Okay,
Let me try to understand your questions--I'm a little slow because I don't know math nomenclature very well. Like I said, I'm a layman. I did, however, pass all of my college math classes with flying colors because they were EXTREMELY easy--because this is the kind of math I should have learned in high school, yet I only ever got a GED and I was homeschooled. So, to clarify, I know a little bit of math and I didn't appreciate the comment above saying I can't even add or subtract from Lev888. Not very nice to be mean to someone who is just here to learn. I'm trying to prepare to go back to school for a theoretical physics degree out of welding, because I just found my passion.
My expression intentionally does not contain ANY prime numbers in order to try and prove this principle, because it's so abstract that I can't just come out and say what I think I found--you'll laugh me right out of here like a nut--so please help me to continue being skeptical by challenging my ideas. I know this is in code. It literally popped into my head and I don't know what it means, but I will try to explain. Now then:
1) I'm trying to define infinity without using prime numbers, so that the inverse can also be true. I posted theory so that I could try to post proof--based on your questions: (3^2 = 9, 2x3=6, 3)^3 should equal infinity if you look at it from an X, Y, and Z axis--perpendicular and opposite.
2) To further transfer that singular definition of 0(or infinity, because both HAVE to be connected in order for the universe to have started with a bang--if everything started at a single point, and expanded infinitely, it does not necessarily mean that the universe's lifespan is finite. The concept of subspace is literally space folding in on itself, as is Stephen Hawking's theory of the Singularity(or whatever he called his effort to define black hole math). Likewise, Einstein found that in two points all matter exists and yet in one. Doesn't General Relativity state that all matter is both inside one another and infinitely far apart? And isn't special Relativity defined as an unknown variable? Plug this **** into relativity and see if it works, as it is. If it doesn't, then that means I haven't expressed it right, or I'm flat out wrong. As such, the expression continues to grow until an undefined point: 3 x 6 x 9 = 162, right? 162^2 = 26,224^3 = 4,251,528^4 = 3.2672335e+26^∞ = ∞ = -∞ . . .
Everything here follows a pattern of logic that is both perpendicular and opposite(in other words, paradoxical). Likewise, we live in a world where we can see four dimensions, define three, and we think that the fourth is time(or we did way back in the day when I was in school)--yet we know there are infinite dimensions, right? In order for infinity to exist, doesn't it have to go both ways? Isn't that why ∞ x anything is equal to infinity, the same way 0 x anything = 0? Logic therefore states that -∞ x anything must equal all or nothing, or the thing breaks down entirely. And herein lies the problem--I just proved that(I think) and yet, there are two variables we cannot see: the . . . at the center of the Singularity, and anything in negative space, and my thought is that anything in negative space both exists and not. Therefore the proof simultaneously exists and does not exist, and can be defined in literally any way we need it to appear. If this is correct, it could be the basis of cold fusion, matter-antimatter reactions(or what I believe to actually be darkmatter), and force fields--let alone breaking the speed of light, and yet we will have to progress toward infinity infinitely while we are already infinity itself. Do you see the logic, or am I still speaking in nonsense?
To make a metaphor, I see time as an ouroboros with a single head and single tail which can still devour itself.
Is that clear enough communication, or do I need to keep going? I can literally go on about this, trying to explain it forever in any topic you wish, from philosophy, to math, to chess--so please pick my brain. I welcome it. Also, if you need a picture of it, go look at the Universal Pattern in 3D, and then see it from the opposite side as a totally asymmetrical space--which is completely impossible by this logic, because it must bear a form of symmetry for it to work. What I'm saying, boiled right down, is that I see our multiverse as interconnected and linear at once, in every configuration at once, and yet not existing AT ALL, and yet being INFINITE at the same time. Hence why we expect all matter to come back to center and then blow up again.
And to further try to boil it down, I'm trying to say that binary is 012, and that 2 is merely implied, not gone. I'm not sure how to make it simpler, so ask me some more questions if you need another perspective for it. I just don't want to give up on this and lose the opportunity to really see some cool ****. Or maybe I just watch too much Star Trek.
Thanks again in advance,
Unknown Quantity 7
