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 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!