The moderator closed my thread from yesterday saying I was not serious.

Here shows simpy how and why I was serious using only the maths and no spiritual connotations:

Primes. Use Fi (Fibonacci units where 2 is 11) Fibonnaci has no factors of 2 including square numbers. Every number made up of the Fibonacci sequence is prime.

In units of 1, Fi and the if it is prime...

0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9---10---11
Fi----1--------11---------3---------5-------------------7
Pri?---T--X-----T---X----T----X----T----X----X---X----X

That means Fi(N) = Prime for any N

Also 2 to the power ANY Fibonacci number -1 = Prime

This is bigger than any prime ever known

((((2^7)^)^7)^7)^7))^7 -1

Sorry for the God thing if you didn't like it but the mathematical facts stand up. I'll demonstrate the affect on calculus and relativity next.

If you were serious about this you would have addressed the questions that people asked. You didn't so what conclusions should we draw from that? Oh well...

= 2^117649 - 1

Which is considerably smaller than 2^43112609 - 1, the current largest known prime.

And weren't you saying there were no numbers larger than 2^128?

Plan on ever answering questions or giving a clear description of just what it is you're talking about?

Plan on ever answering questions or giving a clear description of just what it is you're talking about?

I doubt he will. This is what? His third post trying to prove this same thing?

((2^3)^3)^3 = 2^127 not 2^9

It is because the fibonnaci sequence doesn't contain 2 that this works.
((((2^7)^7)^7)^7)^7)^7 -1
= (((2^49)^1.6e150)^)^7)^7 -1
= ((2^1.6e150)^3.1461e1051)^7)^7 -1
= (2^3.1461e1051)^3.1e7360)^7 -1
= too big for my calc

every number in this chain is prime, the highest is 3.1e7369 (that's 7369 0s)



== approx 2^

== approx 2^ ???

doesnt that contridict itself right there?

Sorry, I've been working through it.

So, its about exponents

4^64 is the highest exponential with 8bits (no zero is represented)

2^256 = 256^16 = 16^32 =(more than 8bits)

after 4^64 they repeat with a one added.

So Pi is repeated at this number -1

Pi represents 3/1 in its units, in out units its (((3+1)/4)+9)/5

And since the cube root of a unit length is 2, then that is why the derivitive of 2Pi in our units is 1

With circular units like Pi, integrals are simple:

The integral of Pi is Pi since 2 = 2Pi in units of Pi

Fi (Fibonacci) => Differtiation with Fi is simple since 1 differentiated is 1

This makes the hard differential equations of relativity easy and says that you can't get smaller enough to make a black hole.

The infinities all disappear since there are no new numbers over 4^64, they can all be counted in terms of these units with two numbers of 8bits long.

2^x is in our units

2 and factors of 2 do not appear in Fi Units

((2^3)^3)^3 = 2^(3^3) = 2^27, not 2^127

And every number in what chain? 2^F(n), where F(n) is the nth Fibonacci number? F(6) = 8, 2^8 - 1 = 255 = 3*5*17...that is, 2^F(6) is not prime.


2, 8, 34, and 144 occur fairly early in the Fibonacci sequence. They all contain factors of 2, and 144 is a square number.

Absolutely Fortis, I completely agree, we are all on the same side and I think my communication of this concept was appalling. The frustration was natural and I deserved the stick. Thanks for your patience.

If I can make things easier to understand, I will always try, I could only see the connection before, but I could just grasp what it meant.

I didn't understand it fully until yesterday night. Which was 12 hours ago in Auckland time.

These numbers are not in the Fibonacci sequence of units based on (011)(which says don't use 2 so scales down by factor of 2 each time (root))

Pi units miss out 2 in the other direction -> up

(13)

That is why Pi and 1/Pi scale all units up and down they are nature roots and nature squares. 2 doesn't have a root so they miss it out. problem solved.

2 is the root of all evil

And what does *that* mean? An 8 bit integer can represent values from 0 to 255. That is, up to 2^8 - 1.


2^256 = 256^32 = 16^64.


2 8-bit numbers can together represent 65536 separate numbers. You can get as big as you want depending on how you represent that number...for example, you could use one as an integer mantissa and the other as an exponent, and represent non-zero numbers as small as 1^-127 and as big as 255^128, but you're limited to 65536 unique numbers. It's not even big enough to manage my bank account...I generally have more than $655.36 in it, and would prefer to track it at least to the nearest cent.

so miss out the two and grow1 on a 3 to another 3

3

1
31
1

-11
1331
-11


--111--
-13331-
-13331-
--111-




1
31
331
31
1

2^2 = 4

((2^2)^4)= 4^4 = 16

((2^2)^2)^2 = 256

etc

exponents of exponents are not the same as exponents

If you are going to try making number lines in ASCII, please do them first in Notepad (or whatever) in a non-proportionally spaced font (e.g. courier) then put the "code" codes around the text when you post it here:

[code]
.pp p p p p p p
00000000011111111112
12345678901234567890
[/code]

...gives...

(It puts the stuff in a non proportionally spaced font and stops whitespace being compressed.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

4^4 is 256, not 16. 2^4 is 16.


Oh? How are they different?

Exponentiation with integers is just a convenient way of expressing repeated multiplication.

a^b = a*a...*a, b times.
(a^b)^c = (a*a...*a)*(a*a...*a)*...(a*a...*a), c times.
Since multiplication is associative, x*(y*z) = x*y*z, so:
(a^b)^c = a*a...*a, b*c times. So,
(a^b)^c = a^(b*c)

(Sorry cjameshuff, I type too slow.)

Correct.

2² = 4


Wrong

(2²)⁴ = 4⁴ = 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 256


Correct

((2²)²)² = (4²)² = 16² = 256

Or otherwise: ((2²)²)² = 2^{(2 x 2 x 2)} = 2⁸ = 256


You need to stop inventing your own maths if you wish us to understand.

And what's with the 8 bit integer reference, do you think we live in a (80's) computer?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

10^38 = 38^(root 10)

x^y = y^(root x)

so yes, the 2^256 is actually 2X 4^64, sorry. Do you get that bit now, let me know if that doesn't make sense.

This makes the universe more interesting in that all units are based on Pi or the square root of 2 (exponential growth - doubling)

So, the universe has its units in 2pi and 1/2pi

here is how you simplify the constants of nature:

Planck time is the smallest, 1 in any unit. we can't use normal number to integrate this, so we'll use Pi.

the second dimension after unit time was the first length = 3x. Where x = 1/c since L/T = speed of light

so the ratio between those units in our units was 3 then and is 299 792 458 now.

This number is 2^t where t = the amount of times length has grown with respect to time.

Take c = 299 792 458, convert to Pi numbers (no natural 4,2,8)
3^18 -


300 703 347 = 4^13 is about Pi^16 is about 3^16.5 which is 2^28

So the universe has doubled in size 28 times to get where it is now.

I have the distinct feeling I'm going to be sorry I asked, but ... Is there supposed to be some kind of point to all this numerically inept rambling?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Sorry about the explanation of the exponent stuff, I haven't learnt it yet.

Firstly, primes are used in gcd (greatest common denominator) for encryption.

To find the greatest gcd is not possible so looking through the key for the prime is futile, as for large primes it take BIG numbers Tim, so what shows is that there is no encryption that will work anymore with numbers (virtually all) as the combination of key breaks any number based encryption.

It breaks these: https(internet secured socket layer), all DVD codes, all computer based encryption and PGP.

Basically, since you can use any public key to work out the private one in milliseconds instead of 10e32 it removes modern encryption from anything.

Do you not think that is a big deal?

AND it simplfies calculus which is what make GR hard to understand.

By treating the incremental or infinitesimal as the same as one, differentiation with Fi numbers is easy peasy. Same for integration for Pi based numbers by treating manipulating square(d) circles.

That is a big deal to anyone in physics, medicine, civil engineering, satellite technology, space travel, security, software engineering, DEFENSE (no more codes), IT, BANKING etc

I'll hopefully demonstrate with one of Einstein's equations.

It's probably why people have a go at my calculus, (I picture the situation, not the numbers).

Here's one of my old dead email account encrypted password..
o-`hbqj^k

Please use your method to decode it please.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

No.

You can convert bases easily enough with natural logarithms and exponents.
e^ln(x) = x, so a^b = (e^ln(a))^b = e^(ln(a)*b)

e^(ln(10)*38) = e^(ln(38)*x)
ln(10)*38 = ln(38)*x
38*ln(10)/ln(38) = x = 24.0539274

24.0539274 not being anything remotely describable as "root 10"

(edit:
You seem to have confused roots with logarithms, the inverse of exponentiation, though it's not as simple as you put it...you're changing base, not taking the inverse of a function. Roots are something else. The nth root of x is y, such that y^n = x. For example, the square root of 5^2 is 5, the square root of 2 is an irrational number that, when multiplied by itself, equals exactly 2. The nth root is also equivalent to raising to a power of 1/n..."sqrt(x)" can also be written as "x^0.5", or "e^(ln(x)/2)".)


Why can't we? How do you use pi to do so? Why are you integrating a unit distance? With respect to what are you integrating it? Do you even have the slightest idea what integration is?


Learn it. If you're lacking even the most basic tools of mathematics, how do you expect to make any meaningful contributions to it?

You say it does many things, but you have yet to do even one useful thing with it. All you've done so far is lay out masses of digits and shuffle them around with steps you make up on the fly, demonstrate a lack of mathematical skills, and apparently, decide that the largest number your calculator can handle is the largest one possible, and that somehow nobody's noticed it before.

I'm getting the impression you're stumbling around the idea of base pi notation. It is in fact possible to use non-integer, and even irrational numbers as bases in a positional number system...there's even a base phi system, and a related Fibonacci binary coding system. The numbers represent the same quantities, however, and they work out the same...it's just a different way of writing numbers. Prime numbers are still prime, there's no maximum number, things don't wrap around. These number systems are not going to revolutionize physics or math, for the most part they are curiosities, though they may find occasional use in encoding data. And I don't want to discourage you from getting into math, but you have a *lot* to learn before you are going to revolutionize anything.

Explain what you mean by "(root 10)". Please use only simple terms, in the same manner that other people use them.

I'm starting to think that you know nothing about mathematics higher than the four buttons on a one-dollar calculator.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Yet in spite of the mod closing your thread yesterday you thought it was a good idea to spit in that mods face and repost the same topic he closed? Are you trying to get banned?

I take it you have already done this? You are prepared now to break any encryption scheme we can come up with?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

o-`hbqj^k

It looks like KIM or KIMKIM but I chucked away 2Qs and a 3

Is that anything like it?

Regarding exponents and logs. I have not studied them recently since my degree and I should have said I hadn't 'relearnt' them, but I do know what they are and was rushing as usual. Sorry about the confusion regarding the root versus log.

Regarding 3.4e38 (how do you write an exponent of an exponent?). My point is that the numbers get recycled every 4^64 because after that, every number that isn't prime, has a factor and any number that is now prime was a factor before that number and I can work out all the primes already anyway. So there is no number that cannot be reduced to something more simply expressed over that scale.

Regarding calculus. What isn't well understood is that in order to differentiate and integrate, you need different units of measure otherwise there are times when you get infinities or zero operations where you don't want them. It doesn't mean you cannot integrate or differentiate those numbers, its a fundamental flaw in our understanding of units of measure. It usually means some thing has changed direction over time and is either coming out of the page at you or down into the floor (torque might be one).

You say you cannot integrate and/or differentiate certain numbers, but if you scale them, you can. Move up an axis and you can move a zero. And you can scale in and out of the axis too.

Integration is simply the sum of all parts between two properties.

Differentiation is simply the smallest measurable change in time or dimension.

0 and infinity don't exist in nature, so it is simply a case of understanding when the properties of dimensional change occur and learning to cope.

I have the up most respect for the moderators on this site and would not be disrespectful by 'spitting' in their face. What I meant was that I wouldn't waste your time. Time is precious.

I'm sorry to have caused offense. I was just starting to answer all the questions yesterday afternoon.

Was it KIMKIM?

I see where the confusion is 4^(4^(4^(4))) is what I should have written
4 to the power of (4 to the power of (4 to the power of(etc

Is that right? all I mean is you start "backwards" on the calculator in that nothing is multiplied or added together until you've raised the powers to them selves.

???? Between the math errors and the absolute lack of explanation of what ever in the world you are talking about, I have not the least clue what you are talking about. Not that I'm not interested, but I haven't seen anything coherent yet. Try relating this in small logical steps instead of broad incoherent sweeps. State a hypothesis first, then support it.

__________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately, it kills all its pupils. Hector Berlioz

"To complete the picture all the photons can be seen to be synchronising friction on and off throughout the overall cone which itself is synchronised to the equal and opposite reaction of equilateral triangulation"... by a scientificator in ATM, too priceless to be lost to posterity.