Can anyone make sense of this?

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: Can anyone make sense of this?

Quote:
In the reality of mathematical expression, discrete mathematics is applied to portion wholes into fragments whereby:

Addition is defined in discrete sums and partial fractions as C = A + B
Where B = C – A and A = C - B

But whole numbers divided are discrete. But in reality true measurements should be in the form:

C = A+ A(Acd) + B (B+ Bcd) where Acd and Bcd are continuous corrections which complete the real sum

Therefore discrete calculations may inaccurately represent mathematical relationships when discrete calculations are made to continuous entities.

When explaining creation theory with discrete mathematics and discrete logic, corrections are always required to adjust Discrete Creation calculations to account for continuous differences.

This is why t and s (time and space) cannot be completely zeroed, and we’re left with ‘the other side’ where God ‘is’ which cannot be explained with discrete mathematics. Creation calculations must include corrections for continuous corrections which when understood will explain why our standard methods of mathematical calculations, division and understanding are flawed, unable to explain proofs which include time adjustments before time’s beginning, and after time’s end, why space calculations cannot be completely emptied (or warped) but must be corrected.

‘I Am’ the all of it, yet ‘I Am’ none of it… and yet ‘I Am’

For I am the A(Acd), the continuity factor. The Kingdom of God on the Outside of me is measured as Discrete, and The Kingdom of God on the Inside of me is reflected as Continuous. And ‘I Am’ the correction, The Continuity Factor which can overshadow either the ‘Am’ or ‘Am Not’, depending on the context of the calculation with it’s proper A(Acd) adjustment.

high preistess
Ignore high preistess

Member
Posts: 8
(2/11/07 3:28 pm)
Reply New Post Re: The Conspiracy of Consciousness 7/22 or pie. the whole 360

can't divide and conquer any other way. if you divide by
any other number you get a whole reply, with 12345689

but seven reveals all of the other numbers just behind the
decmil point. the outside of the cube only reveals the
fragments, or what I have seen. the inner cube (7) reveals
the whole, or what I have not seen.

the I am, factor I shall be, that which I shall be,
or hayah asher hayah reveals that which is seen and
that which is yet to be seen.

revisiting the mysteries of the cube.

Beyond this geometry there is also the Infinity equation whereby continuous paths go beyond discrete analysis and compensate for man's blind attempts to understand what is beyond counting. Here, division cannot divide and love is the only way to complete the whole. This knowing is needed to understand the 'all of it'.

All understanding of mathematics is opened by the continuity path whereby A(discrete)+A(man's continuous connection) + B(discrete) + B(God's continuous connection) = C (The all of it). And all scientific analysis is short when these continuous connections are left out.

Every story must come to an end.

Edited by: MaesterAuron151 at: 3/4/07 7:55 pm

Patness

I don't have a strong knowledge of mathematics and I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between Discrete and Continuous mathematics. I've covered a course on Discrete (which was delightful, but tip-of-the-iceberg stuff). So far all I've seen in that statement is the idea that

a) Discrete and Continuous Mathematics embody different principles and
b) that some of those principles are unfit descriptors.

Now that's enough to get me on one toe, because I'm extremely doubtful of anyone making such a claim that says the fault is of the mathematics and not the applicator, because while the consistency of mathematics is always in question, it's accuracy is not.

The rest is poorly reasoned mumbojumbo about how God isn't discrete. One could apply the words "finite", or "eternal" and "infinite" to describe discrete and continuous values in the sense that they're being described. In all likelihood, it's a purely false application of mathematics because there were never any mathematical properties from which to draw these conclusions in the first place.

Chris OConnor

Well said, Patness. I'm enjoying reading your posts.

MaesterAuron151

Yeah the other boards also refuted it as nonsense. Basically an extermely obfuse version of older arguments. Shame I would have liked to hear a new argument.

Every story must come to an end.

Edited by: MaesterAuron151 at: 3/10/07 9:13 pm

Frank 013

I read a good example as to why this mathematical reasoning is flawed.

It goes like this, if you were to go by halves to get from one point to another it would be impossible to get from point "A" to point "B". Each step being ½ way to the next, this ½ step can be repeated into infinity. But in the real world it is entirely possible to get from point “A” to point “B”. The supposed limitation only exists mathematically and has no bearing on reality.

Later

MaesterAuron151

Yeah the whole infinite midpoints problem. I think the concept of Plunk Lengths solve that.

Every story must come to an end.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT