jonathankatwhatever - Tumblr blog

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 26 Apr 2024, and I’m going to type out whatever my thoughts can muster as words. The interrupted for attention. He was remote yesterday. And since he won’t sit with me, I had to get up to pet him, step away, pet him, etc. with and without the brush. He has a specific range of behavior.

I seem to have worked myself around the highly negative condemnations I’ve been hearing about the project, which I think of as whether we can shift control from D3-4 to D4-3, and that this project is hampered by inherent factors, meaning not only a fairly short lifespan but also that the processes within the gsSpace are not aligned, which explains the chaotic movement in the Mission Storyline’s image of how this version of reality was chosen. That wasn’t clear. Sorry. I mean that a central image, very clear in my head, is observing gsSpace’s like this blundering around until they fall into a hole, as if they aren’t aware there is a hole. It turns out that was partly correct: the issue is that awareness there is a hole doesn’t have great effect because the field isn’t aligned. Using the concepts that lead into electromagnetism, not the other way around, this means the complexity attached, the intangible field, the iObjects of the Things, considered together, in clusters and in groups, form local alignments, meaning an Extent forms and that draws a larger Triangular. The human problem is they draw this Triangular inappropriately. Like in retrospect it was stupid for Napoleon to attack Russia, that it was stupid for the Japanese to attack the US, but at the time, they extrapolated a Triangular which enabled that Extent, and they did not see they were pursuing that Pathway, which maps to an Extent because, remember, the Extent is in Triangular and that maps to gs and Pathways are in gs, so a Pathway can look all jagged and funky while it occurs within an obvious Triangular at the appropriate gs counting level.

Because the field isn’t aligned, it aligns all over the place, and all over the place means the same Pathways tend to emerge, and that pretty much guarantees bad results which manifest at the O-level of Mission as blundering around until you fall into a hole and disappear. The hole, to be clear, means you are no longer visible, that you’re gone, and I’m getting very strong images now, which are expressing in words. That the hole is a black hole of the intangible, of the complexity attached to you, so when you disappear, that means complexity can no longer resolve into the O-level. You are lost forever. The goal has been whether it’s possible to teach these Things to avoid that.

Can I express this in D-structure terms? It means higher dimensions no longer. No, the words aren’t higher dimensions; it’s the perspective. That’s back to the side we’re on, the side that represents generating more not less. The pattern is associative and that is inherently cooperative, while the other side is not. Associative chains shorten, like in the way The Sopranos models family constantly violently turning on family.

I need a break.

[jonathankatwhatever]

I knew I had a lot to handwrite today. Felt it. This came directly out of Storyline advancing. The entire penetrative insight. This hits vertex algebra and something called a Virasoro algebra and then to central charge. More concepts lining up. I’m finding the labels they use for versions of the methods we use.

——-

Add Noether charge.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It is 24 April 2024. I have interesting medical news to share later, but I want to talk about the concept of gender. I mean that it reduces to penetrate and penetrated. Only a D apart, a D that represents action from a third perspective, which is Triangular. It shows as a triangle in gestural, as in the writing on the wall when the writing is a symbol meaning to point forward from the Start to the End from the Triangular End. Add in perspective flip as fD’s form. Think of a Shard or a cone representing the relationship from that pairing in ideal to the End. It’s the CR of an ideal Between.

The point is gender at this level is not yet human conception; it’s much lower level. than that. So what we call a male gender in a Thing is the Thing’s tObject takes form in relation to a Start which is penetrative. That splits into the tObject so the iObject is either penetrative or D to female.

Model attractions. Same divide.

This fits Storyline where we were stuck. He knows what she wrote, one locality, then we need detail, two locality. This focuses on two and then on the one between them.

A Specific Constructible Universe.

———

Switched from my phone. I was in the woods.

Went to the ENT today. I need surgery. I learned that some people develop a growth in a sinus, a structure within the structure, and this compresses the small area through which the tubes which transport fluid pass. Inflammation, compression, cuts off flow. Need a CT to figure out which surgery I need. Also have a deviated septum to be fixed. I suppose this is a relief: the end of that long mess. I am relieved. I guess.

It’s almost wicked to use the same words which later build into the concept of gender within D3-4//4-3 and across levels, scales, etc. of Things. And then not being able to say what you mean out loud, except it’s people. Not like Soylent Green, though there is a similarity.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s before 6AM 23 Apr 2024. I have been having a lot of religious thoughts, but what I want to talk about is I recovered a conversation with Jesus. Or two. One is that I asked about details and I figured out he said that he couldn’t access them and showed me how I couldn’t remember details of my own life and I’m currently living it. And there was more, but it only made sense when I realized, accompanied by images, that this models as a Triangular. The legs are to me and to Actuality of Jesus, and these legs or flailing arms in D-structure connect through a mediating End which faces both ways. You can see the thread of Actualities loses detail.

I’m being bombarded with images, very clear ones. There is a mediation cost. Oh, I see: imagine a great rotating ring of mirrors which spins around and presents a flat face, a grid square face, to you. And it has another End where the same occurs. Now you can see that one can’t connect to another’s past, unless and until you connect in higher dimensions, because the Actualities of Things are internal to Things, which is why life infuses. I’m afraid that was a confused mess. It’s difficult to translate chains of images.

One way to say it may be this: the Actual path is not only remote from the communicative present but is statistically lost to it, so it is no longer possible to tell which version is Actual. Remember, perspective is Thing based and this particular Actual layer of that Thing has a personal, not global perspective. There is a chain of events but the events themselves are local, and then that locality breaks down to the locality level of participants. This double level is the double IC, meaning it’s the lesson learned from 04-04, and is why we have seconds and minutes or the other way round: locality layers. The best you can do is communicate not with your actual past selves, but with a version.

That’s fascinating because it means you can changed the version of you in your own head. And it says that this process occurs all the time, and that’s why we develop strategies to avoid doing bad things. We did part of this before, when we first figured out the permutation pathways concepts. So here is where Actuality diverges from Pathway. I think the idea is of a thread thickening, and as that occurs the Actuality develops lots of Attachments, which means lots of Ends spinning around to serve up information, and these Attached Ends develop into Things. This models like the creation of the universe, doesn’t it? Let’s see. That develops a statistical model in which the building blocks of matter are buried in the past. And that leads to a meaning of gsPrimes - is that new notation? - because you can’t break those completely apart. A prime preserves the potential, the permutation potential available when that particular instance or object is counted. It’s a 1, an atom, and that’s true in ways we can now describe.

Did not think that was coming out until it did.

Where was I? Talking to the Jesus voice. A lot of the detail was lost because of translation as well. That is, imagine there are lines or vectors of some kind connecting End to End in Triangular. In other words, imagine a straight line with 3 points. Can label them -1 to 0 to 1. Put the Ends at each End, meaning you flicker their existence so the share this single existence, Alternation in and over a gsSpace. Yes, I think that’s the first statement of that, and it’s clearly true that we’re loading a Thing over a gsSpace and thus we achieve Alternation and generate values like Pi, which now is truly descriptive of the Boundary concept. Amazing how clear that becomes.

Now shift those Ends to make a bT, and you see the translation necessary to connect the Ends which occupy the same gsSpace to connect. You also see the layerings. That it is easy to connect superficially because there’s less work to touch the ideal Triangular relationship of a bT.

So to be clear, the mathematical understanding came directly with understanding how Jesus would talk to me as a child. And what I left out is that I had been thinking about you immediately before. That’s what you mean to me. Pretty much everything except the Actuality. If I were sitting directly next to you looking at the same wall, we would not know the Actuality. That is uncountable and the process of reducing uncountability to countable to finite is the SBE process of the locality shifts.

I’ve been having random thoughts about this process, but they only last long enough for me to ask if I can remember what we came up with. I guess I do. So there’s an End and it’s uncountable, and there’s a 1Segment extending from that. It’s actually a 1-0Segment but the comprehension or ordinality or other ordering and counting conception is limited to counting, meaning I suppose that it’s the underlying cardinal function. That is, it’s cardinal counting because it can be counting very large or very small Things, and thus questions about size of what you’re counting, which is cardinality. Nice to figure that out. Couldn’t get it before.

This means we identify a locality and then a locality because the second locality has larger local comprehension. Not sure I get this, but let’s forge on. I’m getting kind of woozy tired. Don’t trust my thoughts. I’m concerned about the inversion here, that larger local comprehension - oh, it means the count is orthogonal to the other. Works both directions. So we have cardinal within cardinal, organized in layers which point in different directions, which became Irreducible, which relates Irreducibility to the fabled march of time.

I need to put down the keyboard. Been at this for an hour.

[jonathankatwhatever]

The quality of the work is outstanding. Today is 22nd. April 202. Yesterday, I began articulating clearly developed ideas of messianic content. These became a thought today in which we reconcile the conception of the door or path and of course the words in the book of John. One simple way of saying this is that you do need to think about the meaning that is within the Jesus story in order to understand the larger story. That’s one of the key points, of course, that this all does fit together, that these aren’t individual stories, separate from each other, competing for favor amongst each other. They are part of the process, same as any other understanding, like maths or physics or ornithology.

Wow. Just realized we can prove this. For reals. No take backs. That’s brilliant. We can prove this. Construction is like that bleeping topology whose name escapes me, the one with the waggedy tail. Arf arf. A set of solution sets is only a set if they all project into the same gsSpace. If it constructs, it must be linked to other gs constructions at higher dimensions.

What’s your number? Not 666. I love the Attachment in 13, the way it reaches 24. And 25 if you count both layers. And 26 if go the other way. That’s the big one to me because you stick that between 2T and you are at 28 and that invokes the Is and Not fCM calculations, including the 50:50. And that is another form of 2, which is also inherent in 13 as dimensional Attachment.

I was mortified when Attachment became notational. Couldn’t see how it could become anything more than bullshit. It’s a super powerful idea.

Have to go to a Seder. I didn’t get to my topics. Like that Jo was just talking to G about her work describing 2 entangled entities, which are hard to define rigorously. The party about inverting attributes made sense. And particularly the stuff about forms of penetration mapping to the End to Boundary concept. Really clear. And that was because G knew what J meant and thus could say it, which meant I could hear it.

[jonathankatwhatever]

I saw the most wonderful performance of the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. It was a 1 person show by Ben Evett. How do you explain that to people who haven’t even heard of Coleridge, even though he was a Lakes poet? It’s not that I’m older: Coleridge died in 1834, Byron in 1824. And it’s not like reading poetry takes a long time; they typically run from a few paragraphs to several pages.

The layers which complete in me are fascinating. I was thinking about all the meanings of wearing an albatross around the neck, and it became an initial and I involuntarily spoke under my voice, ‘Hi Al.’

I have too many images in my head to get out words. Need sleep. It’s turned 22 Apr 2024.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 7:32AM 21 Apr 2024. I almost typed Sept because I saw Sunday and the little thread laid, misidentified as true until caught. Is that a collection routine because the Sept threading couldn’t survive or is it being excluded from future process, with the run of it held because of course there are lessons in it. That is, the meaning constructs in bT-structure, as that translates into the gs in which D3-4 existences map. That dimensionality can be fleeting, but it’s easily preserved in higher dimensions. I mean there’s plenty of room as you rise higher.

I began this intending to say I cut my hair for the last hour, getting the look to a close approximation of what I think of as my childhood hair style. Longer than the actual and not razor cut. I never liked the feel of perfectly even cut hair. I can’t stop playing with it until it feels less uniform. This may be because it’s a uniform or normalization imposed on me. That is what normalization is: something which fills the gap. We needed haircuts so mom, never dad, took us to a barber. In gs, that goes right to the paradox.

Let’s see. Supply and demand says there must be barbers or something to normalize, to cover the gap which becomes the need which materializes as haircuts, which must be given. This is finite: the normalization gap is between and among Things. Since Things are finite constructions, while the nature of their relationships represents infinite models, the relationships between them are finite. Example is closeness of tolerance in actual measurement versus abstract calculation, with constants to deep inside 1.

That means there’s a K’ing here, with 0Space and physics going one way and 1Space heading off with maths. This kind of bifurcation point, which also expresses exponential potential, is what we see in splitting Ares and Hephaestus, etc.

I need to take a break.

[jonathankatwhatever]

The number of ideas this process has sparked is intense. Or is that dense? It’s both, sometimes, right? Intensity is more and more is density in that constructed space. Amplitude is more or less of, which if I have this correct maps the ordinal character which orders more or less of, which translates into a mapping which stacks horizontally. Note that integration is obviously then horizontal or vertical because then we’re ordering the count. I just realized I tend to call that cardinal because I’m thinking about or am manipulating infinites which leave marks we can see.

I’ve noticed my writing has become much choppier as I spend more time with a small keyboard. Telegraphic.

Anyway, this strategy of not listening and now I admit barely reading has been working very well. Made me think about Cole Porter: how many people know that he like it in the butt and wrote that into a lyric? They don’t get the joke but they still love the song. The details of its creation, of anything much about Cole’s life, have faded, even though we get fairly regular movie versions of his life. It is such a great story. The problem to me is the movies get lost in the story and miss that it’s about him, not the events of his life. They can never capture the artist at work. They never get his incandescence. And a lot of that is simple familiarity: we imagine him knowing the songs, while the people who knew him saw him make the songs for the first time, knew him before they came out. That’s the experience. I don’t think anyone has ever captured on film the mind of the maker at work and the work. They never even cover how he worked, that he’d play constantly and then take time off to recharge the creative battery.

Here’s one. I heard a friend of Picasso’s talk about his book. He said the friends would entertain Picasso all day, working to find and do things which would interest him, and then he’d take that energy, and he’d paint all night while the others were exhausted. I tend to think it’s more that keeping him interested acted as a distraction so when he’d come to the work again it would have the different perspective generated by the identification shift. It is 1-0-1, focus then away to whatever people can find to amuse him, then focus, and that means a different perspective underneath or within the idealization. That last refers to the 1-0Segment and the grid squares space this generates.

Go into that. I forget how good the work is now that I feel more confident in me and toward you or toward you and in me. I love that this builds to D24. And that is a day. Just take an identity check, with its inherent shifts, and to work that out fully takes D24. Oh, I had a thought about 60 again. Just slid by in the D24 as well: the construction of SBE2. But my question remains: why the mag10? Didn’t we figure out that’s mag10 of a Hexagon, which is SBE2 counting each step in the chains as a bT. And mag10 is SBE3+1, which is really (1+(SBE3)+1) because mag10 goes up and down. The mag10 became notation for a reason, other than it goes up and down. It goes up and down in Attachment, meaning it relates 2T.

Just had a thought that Pi is a view of 2T as well. It’s not new to me, but I’ve been unable to get past the generation of all the potential relations of center to edge. I could always see the point versus rim, so the rim is a ring. That hit me because I’ve been trying to connect the visuals for ring. I got here before but it didn’t stick: this is 1-0-1 where the 0 is the disk. It also maps to points at infinity or to a point at infinity, because that stands for the disappearing character of Pi being transcendental. I love the idea of Pi as the ratio of shrinking and expanding the hole or the object because it disappears at every point. That is if you measure around a unit circle or halfway along an imaginary unit circle, counting by Pi, then you reach almost to where you started, in whatever modularity (including unit 1), with that almost being infinite. To see a point become a larger object is cool.

I just realized it’s after 1AM on 21 Apr 2024. Still not done with the mag10. Went to a place from a time warp: Pleasant Cafe. The decor is 1940’s. Immaculate, but worn. I asked how they keep up the booths: they have an upholster and extra cushions and bottoms, so they rotate them out. I had a Saturday special of prime rib, which I got cooked medium to make what I assumed would be lesser quality meat taste and eat better. It was delicious. Came with a huge, delicious baked potato (in foil, of course), and steamed broccoli in cheese sauce, which looked like a frozen meal. For $20. A whiskey sour was like $9. Debbie had swordfish kebabs and could only eat half. Also very good for like $18. Place was crammed with families. For some, I can see it being about as cheap to eat there as to make a good meal at home.

Ruining my life. How many times have I said that? Remember me trying to get away. That is a perfect example of the kind of obvious error I can make: I knew the lesson was that I can’t un-entangle myself. Or rather, that any movement I make to get away, to get around, to return home cannot work and only entangles me further. I did not recognize when the same thing was happening again because I was in it. Hard to see what swallows you. But to show how the ring works, I now see these tangles create pairings across the barrier and that these pairings can be aligned, which makes us mutual tools. This idea will develop, I’m sure. Rather startling to see the untangling concept take mechanical form. Oh wow, that directly translates into D3-4//4-3: sufficient tangles, sufficient pairings make an object. The step from D4-3 to D3-4 object is then done remotely.

I surrender.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Still 19 Apr 2024. Strange how much time I’ve spent on the number 419. Accepting that was difficult. What’s that number? 207542? 18*419 + 200k. I’ve never been able to understand how exactly this works from the top down. We argued for a long time about whether it occurs at the end, because then these layer so between any idealized segment there’s the pattern filling the gap to SBE. That means the segments fit together in both 0Space and 1Space. The other possibility is something else, like random over any segment so the fit is the same. I think we can answer this now, which is a spectacular result: it is random and modular and otherwise across the segment so it can be treated as lined up perfectly. In other words, for this organization to appear, the other organizations must also occur. The concept of appearance here means as a solution, so the visible is the visible solution space.

I wish I could remember the name for that kind of space for solution sets. It will come back.

Is this just a parlor trick in which we say that the visible solution is that, the visible of all the solutions? I go back and forth between magic trick and better than sliced bread. I love that metaphor. It was extremely dated when I was young. It connected me to my grandparents.

So the idea of information and thus the IL is that it is a reduction from higher dimensions. That is correct. And you can see it because of the material above, which restates the ideal or efficient solution. What I’m seeing is then how the information conveys in a field. Oh, and this connects to the electromagnetic field, like the way the movement of electrons creates magnetic fields which cancel.

I’m suddenly tired. The baths have helped my legs immensely. I couldn’t believe the difference today. I’ll do another in the morning and really work on them.

This strategy of avoidance is working well. From what I can’t avoid, expectations are strange.

—-

I was brushing my teeth when I was told I forgot to cover 200k. As I remember, the best was 2*10^5, meaning a sort of internal rhyme of 2*5 and 10. Another was 10 to the 2nd and 3rd, and times 2 is your basic K’ing or branching. A fundamentally simple example of that.

And I forgot that we sometimes saw the 18 as split, thus making a connection from one 9 to another 9 on a different segment. That’s clearly part of the above.

Not sure what else to say.

[jonathankatwhatever]

I’ve been using these days to gather ideas for explaining how physical phenomena exist. The orthogonality of the magnetic and electric forces. The concept of a vector space. The concept of a polynomial solution set. I’m thinking of how that makes a topology and that this is one reason I didn’t study mathematics: I have to remember all these names when it is far more natural for me to remember the concepts. The differences in topology all make sense, the concepts of manifold and algebras make sense when I see them generating.

I don’t want to get sidetracked into whether that’s a hydra game. Let me go this way instead: holding off so I can inhabit this anticipatory state, and struck by thoughts about pain. These have been coming together because the pain became overwhelming and I caught myself thinking about not having knees and how the elements of motion work, how I need to push through pain, how I’ve always had to push through so much pain, how you’ve caused me so much pain and thus how I cause you so much pain because the physical parts connect to the psychic parts because we are constructed Things.

I see that in the animation. I bought a tub stopper and took a hot bath, trying to get my calves to soften. When I got into bed, I had the clear thought that electric animation of informational exchange and that the animation motion generates the magnetic field, which in our terms is that which relates to the electron’s generation or construction in that moment, in that specific context. That’s why way back when the first thing I calculated using these ideas was the magnetic moment of the electron. The idea behind the calculation is very hard to see: it was fleeting on a warm evening walking into Griggs Park. So I have to assume it was a compressed version, a Metaphoric Bundle, of the current, not a joke, understanding. It’s literally animating between 2 Things within 1. So I did CM16 within 1 by layer, meaning the entire SBE3+1 and other calculations, and that came out to about .00003 difference, with our number working out to slightly below the inverse of 137. We of course were calculating the side or root, and that made me wonder about deviation from ideal in the calculation of the area and the process of inversion. Does that process need room? I wondered if that was Pi, but couldn’t get there.

The SBE3+1 concept is 2 Things, after all. That’s Attachment. Then you see the rest of basic fCM thinking: we reallocate the 2T and that makes 5’s. And obviously if you have 4 SBE3, then you have CM36, which fits to CM64, which has generated out of 2’s. This is the ultimate reason why that proved conjecture about the exponents 2 and 3 being the only pair which acts that way: they’re the basic counting blocks of D-structure. Does that mean CM100 refers to 100 dimensions? Yes, because dimensions can be steps, and each step calculates to D3-4/4-3. That’s the basic modularity enabled by these concepts. Like gs primes and how we can extend that to various irreducibles, including the Irreducibles of I//I, which now seem much more sensible than they did when the notation appeared at the end of my pen.

I doubt that was clear enough. Steps are clearly within the same D3-4//4-3 space we labeled gsSpace. That is constructed within D-structure using Triangular-structure, which I’m thinking of calling bT-structure because that is the basic Triangular form which represents the methods by which D-structure constructs. At this point I start to see objects radiating in a field of objects.

I need some sleep. It’s early 419, 19 Apr 2024. I was talking about pain. I can’t believe how much has been required. I was thinking about how I prefer physical to psychic. They connect because they’re in Triangular. In fact, concepts like electromagnetic force are renditions of Triangular in which they posit a force which has these components. We provide the concept behind those fundamentals, the why of electromagnetism. We do this in detail and in simpler to understand ways that make clear why, for example, those forces are orthogonal.

It’s like the way confession and repentance link to forgiveness. This extends to the current discussion about how people think forgiving themselves means others must forgive them, which typically means they’re rather easy on self-forgiving, not understanding of what they’ve done, etc. I remember talking about that with the Jesus voice. That’s cool: a memory from 60 years ago surfaces. These are all perspectives within a field of perspectives.

I’m really tired but I can see how places feel alive, how their mood presents.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Quick notes this 16 Apr 2024. The notation changed to address a continuing glitch in my ordering process. I’ve been stuttering when I hit D-structure. I’ve realized that means there’s a K’ing in the meaning, a split or bifurcation which makes Triangular. That finally came together in the obvious way: use Triangular or T-structure, ideally with a little equilateral triangle, because that is the process within the concept of D-structure.

I was distracted for hours.

Other point is more insidious. I was going through the cycle of -1 in the M-set, meaning you start with 0 and add -1, which I take as attaching a square with sides of i. Then you square. Then you add -1. Then you square. If you do that, you get 0 to -1, square to 1, add -1, square 0, and what? How do you square 0? This has always bothered me about cycle counts. And of course it’s an essential component to SBE, that SBE2 is 6 when the count of 1-0Segments is 5 and the count of Ends is 6. It’s a D5-6//6-5 identification.

The idea is that this absence is in fact squared and that when we square 0, and it equals 0, then we’re saying this absence of counting is either the same as it was or not, all the way to entirely different, because that 1-0Segments the idea. Is that clear? This is why we can run cycles that do what I just described, from full to partial to no repeats.

To be clear, I mean that we square the label 0 and it’s 0. This connects to dual numbers. I’m seeing that this attaches the complex space at each step. So we add the -1 and that invokes sides of i. And we square 0, which means we have sides of 0, which fits to 1i, etc. So that’s a reduction to an End which acts as a Bip, meaning it must be approached from one side or the other but can’t be reached when there’s a quotient and you don’t divide by 0.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Let’s see if I have anything to say. It’s still 12 Apr 2024. My body was working well enough today that I could imagine myself rejuvenated, moving with ease and with elastic strength. Maybe the gait change work is paying off. I wish it involved less pain. I’m tired of pain.

It’s now 13 Apr 2024. The math and sex combination worked powerfully today. I was able to hear a clear articulation of D-structure to D24. Not new, but now it fits. It becomes SBE3, both to SBE2, then reverse the order and that counts 12. And now reverse the order, and that counts 24. Same as we had, but we’re putting these pieces together. So for example, I saw a nice building of D3-4, Euclidean space, and other descriptions of 3 dimensions existing in time in which we connect 2 D2’s and that builds through flicker, through Alternation - and a whole host of operations because we map this over identity 1 to identity 0. We spent years going over that aspect: the identity 0 is the absence that which identifies to 1.

The absence of that which identifies as 1 or to 1 generalizes as the concept of Not, which pairs with the often awkward Is, so we get Is is 1, and whatever is 1 is Is. I’m giggling. Is is. Accepting that notation has been difficult. It’s important for me to do so because it’s recursive: whatever Is is means Not can be Is when it is Is. That recursive process enables label changing: each time the identity loops from Is to is and is to Is, there is going to be movement, meaning the gs process would generate an answer which fits, not the same answer, but whatever generates.

I have no idea why I’m back to 1 and 0 other than that was the fundamental work we did about identification. An example: if we take these concepts literally and thus to their ideal, we can’t achieve 1-0-1 SBE identification because switching to an entirely different Is, one unrelated to the prior Is, means you can’t know if you’ve returned. The best you can do is infer that the past actually happened so you accurately recognize the similarities and differences. This is, again, because gs are constructed. That goes to coherence et al.

This constructs the fields, the 1-0Segments and thus 0Space and 1Space. Can I do better with 0Space now that we’re talking about 0’s? 0Space is what? I’m thinking it’s the Ends in rs, in regular space, which means they’re where infinite process diverges, whether that’s within a Thing or as a Thing, meaning the iteration goes above 2 and thus to infinity, and that’s true within a Thing, because a Thing is a pair, which is like saying there are no monopoles, and thus as a Thing as well.

I’ve been seeing or hearing that the M-set embodies CR, and you can see this in the unit circle which describes the cardioid, which is also at quarter scale, which fits the entire concept of an IC model being at a 1 to 4 and 4 to 1 scale. This means the edges pass to the center through CR within the M-set. To visualize, think of the circle as being at any location on its path and in any rotation. This process can pass information inward and outward, so it connects the edges to the center.

Pardon how disjointed this is, but I remember today in bits and snatches.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s now 12 Apr 2024. Yesterday was very difficult for me physically. I could barely walk down steps. My lower legs ached intensely. My knees couldn’t bend. So I grew angry at my running the day before though I was stiff. And I questioned my decisions and beliefs. Why do I hurt myself? What is the point? It’s clearly in my design: I overdo even when I have clear signals the other way. Made me question why I listen to myself, why I believe this but not that when I’m so consistently wrong. Is consistently the correct word? I think so because this is the pattern. It is within me, expresses through me, is me. The mathematical argument going on is true and false when true expresses to the divergence limit, meaning it flies away at the divergence/convergence point, which as we know is fractal because that’s the edges of the M-set.

I was distracted and lost the thread. True up to a limit means to a branching, which is to an End, because this is a K’ing, and that in Triangular is the HG process of convergence and divergence. Does that mean what I think? We have an infinite relationship in Triangular, like when I picture a spinning shard or an ideal cone, and this reduces to the probable solutions within the potential of the grid squares.

I get to do laundry all day.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Working on divergence as convergence, by which I mean that I noticed abstraction heading off to infinity while the reality, the actuality, was necessarily finite. That means sexual fantasy. The idea is that the edges of the M-set define a finiteness. Not sure how to complete that idea.

Not feeling consistent connection for the last few days. I assume you’re working. I sometimes feel very alone, which is troubling, but I see the ideas we’re dealing with.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Startling imagery this morning - 9 Apr 2024 - in which the M-set acted as a transmission. I’m taking care of someone sick much of the day. Like yesterday. While washing my hands a lot.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 7 Apr 2024. Felt like a travel day. I didn’t expect much after yesterday. So I went for a run. It was quite the experience. I’ve been working on changing my gait, on using my right leg better, more like my left, getting into a position that functions smoothly without pain, and so on. Came together today, at least at times. Not much pain. Found it ‘easy’ to run up hills and, rather amazingly, actually let it out and ran coming down the long slope of Peters Hill. Part of my route was closed so I ran a new loop of about 3.5 miles back and forth over Peters and Hemlock Hills. Felt great. And my body is happy.

I asked myself as I got into the shower what I might want to understand, and the first thing which came to mind is elliptic curves.

I put that down a few hours ago, confident I would receive an answer. I did. I see that the elliptic maps across the D3-4 space projected on to a sheet. In fact, it’s a composite sheet because any deflection in the curve that isn’t visible in the perspective demonstrates the potential for layering. The flat map across the sheet is a composite, a gs construction. A cool thing about this is that it perfectly explains the idea only because of gs construction. That wasn’t especially clear, but it has meaning.

I just cut my hair in what I’d say is almost a new way. I remember doing this before, but I now feel comfortable looking at me, so it was very different. One of the neat parts was that this haircut solves the problem of my ears. And the front sides.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 6 Apr 2024. I preferred watching the women play. Their game is more entertaining and, to be blunt, with better ball movement and playmaking. It’s been interesting watching the development of women’s sports. Women’s basketball has become more aggressive. A lot more aggressive, to the limit of aggression I don’t think the male sport could take because they start hitting each other. I’m talking about aggression within the rules. It’s great to see.

And I love how we can see the progression over the years. Each generation has learned to push themselves and their perspectives on their sport further.

I’m having trouble accepting the meter-second. I received a clear image which explained the meter: the scaling up of a seconds pendulum, where a second is 1/86400ths of a day. We did the derivations of 24 hours in two 12’s and dividing an hour into 2 layers of 60. You can see it: 60 is SBE2 magnified, which means here that the hour is divided into that degree of identification in 2 layers. That’s a lot of identification. And it’s around a cycle, so it divides that natural cycle. It fits the explanatory mechanism perfectly. That allows for sameness and change within a cycle.

This makes sense when and if you can see physical existence as a gs construction. So the natural cycle is divided into identification pieces, and that enables the construction.

This means that we can construct the meter mostly from this identification. It’s mostly because the meter isn’t exactly a seconds pendulum. That meter is the acceleration of gravity divided by Pi square. These are obviously not the same, but they are close in value, so this meter is a bit short. It’s 993.6 millimeters. And that is how we would expect it to go in 0Space.

The meter was 1/10,000,000 of 10,000km, which is the same number when the 0’s are added. The actual distance that counts is what it is. This is the abstraction. I’m rounding Earth to 40,000km.

Did you know I spent much of the evening saying to myself there’s no way I can figure this out. I was wrong.

I think I’m understanding the power of dividing 0Space and 1Space definitionally, meaning as a reflection of D-structure and the construction of gsSace and grid squares. I repeat that a lot because I want to hear more clearly what I’m saying. An example is this explains the coincidence of numbers and nature, and in profound ways. As in, when we say the length of a second, we can imagine that being true anywhere where they follow the same rules of division. In other words, their second could be different from ours in 0Space and follow the same 1Space rules.

I’m somewhat blown away by this, even though the thinking in it is familiar, to say the least. We worked hard on the whole 419 conception. I could see it was possible to say everything and leave out the Informational Limit, but that would have been cheating. It’s been very difficult for me to accept the validity of this piece. And now I think I have no choice.

UConn’s big dude is way more athletic. Not impressed with Purdue’s offensive thinking. Also, why can’t their big go the other way? And why does he put the ball on the floor so much?

This seems to be the largest explanatory model hangup outstanding. Maybe say that with a bit notation: if we take explanatory model to be EM, then we’ve established a linkage between 0Space and 1Space.

Getting distracted. I’m seeing a whole lot, like this generates all the representations, which means we really did capture the informational exchange mechanism between 1Space and 0Space. It really is mind-blowing. I hope I can render more of it.