10-05-2021, 08:41 PM
Hello, LUCKY_LUCI_LOGICA.
Interesting reasoning. The atemporal quality of information is surely unprecedented, and I see that you do know far more than you're currently articulating in your first paper. The fact that you also do not stick very much to preconceived mainstream notions of mathematics is also a great asset to you and will also be the cause of your emancipation in knowledge.
I appreciate people that simplify allegedly complex things, and you summarized in 18 pages a work that could certainly expand, in traditional-obsolete means, hundreds of pages.
You utilized graphs, which denotes a skill of abstract thinking that few mathematicians have been demonstrating; if they even have it at all. It's one thing to express formulas and algebraic notations; another thing is to put this information in graphical notations so as to illustrate these notions.
Dividing by zero is a bold move that certainly denotes a certain kind of defiance to the mathematical establishment, so to speak, and thus is something really admirable.
You also mentioned Stephen Hawking, which is a bonus. I'd like to point that he also has a paper about virtual black holes, which has the following image:
There seems to be an issue with the semantics you utilized to denominate the words and terms you utilized in your paper in relation to the mathematical properties that they represent. In this sense, the positive/negative values that you represented in your work seemed a little off to me, in a roundabout way. Since you seem to use a base-10 math and your work is about a theory of everything, I was expecting to see the value 1 being used as a central reference point, as is the numerical difference between 1/φ and φ, which also implies a constant that is found pretty much everywhere in a 3D point of view, unlike Planck's constant, that seems to be prevalent in the micro-scale only.
I also think that your work can be condensed even further, to a single idea, and then expanded further as you explore and detail it. I'm sure you are more than capable of articulating it, and I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm and your energy in your demonstration of knowledge.
Interesting reasoning. The atemporal quality of information is surely unprecedented, and I see that you do know far more than you're currently articulating in your first paper. The fact that you also do not stick very much to preconceived mainstream notions of mathematics is also a great asset to you and will also be the cause of your emancipation in knowledge.
I appreciate people that simplify allegedly complex things, and you summarized in 18 pages a work that could certainly expand, in traditional-obsolete means, hundreds of pages.
You utilized graphs, which denotes a skill of abstract thinking that few mathematicians have been demonstrating; if they even have it at all. It's one thing to express formulas and algebraic notations; another thing is to put this information in graphical notations so as to illustrate these notions.
Dividing by zero is a bold move that certainly denotes a certain kind of defiance to the mathematical establishment, so to speak, and thus is something really admirable.
You also mentioned Stephen Hawking, which is a bonus. I'd like to point that he also has a paper about virtual black holes, which has the following image:
![[Image: hawking95a.png]](https://i.ibb.co/h2N9Hsf/hawking95a.png)
I also think that your work can be condensed even further, to a single idea, and then expanded further as you explore and detail it. I'm sure you are more than capable of articulating it, and I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm and your energy in your demonstration of knowledge.