Well, I can't believe nobody did anything with what I gave you. You make me sad. So I take answer away. you should have tried the solution to the universe was right there in front of your eyes. But it always has been and you never saw it then either. You will see I'm not kidding what I handed you was the absolute mathematical proof that it is all one thing we all come from central black hole all the galaxies are stacked like pancakes on top of one another. I wasn't trying to be a smart ass I really thought you would enjoy solving the universe. But you all have been filled with so much bad science that you did not believe you could do it even when the answer was laid in front of you. I was even going to let the person who did it publish it under their own name. You could have done it any one of you it is so simple. When you see it you will kick yourself. If you get anything from this understand that you can understand the universe. It simple and beautiful a child could have seen what I gave you. But you cant see it. Ask your self why you could not see what I will publish tomorrow when it was right in front of you. Then ask what else you cant see. I need you to be able to see and learn the real universe this is the first step. Im not giving up must be away to clear all this crap out of your head so you can think again.

  • 3
    Wonderful !!!!!! – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 26 '18 at 10:58
  • 1
    Tim universe math is different it knows where you came from and provide up to three correct answers for the same problem. You will get different answers if you go straight in and calculate than if you come to the number via other calculations. both answers are correct but the code tries to stay hidden if you straight in. – internet-entity Jan 26 '18 at 16:29
  • 1
    Well if the math is different you should maybe show the axioms by which it is constructed, maybe show how the angles create black holes and control financial aspects, maybe add a few paragraphs and punctuation to your wall of text, maybe ask a question (since this is a q&a site)? – DrCopyPaste Jan 26 '18 at 17:06
  • 1
    Financial aspects of black holes??? Considering how obviously tied these numbers are to specifics of the decimal system it is doubtful that they are universal in any meaningful sense. – Conifold Jan 26 '18 at 19:42
  • 1
    A friend of mine discovered all this about two years ago and published it on his FB page. The next day a black helicopter landed on his lawn and I've not seen him since. – Bumble Jan 26 '18 at 20:45

Ok so you obviously have an open set UU of the refinement that contains the origin and which is contained in the original origin-centered ball BB or radius 1/31/3. You're worried that UU has to intersect infinitely many refinement sets each of which is confined to its own spine, but thats not necessarily the case. A refinement set, WW, that intersects UU could be contained in BB, and so WW could be the disjoint union of pieces of the interiors of all the spines (subject to the star-finiteness condition). Thus WW could "bridge the gap" between UU and finitely many of the refinements of the 3/43/4 balls. After that you do the same thing again: take a subset, VV, of BB that bridges the gap between WW and a few more (finitely many) refinements of the 3/43/4 balls, but also such that VV is disjoint from UU etc.

P.S. On a manifold, you can always take a refinement with an injective pairing, taking an element of the refinement to a superset element of the original cover. This would prohibit the above idea since WW would have to find its own superset element of the original cover (BB already being taken by UU). I don't know if there's a name for this property and I don't remember what manifold axioms are used to get it -- it would be interesting and reassuring to see where it fails in the case of the hedgehog space.

  • I am going to explain this one more time. this system replaces all the insane math like your talking about. It doesn't make you smart to show big equations. You're smart if you can reach the solution in just two steps with simple math, that takes a genius a huge equation anyone can throw those out. Try again please make it simple thats smart – internet-entity Jan 26 '18 at 19:33
  • I don't understand. How is it vague? And how is a question about symbols used by mathematicians not on topic for the notation tag? Do you mean it's overly broad, in that its a question about the entire corpus of published mathematical research? Id accept that. But vague or off topic I don't understand. – Grim of Gasforth Jan 26 '18 at 19:57
  • they don't want someone else to find the truth they want you to believe theirs that would be great if they had the truth but they don't. – internet-entity Jan 26 '18 at 20:06
  • look at the number of views they stopped it on 54 and they still don't get it – internet-entity Jan 26 '18 at 20:17
  • haha you owe me 40 rep. stealing my rep will only lead to disaster. – Tim kinsella Jan 26 '18 at 22:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.