to man. Note that we are discussing opposites in terms of objects. It is trivial that axes of graphs have opposite directions, as well as vectors. Because the ninth dimension is of linear truth, only true opposites compose it.

So far, we only know of identity and oppositivity in the ninth dimension. Though impossible to type, but for simplicity object A’s identity shall be written as A. The opposite of A shall be written -A. Using our simple notation, a positive charge and negative charge can be written + and -+ (or just – for more simplicity), respectively. Matter and antimatter can be written as matter and -matter, respectively. As best we can, we have just written the ninth-dimensional constructs of identity and oppositivity. If you, the reader, discover something that is the true opposite of another object, please show it to me. For instance, assume an apple is the true opposite of an orange (it isn’t). We can write an orange’s idenity as orange, and an apple as -orange. Or, because the relation is true either way, we could write apple for apple and -apple for orange. I will update my blog as soon as I discover more.

Legacy Blog 6: And then on day omega, e was born…

Sunday, January 29, 2006

I must be crazy. I don’t forward chain letters. There were a few times where I have (why should I lie about that?). In general, though, I don’t. I do not see how re-transmitting a stream of data conveying oftentimes useless information will bless me. I find it harder to believe that my non-participation will damn me. I believe my life will go as it is without some internet voodoo getting in the way. People who create chains are powerful, though. They create a virus and let it infect the public. It must be a game.

On to more important business–issues that may in fact change the outcome of your life. (I have just addressed you in the second person, reader. You are likely my friend.) I may have a small grasp on the mysterious ninth dimension. This dimension is of linear truth. The ninth dimension weighs down on our three and the other five via identity. Identity is a construct of the ninth dimension. Humans find it incredibly difficult to prove why something is itself. Common sense simply tells them it is. Common sense, for this matter, may be a sense like touch and smell. It feels the weight of the ninth dimension.

Identity is immensely complicated. Questions often rise in human minds along the lines of, “Why am I me?” or even, “Who am I?” I don’t know the answers. I ask these questions frequently. In the ninth plane lie the answers. All dimensions below the ninth begin to tell how something works, why it works, where it is, etc. The ninth tells what it is. Humans believe the question, “What?” is the most trivial, when really it is much more complicated than any other question. “Lines” that form in the ninth tell what I am.

I am afraid this new train of thought has brought many more questions into my head. For instance, what are the tenth and eleventh dimensions? If “lines” in the ninth tell what things are, then what do “planes” of the tenth and “solids” of the eleventh do? Probably some crazy shit. I leave full of thoughts, and I ask that you stay tuned should I make more progress in my theories.

Legacy Blog 5: Call the Doctor When Oblivion and Infinity Drink Tea Together

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Judging by how actively I had to participate in my dream last night, it is my theory that dreams could be portals to the fifth and sixth dimensions. If you are an avid reader of my blogs, you know that I believe the fifth and sixth dimensions are “dreamspace.” The reason there are only two planes in “dreamspace” is because, put into terms we can all understand, “dreams” are like movies. “Dreams,” as I have come to name them, are slightly different from dreams. “Dreams” are real parts of the Universe (and possibly the Multiverse). Dreams are extraordinary thoughts in human heads during sleep that aren’t necessarily real. Yet because “dreams” are composed of the higher auras of all living and even non-living things, some elaborate dreams can make up “dreams.” The next time you dream actively, try to remember it. It may actually be going on somewhere in the Universe. Sweet dreams.

The king has said no

His little people are dead

Under his big shoe

Legacy Blog 4: 1/0 = u. It has been defined.

Friday, January 20, 2006

Hello, kids! I just had a cappuccino and now I am hyper and desire to write in my blog. What thoughts are brewing in my head? Today I proved the square root of the simplest infinite number, omega, times itself is indeed omega, which is good. I like math. It’s like a neato language. It expresses so much with so few symbols that I find it much more favorable than something like English. It makes sense, too. Some English does not make sense. For instance, why do some people believe the comparative of the word fun is not funner? There is no restriction to the word funner. It is a simple, three-letter, one-syllable adjective. I guess funner only sounds wrong to some people because that’s how they’ve been brought up. With mathematics things are more concrete, which is nice in an unpredictable world like ours. To those of you who enjoy English, hey! that’s great! More power to you. I only want to express my affinity to math instead. Stay tuned for more caffeine-induced brain spasms!