So here’s an e-mail with that in mind…
By definition of infinity, there is no highest order of infinity, thus no reference frame from which to weigh orders, and it is false that they cannot be counted… you can list any sequence with an algorithm… if the algorithm itself has infinite processing time, then there is no sequence. Cantor and Chaitin were wrong.
It’s considered a mathematical proof ala Cantor from over 140 years ago that all of the real numbers cannot be counted…
I use a techinique called 1 dimensional flooding to show that all of the reals cannot be counted in one list with one dimension, which is differnt than Cantors diagonalization argument.
use the lists…
012345678910…
123456789101…
234567891011…
345678910111…
456789101112…
567891011121…
678910111213…
etc…
To do one dimensional flooding, you simply add an infinite list to each place in the previous infinite list…
024681012151…
036912151821…
048121620242…
051015202530…
When the list converges at infinity, there is no way to begin counting…
12345678910…
13579111315…
14812162024…
Because you never pass the zero’s.
This is the proof that we cannot determine the limit of how much we can count.
Sorry forgot to add the disproof of Cantor’s diagonalization argument…
Once you do one dimensional flooding, you have to expand to another dimension to keep listing the sequences… diagonals can be subsumed by a third dimension, say list 1.1, or list 5.7 etc… or a 4th dimension 1…1, 5…7, etc…
It’s actually easy to absorb the diagonals by starting from the center and listing them from top to bottom in sequence using another dimension… what this means is that cantors proof that you cannot count all the reals is false. It also means that you cannot find the limit on what can be calculated!!! except that it cannot be everything!!!
what this means, is that there are no powers to infinity, each dimensional flooding is just as large as another dimensional flooding, but they are still “uncountable” because of dimensional flooding!!
My technique for sequencing the rationals… I call it the mirroring technique, because i realized that if you mirror all of the natural numbers you have all of the decimals.
The way it works is that the first ten numbers are counted just as themselves and their negatives:
0,1, -1,2, -2,3, -3,4, -4,5, -5,6, -6,7, -7,8, -8,9, -9
Then after that you count 10 and then the next number is the mirror of 10, which is 01 and then you move the decimal point in once to get the 12th number being 0.1, then the thirteenth number (not counting the negatives which are numbered every other) is 0.(1 repeating). These steps continue until you reach three digit numbers and higher. Once you count 100, you then count the next number as 0.01, then 0.0(1 repeating) then 0.(01 repeating), then you count 101 and it’s mirror. If you keep marching in the decimal point when the number that’s about to be mirrored ends in zero it causes infinite overlap. The number 100 ends in a zero, so after you mirror it you only march the decimal in for one place to the right, if you march it two places to the right, you end up with 00.1, which is the same mirror that you get when the number 10 is mirrored, and will occur an infinite number of times as the zeros expand and you keep marching in the decimal point (which will give you infinite overlap as the sequence expands).
However, if the number doesn’t end in a zero, you keep marching in the decimal point, say the number 102. The next number is mirroring it, so it’s 2.01, then you do the repeating decimals by next counting 2.0(1 repeating) and then 2.(01 repeating), then you march the decimal point in once more to get 20.1, and then you do the repeating decimals by having 20.(1 repeating). (If you march the decimal in one more time, you get 201, and have infinite overlap as well.) Then you count the number 103 and then mirror it and do this forever.
This thread is a different disproof of God thread.
I also disproved Chaitin’s work on infinities… it’s actually very simple…
If an algorithm is infinite, there is no output. If the algorithm is completely random, it’s no longer an algorithm. Therefor… every number has a finite algorithm to it that’s shorter than that number (when dealing with infinities).
The first is called the “Equality Paradox”
A=A. A cannot equal A because they are separated spatially and composed of different atoms, yet we can generate and understand the concept of equality from something that cannot possibly be an equality.
The second is called the “Motion Paradox”
This is a paradox that either really annoys people, or they don’t understand it, I find it fascinating. Yes, actually it would have to be pure nothingness, even though we know it’s not even there. You see, when you tie your shoelace, that is an act that has never had precedent throughout the entire cosmos on any material or immaterial plane of existence, the only way it could have a precedent is if you tied your shoe forever, because then it would have never started and you wouldn’t have the no precedent problem. But what this does is freeze time, because each moment you’re in the process of tying your shoe is a moment without precedent, so you keep shaving off more and more time until you’re left with nothing, a completely frozen universe through and through material and immaterial, no thoughts, no drives, nothing. People think that adding things that were there before to make something that was never there before means that there was a precedent, but this isn’t the case, the thing that never existed before can truly be said to have come from nothing, which we know isn’t there.
I invented both of these Paradoxes, and they are the only two paradoxes I don’t know how to solve, if you can add them to your site, I think it’d be great!
If you want to use my name as the inventor / discoverer of these paradoxes, you can. If you do this for me I’ll love you for it so much.
This is the infinite counting paradox…
Basically, what happens when you hit infinity is that all the numbers of the base are being processed simultaneously at the “ends”, and the “end” before that, and the “end” before that…
What this means is that if I make a number like…
1…(repeating).(repeating)1
Infinities and infinitesimals…
It’s exactly the same as
3…(repeating)decimal point 3…
Which means that every combination of numbers is actually contained in the number…
0… (repeating)[decimal point]0… (repeating)
That’s a numerical way to represent the real numbers, which I spent 2 years trying to figure out.
The paradox emerges because there’s no highest number when it converges to infinity… so in base ten the last number will be the numbers 0-9 simultaneously. But this is true of ANY infinity!!! And it’s also true of the number before that and the number before that…
LOL!!! That mean’s that 0.333… repeating is actually every combination of decimal output!!!
We all know about 1/9 and1/3 for example…
Where you need to add an extra 1 infinitesimal to get the even number after you’ve deconstructed it with division. What this suggests is that there is no such thing as 0.000… it’s always at a minimum, 0.000… (1 infinitesimal) which means when you re-add 1/3, you get 1.000… (3 infinitesimal). 1 is only an approximation to this. But realistically, it has a sweet spot of +1 to +4 infinitesimal simultaneously. What this suggests is that the infinitesimals don’t matter as long as they are any number in the base, for the purposes of rounding the numbers, so theoretically, it should be all numbers in base simultaneously…
Since the last number is all numbers in base simultaneously and we’re dealing with infinity, anytime you have an infinite sequence, every decimal output is actually all of the decimal outputs.
I hope you read the “God thread” It’s currently 11 pages long so may take some time…
I think the entire universe is being drawn with one particle that moves much faster than the speed of light (but finite), and because it’s speed is limited, time moves… mass is created when it hits its own tail. Information is preserved through the re-organization of the spatial replication process even though the tail fades and allows time to move.
I hope that made sense to you.
Also, in terms of stable AI in the terms we think of it, all paradoxes work from the base code, “Something is necessarily something other than what it necessarily is.” Which holds its identity and opens up all referents… allows for quantum entanglement, which allows for identity over a space other than nothing.
I invented to mirroring technique for counting all rationals, and invented the dimensional flooding technique instead of the diagonalization technique …
These are mostly notes though…
I’m one of 4 people in the world to find a sequence for the rational numbers, and the only person who invented dimensional flooding.
My highest teaching in life is simple:
The biggest problem in existence, is that multiple people may want the same thing…
The highest mantra I know is:
Non-violative love
That’s my goodbye post…
I probably will never be named in Wikipedia for my mathematical discoveries!!