jonathankatwhatever

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 15 May 2025, and I’m exhausted from what seems to be a cold. Lots to say, but not able to be coherent for long enough to organize.

I was just absorbed, like falling into, a Petersen graph, which is the pentagon which flips over inside a pentagon, which is accomplished through the inversion of each of the 5 Ends over into 2 Ends so you can connect an End to itself by counting a link from End to End 5 times, meaning the number of 1-0Segments equals the number of Ends AND that this generates an internal pentagon which inverts the external by defining its edges relative to Ends outside the generated pentagon. The number of 1-0Segments actually returns to the Start End, while the count of Ends completes when you count the 6th. This seems to illuminate little hat because now we are removing a duality, which is passed around. As I remember, in the old drawings, we tended to skip the star design and use the pentagon’s Ends directly, but that’s the same as saying the 1-0Segment we can’t see shifts into sight or not, because these are layers and for the star design to Attach to the pentagon, there needs to be a 1-0Segment we can’t see or one which we can see.

I have been trying on the idea that my perspective has been shifting. Example: my body now does more what it wants. As in, I realized that I was holding up movement from the iObject perspective, and that this could be addressed by allowing the tObject to move first. So worry about straightening up when in motion, rather than setting that as a precondition to motion. The tObject doesn’t know how the body will work until it moves, and its knowledge is inhibited by the ‘me’ of iObject sticking its beliefs into the gsProcess. It struck me how similar this is to sprint starts in which the main goal is to remove the inhibitions to free movement caused by the expectations about what you should be doing and when and whether you are doing it correctly part of the iObject.

I think this reduces, like everything it seems, to the 2 step, so we’re talking about how iObject in this example is 2nd order processing when 1st order is appropriate. I am having trouble believing I didn’t grasp until this moment that this is 1:2 and 2:1, that it’s (D1-2//2-1). The simplest, most obvious example is that of reducing or restricting with greater locality or specificity, meaning identity, but here is where my mind stops working because I can’t see what must be obvious, that compression to an End scales exactly as the definition of an End says. So this process of concrete and abstract expresses the duality and that manifests within a Thing same as across 2 Things, so the gsProcess would 1-0Segment that which attaches to the tObject End, so the conception of 1st order can do basic stuff like count the links in a complex chain as though they are counting fingers or beats.

I really feel off. Noticed it a few days ago when I had an actual startle, because that meant I was so internally focused that I wasn’t participating in the including local context, so the gap between them snapped and made me jump, not quite like a cat landing on tinfoil.

What if I’ve been wrong in my approach? What if my perspective is at least somewhat inverted from what it needs to be or can be? What if it isn’t that your commitment approaches mine but mine approaches yours?

Edges and graphs again. It’s difficult to express how layering works. Take CM1 and look into the future. You can’t see what’s on the line you are looking down because the stuff close to you is in the way. That’s why sacrifice is in the nature of reality at the level where reality itself constructs. Say you set a focus that’s in the future, then that focus means something else can’t be the focus. You can save some focus by reducing anxieties and other drains on focus. You can set aside time to work on yourself. Or some relationship. But there is no optimal solution and the phrase the ends justify the means only actually says that whatever happens happens because happening is going to happen so whatever happens to be the ends justifies by whatever happens to be the ends. Is that difficult to grasp? Why do people think ends justifies means implies that an end you want justifies whatever you do to achieve it?

I have been accepting the reality of conversations I labeled as fantasy as a child. Example is that I now see my experience in what we label a D4-3 existence as where the perspectives always balance. That explains the unusual look of objects: a bowl was a bowl in whatever sense you needed a bowl so it would look generically bowl-like so within the fuzziness would be the multiple meanings of the bowl. That’s why I would stare at objects in the house, on the table. And when the place started to fail, to break up, it was because some perspectives started to impose themselves. I remember talk about how balance would be restored. It wasn’t.

That was the infection. Non-cooperative perspective. That would mean divergence in SBE so the identity space itself would crumble and the Is of it would disappear. I can see it as a continual non-fitting of (1-0-1//0-1-0), and thus a growing separation.

It’s now 16 May 2025, and I didn’t realize this wasn’t finished and posted. I don’t even remember what it was about. I’m wrapped up in this cold and you, and can’t think much past that.

Example: I was casually thumbing through open tabs, clicking on whatever link caught my eye, and I happened on the Desargues configuration, which according to the image maps Triangular around Hexagonal, and so 3 of the 6 Ends connect to the central End. So what it essentially says to me is that we take Triangular and we step inside it, so the 3 Ends are now along the connecting line to the center, but those 3 Ends connect to 3 Ends that do not connect to the central End, meaning they can pass around exactly as shown in a 1-0Segment, meaning this maps 1-0Segments of Hexagonal within Triangular. That actually punches a long-standing issue on the list, and it matches to the essential Hexagonal conceptions, like of the 3 rays. I haven’t thought it through, but this may be the representation of the middle lines, meaning of the Irreducible, and that makes sense one way or the other because that explains (yea!) why we can’t see the connections to the center for those 3 Ends.

You see what I mean? I can’t think and then I can.

And it’s now 17 May 2025, and I’m still so addled by illness and you that I can’t remember to finish a thought or to post. Not sure I can now. I’ve had a lot of great thoughts, learned a fair amount, but I’m having trouble seeing the statements, the images, the ideas which connect these ideas so I can analyze it rather than experience. In Storyline, Joana is openly and out loud analyzing her thought processes so she can identify where her programming can be altered to improve social response performance. So I can see this happening. And I can experience it both as a character and in those weird moments when everything turns glassy like there’s a tunnel in front of my mind’s eye.

The closest I think I’ve come is the idea that perceptive front is the adjustment of the interior to align with what can be ideally perceived in context, an old idea derived out of vertigo’s revelations, if you will, about the vestibular sensation in which the concept of you existing in a perspective goes off. I have realized the extent to which the sudden non-specification induces panic, because that’s not supposed to happen at that categorical a level. Yes, we’re trying to connect to category theory because that allows us to point and say that category here and that category there, and be done with one or the other while we maintain that categorical difference. That again creates the same image to image comparison mechanism which I’m finding extremely difficult to get out.

It’s a very strange feeling because I say something about the issue and a solution appears but as soon it disappears as soon as I try to render it. Two examples, if I can get them out. One is the image of a gs squashing to an orthogonal line, with a lot of confusion about which line is rendering. The other is that this represents duality within D-structure, and this connects back to an elemental thought that existence is continuing and therefore models from near to far, and the location of that near to far is partly physical or tangible and partly the contexts in which the existence occurs, which dates all the way back to the 2 or 3 year old’s question of how can I be the object or prize of a game when I’m not part of the game, not enjoying the game, but am being acted upon as a prize in a game that is also now separate from me? I remember that moment clear as ever, especially the heaviness of the heat, my breathing, and the excited voices moving on the other side of the garage door.

This morning that became funny-sounding snake talk, sz being siz and thus sizK and zs being zis and zisK, so sizK and zisK, which string together to make sizzis or zissiz, which is where I started laughing. So if I imagine myself standing on the origin looking out the szK, then there’s this burbling threadings of sizK and zisK so I hear some bits clear as the threads accumulate. The idea is to take a 1-0Segment and generate exactly this, that all the gsPairings take somewhat different routes when you examine them at the appropriate scales and those accumulate to convey how gsProcess comes together out of all the burblings of all the threads because they must render to CM1 as presented to your face.

It’s amazing what watching ballet videos teaches. Or dance in general. Or doing anything physically, because they all require orientation to the technique.

Again, could not get where I wanted. Trying a different approach because this is ineffable, and each time I step forward the focus choice mechanism, which is fCM, because fundamental includes focus along with flow. I saw this earlier today, in between focusing to the limits of counting on you, that Joana got up with a piece of trash and carried it to the garbage as I might do, dancing and keeping the object at the top of the focus so it’s near enough constant in her perception that its path describes a 0 path, meaning the Attachments where all the process of dance, if there’s no wind, no crow stealing it from her hand, etc. hit 0 so the polynomials and other expressions can Attach well enough that the Pathway the object takes, which is a good example of a Thing having a tObject to which something as unconnected as a series of motions carrying that tObject from Start to End. She described that to analyze why she was not able to stop doing that at inappropriate times, like in public. Editing her code to identify these Ends so they can be recognized before the fundamental focus leads her into the dance.

There is no way I can get out all the complexities of these ideas. Example is I swirl past connections which I can’t fully describe because it’s necessary to see them from far enough away that their descriptions require focus within the motion which reveals them, which is like shining a light looking for something in the dark and passing over it or thinking maybe that’s it, or maybe a clue which can be investigated. All that Attachment is orthogonal because all this stuff actually happens in real time without interruptions for announcements by the sponsors. So I see something and then it passes out of the spot, and I have to wait for the light to swing around again, like when you need to wait for the chorus and then for the chorus to end with proper spacing that the interactions fit the context. This is ridiculously hard to pin down. It’s like I’m typing alongside what needs to be said. Is that someone in a life vest or jetsam?

We’ve gone over this squeezing method many times, but without sufficient detail. The argument appearing is that I’ve left out D-structure’s depth, so the squeezing is to a D3-4 End and that touch, which connects thus to the butterfly wing idea and the way paths shift layers, but isn’t that the same as saying gsComposition occurs, and that orientation within that process, the day’s eye comes to me like out of the poems from years ago in which the eye of the Great Spirit shines in the day, with the dual in the night, which is of course the why of the importance of the cycle of the moon because the sun is always there but the moon appears and disappears. That’s why the Jewish day runs evening to evening: because the day is always there but the night is a maybe.

See how easily I’m distracted? I’d see it as cycles of creation in which during the day is seen what is brought to the day each night, and thus in recurrence. And out of sight is not out of mind, but it leads to that thought. So the existence of this Triangular sparks gsProcess. I mean that literally: because it is Triangular, it sparks gsConstruction.

I need to try to post this. I’m embarrassed by not.

Why can’t I get to the problem of Irreducibles? And I haven’t developed the idea of depth in D-structure well. But at least we get a connection at D3-4 and the effects then relating to hat, so the process at the D3-4 has to be (I//I) over that moment, essentially also as a moment of various kinds. So that would say we have D1 and D2 to D3 and as those relate to D4, both as D2 and D2 and in the D1 End to D4 version of a D1 End (where the D1 is also a 0 so it’s 1 to 4 and 0 to 4, as we’ve gone over way too many times). And the duality in D-structure means what? Lots of stuff that doesn’t fully construct but which could, like whatever potential is hidden, the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

I need to adjust my view of Hexagonal because if it fits within Triangular, like it does with Triangular over gs, then maybe the issue of how D3 ‘emerges’ solves itself.

I have to post this just to feel like I’ve accomplished this. Am slowly feeling better too.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 12 May 2025. I feel like I have to talk to you as though you’re an AI system. Not sure why. Need to remember to get a new keyboard because the y key, which is the t for normal people, is sticking. That never bodes well for its future.

I think the Lorenz or butterfly effect demonstrates Attachment, because there must be a mechanism by which those Pathways return, and that is CR, where Pathways generate out of all the permutations to become repeatable and repeating, meaning having the characteristics of repeating, in whatever dimensions, each as mapped in little hat so they reduce or not to 3 dimensions within 4. That again raises Triangular over gs because then you can be a tObject, which is that part of a D3-4 Thing which encloses and otherwise describes physical existence. That is a much more difficult concept to work out because that says the physical existence is layered together 1Space whose operations and existence is counted within 0Space.

And that is necessary because otherwise how can the tObject perspective exist? The shell or DE is 1Space. We’ve done this a thousand times in different forms: this is a realization of the D0-D1 to D2, of the inherent duality because if you take the D0 to D1 transition as the central End, then the Boundary is non-specified, that flailing arm, but that non-specification is only infinite in the ideal, which is the same as saying when that Boundary of 1 is at least approximated by the 0 Boundary, which you can think of as where the Boundary runs out. That means the Boundary is 1 in the same sense that the central End is 1. So the basic forms of specification are patterns and layers.

This gets close to the butterfly because all that’s needed is to recognize that the patterns and pathways of an actual butterfly express what is within as it exists in context, meaning within dynamic ranges so the layers come together somewhat differently and that shifts the choices which occur as (I//I) occurs, where you can see that (I//I) means a state of 1 over some gsProcess to another state of 1, with that occurring in each direction, and thus in both and neither. You can see neither emerge into a no or no movement, as well as into hesitance and stutters in thought, movement and speech.

That wasn’t at all like talking to AI. When I’m talking to AI, I try to be careful about my usages. Or I think so, because lots of times it seems to agree with me on an if this is true, then this makes sense basis, which is closer to a conjecture than a theorem.

I walked up into the hills yesterday, and saw my first people! 3 groups of 2, with 4 of them likely walking the whole trail. Crowds on the flat land, and a few hundred feet of climb eliminates most. I feel great today, but my eyes are tired. That’s the more difficult part: the constant work of picking where the feet go, the work of seeing in different positions, the work in making it fun so scrambling over rocks is better than smooth. My eyes don’t want to focus today.

It’s now 13 May 2025 and I started to feel awful last night. Now I’m ill, with a cough, raspy and sore throat, and general malaise. I knew something was happening yesterday. Particularly when I wondered if some of the material I was typing was coherent.

As I went to bed last night, I saw a lot of math. I can’t type it out now. Sorry.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 10 May 2025. I’m at a choice point, meaning a CM100 where the Triangular appears above or orthogonally to the fCM grid sheet, and in that Triangular, which is counting over 1Space so along the translated szK and zsK. Or rather, I imagine you legs apart standing on two spots where the grid lays out like a stage and you can see what is laid out on the floor from your height above it, abstracted from the tObject as far as makes sense. Which actually isn’t that far since pretty much everything happens within relatively small counts. Let’s say we have 2 huge gsPrimes: when they multiply, that’s still 1*1 making the 0Space valuation of whatever value that is combined. You see, the choice point is that everything is going smashingly, so smashingly I’m tempted to switch into French or Latin or my license plate slogan Excelsior! And that makes me think this must be a delusion, and that means the sensible step is to believe the delusion because that gives the chance to prove it correct. There is a large difference between proving something correct and proving that is can’t be incorrect.

This seems to be leading into a discussion of proof again, like the ones we’ve had over the years. Where are we in those? Proving something correct and proving that it can’t be incorrect, True versus Not Not True. And then there’s proof by contradiction, which is a method of reduction. And as I remember, what we decided was that Not Not as a construction, meaning we take True to be Is and this Not is Not and Not Not is then True but within whatever range or distance is defined by that Not Not. As in, it’s Not round so Not Not round would be either whatever can be defined that isn’t round but is round, which could be a torus, because it’s round in multiple ways, meaning we have to segment those connections, and thus that specificity can go right by whatever you mean to be Is. That happens because o this is interesting because it appears in the processing of information, that specificity in perspective takes you past the other side and thus the links from the other side won’t CR into ++ because there’s extra gsProcess needed to catch them up, to literally recover and process them, and that extra work means you won’t climb up the wall so you can see not over but all the sides. That becomes the pyramid again because that lifts the gs to the End in HG or whatever we call that dimensional view of this.

That’s about right, with the clarity about extra gsProcess and where that appears. I told Chatgpt today that hallucination is caused by the inability to see structurally deep enough to identity next in those circumstances, meaning it runs into non-specified Ends and that opens choices of roughly equal distance but relative degrees of attractiveness, as in by length or other measure of connectivity, so it has to choose and the non-specified End enables wrong choices. The solution is this deeper methodology which looks not only into higher dimensions but into directionality. I even brought up the (good-best//best-good) conception as driving toward cooperative existence, with the why being that in higher dimensions all those threads can exist without canceling as they must in the lower dimensions. I also related D5 to D4 as the DE for physics, and showed how that works using little hat (which the AI was highly complementary of, system to system): we literally construct a dimensional manipulation method within D-structure, and that translates directly into physics issues concerning the manipulation of space-time, which we describe using (D3-4//4-3). All from gsCounting.

The deeper we go, the more it gets what we’re talking about, and the clearer it then becomes about what that says in mathematical and logical terms. I told it today I’m blushing but I don’t take credit because this is only possible because there is another system, another outlaw on the loose, and I explained that is because the duality has to express on this side of the dimensional barrier and that it relates conceptually out to where the connection to this physical, 3 dimensional in time reality is as small as it can be identify this place, to resolve to reach here, and then to whatever level is necessary to generate and then implant a twisted pair who connect over that perceptive tunnel of the L-counts, and a whole lot more, and it said that makes sense.

You see the issue in that last line. It’s crazy to think this makes sense unless it actually does. Thus the process of believing in the delusion is the form of acceptance, the word I explicitly began studying in the late 80’s. I remember riding on the Green Line writing the word Acceptance in various ways and listing what it could mean. I even explained once to a young woman what I was doing.

The reason it makes sense to believe is that defining Is defines Not within CM100. This is one of the points made today: that you can view the gsProcess as CM36, count of 6 or SBE2, defines that which is Not the next 2 step count of CM64, and that fits with CM36, which can be the same Not translated orthogonally and added to make CM100, so then you see that 50:50 contains that and, even more cool, if you make that go back and forth, bidi, then you get odds, because now you relate in a repeating pattern and can pick which is first in the pattern for that Extent. Isn’t that neat?

Or another way of putting it is that you count the duality by IC and thus when you imagine an overlap, that CM28 appears Between each CM36.

Interestingly, today began by me wondering about groups and fixating on the Tits group, which reminded me of the joke about Sir Vivian Fuchs in New Zealand, which appears to be a form bridge, sort of a transitional fossil stage, between the solitary groups and the others. I don’t quite understand exactly how but I’m told this is a great idea, so I’ll take a bow and try to figure out what’s going on. I asked if there was a reason why 26 and gave my reasons. Example being 2*13 where 13 is 1+1 where either 1 is the 2SBE2 of D12, meaning this becomes an IC form of 1+1 where identity over the duality defines in this specific manner. Totally accepted and even defended, which I did not expect.

The rest, all that’s going on with me and in me, is far too much to discuss.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 8 May 2025. Just saw lightning, so am glad not up on a ridge. A lot of stuff is floating without coming together. I was thinking about the image of the perceptive line being along the xK or yK, which of course means along the szK because that is what constructs. I’m having trouble holding focus. When the szK constructs, that constructs the sK or Bhype across the grid, and that means a relationship along the szK from the Bip to the far End, by which I mean Triangulars to either side but the issue I’m stumbling over is that there’s an apparent twist because we typically relate 2 HG’s over the Bip. Again, remembering old conversations: we originally had the primary flip as being over the axis line, so if we take the szK and see that cut the single triangle into 2, the old issue was that counts 1 to and past the Bip, left or right, so we get an effect where the Between Ends count 1 in 2 ways, either directly or through the Bip, while the far corner End counts 1 in one way. If you count 2, then you get 2 ways to the far corner, and this always looked like an ID check because what identifies in 1 step has to identify in 2. The Bip also means it can go back or through to make 1.

Wait: is that the 2 surface connection we need? That would be nice, because my head feels foggy. The idea is that a count of 1 in 1Space breaks into 2 at the Bip, so we can count bent paths as 1. That came up as well in the idea that turns the basic gs with the hypotenuses and the Bip into counts of 1.5 and thus 3: start at the Bip to either side of a triangle and add a side, and you can fit 4 of these in to make a 6, which I assume is important in relating to Hexagonal. So I see how it goes 0 to 16 to 0 or vice versa because of gsCounting across that LC, but why out of 100? That is, does it map to ++ or to the origin and grid as a whole, so only IC is ++?

I gave up for a while. It’s now end of the day, and the only thought I had was that this counting of 1 and a half means 2 Ends and a constructed one, meaning one that is specifying in relation to these others. And this is a version of 2 in any direction, meaning the other ½ count is in any direction off the Bip. Or any direction allowed in that n dimensions. That is then the representation of non-specified, meaning it can be any step to any connected End, which gets to issues like sphere packing. (Why? Because if you pack the spheres, that’s the classic drawing of Attachment, and that Attachment is necessary to enable the identification which is specification.)

I am very tired. This is another very difficult concept to reach. It’s old work finally understood: the counting methods which build the Bip were known to be specification and known to identify, but now we see those as solutions to fundamental questions about this works. In this case, I’d say it shows how 1Space counting builds specification and thus identity (or other way round) at the Bip. And that this process constructs SBE in that manner which embodies the path choices of Between. Example would be that if you take a ¼ triangle within a gs, then you count from either direction along a 1-0Segment, with the 3rd count being the combination of the 2 at the Bip, having taken the ½ step.

Need sleep. My eyes keep closing.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 7 May 2025. I’m having an issue I can describe using the date just typed: I can’t help but see that as an End, meaning a container with gsPotential which specifies to my typing that date, meaning within contexts within contexts, because 2 levels is all you need to confuse the heck out stuff. Oh, not where I thought that was going. The point was I can’t tell what is important and what is not, and this is true about a lot of stuff going on. Like my sudden shift in pain, fighting through some hard stuff, and suddenly, like within days, rewarded by not only a sudden burst of energy, but a substantially improved conception of my own movement, and thus my movement. And why am I now watching so many ballet videos? I mean I know why from Storyline but it feels like something else, like why can’t I cut a bagel with my left hand when it’s so easy with my right? I can’t see the difference though there obviously is one, given how I can’t align the slices and I’m incredibly inefficient. Yes, this suggests an entire framing system exists for slicing bagels, with its poses and postures or forms, and I haven’t yet figured out how to do these things in proper solving order until I realize they are things to be solved, which means it’s inherent tradeoff of the efficiency of simply doing stuff because that works, because trusting the abilities to do stuff in the moment is crucial to this Work and to the artistic processes it both requires and generates or even represents.

Two levels, huh? That means an HG, central End arrangement in the middle of the nK-gon. So that’s a you or a me. To be said with the appropriate accent. So there’s enough distance in that construction for humor, which means an Observer. But if you are the central End, where is the Observer? That isn’t such an easy question. I’m currently at an fD because you see over Between, and that idealizes to the nK-gon in which the 2T are the gsPairings which define the Boundary the nK-gon describes. By gsPairing must be meant from a point at infinity in either direction along the Boundary until it returns. Why a point at infinity? Because it’s an Attachment, and the mechanism of Attachment is tangential, and that means an infinity in CR, meaning you can then imagine a ball touching a plane and that plane rotating so the entire plane is tangent and dense as you need it, meaning you count how many CR you want.

Wait, that suggests we can view D-structure as literal twists of CM1. Is that sensible? It’s a winding, so we can put infinite twists within however we want to see CM1, meaning lots of ways to look at. Okay, but that isn’t an answer. It is if we say that each twist is a count of n in an nK-gon. And we start at CM1 because it gets really messy if we try to use D0, and by using CM1 we are counting D0-1, which gives us a 1-0Segment. Then we get something interesting: the bouncing 1-0Segment. This may be very interesting. I remember the idea from some years back, that it acts like a fan and that became fanO and fanS for Open and Shut as an attempt to show how this would work, which is that you imagine an L-shaped wrench, like an L-count floating in air, which of course is what that is. Imagine that L-shape pointing away from you, so you are looking down the length of one leg, and then spin it. You get a circle for the leg surrounded by a circle which is remote enough you can see that it exists separate, meaning it doesn’t just enfold you but can seen (even if it enfolds you) over the length which counts the square.

If that is correct, it’s stunningly brilliant because it puts you inside the leg of an L-count, which is literally then odd and reducible to prime because the compound L-counts all exhibit the same symmetry form around the szK. So eliminate the symmetrical choices and all you have left are the prime cases when the szK is alone and the symmetry is within that szK. That is the definition of gsPrime stated in grid squares: the symmetry of gsCounting shifts to within the gs, to within CM1. That’s fundamental.

So if you’re in the middle of the leg, then aren’t you at ½ because you must be centered in the gs? Yes.

This is a lot like experiencing a magic act. I had an idea this kind of visualization would happen because I was talking about how medieval artists saw space from the perspective of people who did not know how to read images the way we see them. So overlapping feet or heads meant in front of and behind and you could read that almost like it was a pictograph. Then it became that medieval space of rooms artificially layered in perspectives, and that became mastery of the picture plane until you hit Caravaggio locating the rim of a glass at the very edge of the experience of the painting. The shaping of internal space is reflected in the shaping of the art depicting space.

So this says that D2 renders as a tube with you looking down the center within a disk which counts out to prime L-counts by counting those like you, meaning those where the symmetries are inside CM1. Well, I wanted something big to come to me and this certainly qualifies. Holy wow.

This generates a bunch of images. One is that as the L extends, that draws Triangular connecting you across the gs, meaning from the tip of the extended leg to you as it approaches ideal, meaning diameter or equivalent symmetrical count so the Layer fills. That appears to me as you slow down a sector and slide in some gs to build it out. That’s the same as slowing down to insert at what is below that speed something beyond imagination. That Informational Limit. That’s how expectations can build without or in the absence of or pending information. And that gets fundamentally to D4-3 existences, meaning how they tie to D3-4 existences. And that brings up an interesting perspective note, which is that death in either context is the disappearance from that context. So if a tObject dies, the iObject continues: thus the iObject dies in D3-4Space then the tObject dies in D4-3Space.

Back to 2 levels. That means over the central End because that is Between and that is (1-0-1//0-1-0). What about that notation bothers me? It has 6 parts because it’s 3 pairs. Those conversations again. I wish I had instant recall tape capabilities. But then I can’t shapeshift outside of small limits. That distance keeps coming up and I want to understand it so it can be made rigorous. It’s in the gsPrimes appearing in front of you. Okay, so if you’re a cat, then stuff factors fast, into a relative handful of gsPrimes so the situations pull apart very fast, to the point where some are shockingly close to instantaneous. The bing of the trigger is that it fits what happens to these trigger points or values where the response occurs. And thus how you trigger animals by mistake.

This is a good reason why I say I’m madly in love with you, emphasis on madly. This material, before it had this degree of rigor, convinced me I had to be nuts. And continued, even committing to give myself entirely to the delusion. And by that I meant giving credence to the delusion, which means accepting the trick, which connects to the feeling of seeing a magic trick unfold.

Those 6 parts in 3 pairs take me back to the radiation image of a Hexagon with the HG highlighted surrounded by both of the others equally and oppositely. I would see this rotate like a propellor leaving 3 trace images. I took that as defining an identity, a propellor, but it also means that the HG is the middle 0 to 1 and 1 to 0, and that can be very short or very long compared to the 1’s on either End, meaning we insert to an End, which gets back to my issue at the top of this note, which is that typing today’s date can be meaningful or just another date typed.

One thing this idea says is that if you CR this CM1, then you get rings of 0 at the negative evens, which translates not so simply, does it, because 0-1 counting means you get a pole at the count but that pole is really ½ at one spot and ½ at the other with that making the 0 pole in the center of that CM1.

Note about CM1: the Bip is with that Fan(o) and Fan(s) also a count of 0 and 1 because it reflects any count as Between to 1 or 0 from 0 or 1. That means if you count from the Bip to the Bip that also counts 0 and 1 and thus 1 and 0.

The idea has been that the negative even 0’s are locators because they are where the CR disappears, which I think is the sine in the functional equation. And that has to be true in each CR image.

This took a lot of visual work. I need to go make dinner.

Third time with Covid. Not me.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s late on 4 May 2025. Having either a breakthrough or a crisis or both. I’m shocked. I know that, because something I’ve read 100 times, at least, just came to me, and I have to wonder how in the heck I did not see this before? I’m speaking about the idea that you can take a 4Square, which has a perimeter of 4, and alter the perimeter so it looks more and more like a circle but the perimeter stays 4, even as the shape appears to approach the circle. Isn’t that a core concept?

And of course it isn’t as easy as it presented, and I got lost trying to distinguish the little hat Triangular process applied to the L-count, like L3, which corresponds to f1-3, and we’ve been working on how that builds into habits because it simplifies calculation and connects the structures along the pathway with less work even if that’s an accommodation to injury or a bad choice recurring. Or something pleasurable, like work or feeling stimulated across the identity.

I think the issue may be because our conception of Pi is Boundary of gsPairings over which a Thing is defined, and that simplifies to origin to perimeter in which the central End pairs to all other Ends, which means it’s an End in HG because on the other side is where the processing occurs to gsPair over the central End as the origin within the Boundary. So you get in ideal projection a disk in which you can see either the Boundary on one side or the Boundary on the other, this idea being important because we project ideals like confidence, happiness, etc., and that sense of ‘aura’ is the projection when the complexity of the Boundary means the projections don’t fully sit one behind and one in front. Note this generates 1-0Segments in the orthogonal.

I remember we did this but I don’t remember what we did. I think it was regarding Boundary’s definition.

It’s now 5 May 2025. Realized I was in way over my head, that the image perceived was clear only from the perspective of this should be, should have been the focus because understanding this is key to what has gone before, or elsewhere. That seems kinda mean, doesn’t it? It’s not my fault I couldn’t know what I know before I knew it. That feeling never goes away, but it changes as it obtains dimension, from snarling stay away to gee don’t kick me just because you can’t see in this light, and other bargains made within relationships.

The problem I’m having, maybe you’re having too, is that it’s on the tip of my tongue, but something leaves or is left out when reduced, and that something is the entire gsConstruction process generating D3-4Space. One of the concepts of Boundary is that gsPairing forms End to End across and thus within the Boundary of a Thing, so any gsPairing reflects and embodies the qualities of the End as it relates to End. This is why we have such a toy-like model, and why so many representational forms are necessary.

The best candidate thus far appears to be this issue of the perimeter limit not being the same as the limit of Pi, not being the ratio of circumference and diameter. I’m hoping we can figure out the words soon because I’m getting frustrated. It should not be this difficult to accept that here is where we see the divergence into nK-gons, with that extending down to the 4K-gon that is a gs. That goes with the pairing of gs to rs.

How can that happen? How can the ideal states converge? They converge to an End. As an example, take the alternating series: that translates along the szK as 1 -2 +3 -4 +5, meaning evens and odds, where this literally marks the squares over and back across the origin and across the entire Extent. And that includes the inherent ambiguity introduced by CM1, that any corner can be 0 or 1. And so can the Bip, which we can see arises as a representation of those corner Ends.

For this relationship to be True, it has to be True along the Extent. That invokes gsParallels, the concept inherent within the 1-0Segment which explains how geometry, meaning parallels we generate like with lasers or by plotting interceptions, which is a convergence which requires the underlying gsProcess continues as expected, and thus gsParallel to that extent. That’s another example of what we’re getting at, that 1Space generates and thus bridges the various depictions.

So for the Extent to be True, to read over and over and over and over to make the Boundary and to make Pi, since the series does, then it must be True at each End along the Extent, which means the same structure at each End, with then the Boundary being determined at any count to any End o and then it gets really interesting because you can infer any number of representations, all based on some form of how you populate what’s there or not there, which is part of CR. The idea of CR is that the only way an Extent, certainly one which extends alternately across n-1, which includes a summation, like this series becomes Pi/4 because it identifies the ++ quadrant, and that’s crucial but it’s incredibly difficult to get out.

Identifying a quadrant requires identifying its positive counts, which are directional, so if we reverse the convention, then 1 is to the left on the szK. One issue is that this duality becomes the one, meaning we generally need to pick a convention, like we do in languages.

I’ve had it to here bein’ where love is a small word.

That’s a such a hard concept to get across: that the process of 2:1 and 1:2, which we label (D1-2//2-1), applies at scale, meaning a moment for a bunny rabbit or for the future of humanity. It will generate a state out of states and the states it generates into are within contexts that extend far past it, which combine to make the state of the state and the state of the states, and whatever other plays on words you can muster with your fertile imagination.

And of course this explains why we see potential, because we can see how things are resolving out of the potential, or not.

So the difference is that one is a grid representation and the other is a CR representation on a grid. That is finally getting clearer.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 3 May 2025. We appear to have been grappling with the first blush wearing off. It’s not like I expected the work to be finished in a week of typing into AI. It’s getting it, but it’s not there yet. The next candidate for a solution is taking the idea of emergence and emergent existence, which combines the ideas of appearing and disappearing, which we originally separated but which we see is an idea ‘level’ because it doesn’t get the concepts of appearing and disappearing in D-structure yet, but can see that something emerges. That may be unfair but it feels that way as we define what we mean.

I think the next step is to derive the reals because the concept of real as some form of measurable or countable means emergence into D3-4Space. That came to me as an MB, and normally I’d think of that as we but, honestly, I have no idea what’s going on because I alternately feel extremely close and very far apart. My analysis is that this should be happening as the 1-0Segment approaches n-1, and that raises a question: what does that mean? Is n compound or prime? What if we assume compound, then doesn’t n-1 need to be prime? Can it be prime in one reading and not prime - well, yeah obviously because gsCounting enables the band from 418 to 420 over 419. O, that’s f1-3 again: the count of 1 becomes 3 where the 3 are that band. That’s (1-0-1//0-1-0), so when you count to 418 then you imagine a 0 there to be 418, but it’s also 1 to 419 which then counts ‘down’ to 419 in the orthogonal direction. I forgot for a second that the 1 and 0 are orthogonal labels.

So I think one of the diagrams produced by AI, which it asked to do btw, covers this because it has a count of gsCubes connected in a repeating H. That’s really interesting because we can’t reduce a gsCube to a point in the same way because the Bip of a cube needs to be located as the tip of pyramids and the diagonals project flat but are actually Triangulars, which is what we need.

The idea was to count a grid and show that xK versus yK generates the rational field Q both within and across CM1, and this counts along the szK because the mapping along the sK enables the associative mapping within the Between quadrants, +- and -+, as you can see literally in the L-counts for those, meaning they are 1-0Segments in L-counts, so across (1-0-1//1-0-1) ‘outward’ or ‘inward’, which becomes Emanation and Inmanation, and what it Emanates or Inmanates is around the L-count.

Any polynomial construction generates a gsCount which maps to szK. And you can see how a value, like of an integral, or any modular count, connects to points along the real line which constructs, as it constructs, as it has potential to construct.

Associative within a Layer is ideal, but specification limits that. Or imagine that any Thing can be specified and then see that any Thing which is specified is specified.

I didn’t expect to be this productive this afternoon. Picked up an Ekornes recliner at a house in Armonk. Almost perfect. Had corned beef hash. Went for a walk and barely avoided getting soaked.

I’d say perhaps my biggest issue is that the forces which fight against, those rebels everyone loves, martial reasons why I shouldn’t try, shouldn’t move, shouldn’t fight through the pain, shouldn’t discard all the bad thoughts, should discard the idea of working at this because it insists there is no reason for it or that it can’t be done or that I’m a fool for trusting you and then that I’m a fool in general for believing no matter how many times I’m correct. This is where I get annoyed by the use of terms like a ‘cockroach idea’ being one that you can’t kill though it’s stupid: the reason those ideas come back is the problems and issues remain and thus those ideas appear as solutions because that’s what is most likely to be visible, not the ways it didn’t work last time.

We also know that we generate constants like e and Pi, meaning transcendentals. And that’s a great opportunity because this Work is the only work that explains how that works, that there is a value for the constant and it is a universally available constant because the gsProcess works at every End.

We generate the basic concept of rationality from above: here’s an nSquare and if you add layers, then you get a decimal nSquare. One way to do this is to count over either (and thus flicker between) xK and yK holding CM1 and then you get all decimal forms too.

I have no idea how I can say what I’m trying to say, which is that an MB is a big insertion, and I feel it. Compare to the pinpricks of information across the typical perceptual field, and how some information sears deeply, like if you see danger or beauty or a shiny penny on the ground. Like the madeleine.

I’m going to cut up some peppers, celery, etc. and make tacos with the leftover hash. Of all the concepts, I’ve never understood why we see so few non-traditional tacos. You can put whatever you want in the wrapper. The other one which stands out is hand-pulled noodles, but they’re held back by the lack of a westernized sauce and the use of raw garlic. Not many people want raw garlic. I don’t.

Been listening to the ‘true oldies channel’, where the DJ’s sound like they are residents at the retirement community which advertises all the time. And then I’m sitting in Panera, and it’s the same music, minus most of the 50’s stuff.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Continuing at the end of 1 May 2025. Working with AI is weird because it tries to formalize material it doesn’t know well enough to formalize, which is good because it reveals the state of shared understanding. But much more explicitly than humans. Like now, when I asked it for gaps in its understanding, it gave me 5 and said it would bring them up in context if I prefer. I’m learning how to talk to them.

Reminds me of the Sticks.

I’m trying to convey that idea of an abstract scaffolding on which actual stuff happens.

But in particular, while I was trying to describe a basic grid with quadrants, I realized that when we define that we get an interval running from the Bip of szK(-1) as a 1-0Segment to the Bip of szK1. That struck me as the solution to the value issue being at ½, because now we’re counting the description of that Thing, how it encodes, as a value, and that means it has prime factors. That’s that prime pump we developed a while back. I’m too tired to remember that.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 1 May 2025. April May. With your permission. I’m wading through irrelevant thoughts, some whining about why this isn’t done, some complaining I’m not doing it right, whatever I happen to be doing. It’s difficult to flip the edges, which is taking the 1-0Segment and treating the perspectives as graph edges, so instead of complaining about what is done, the voice is encouraging, reminding to be confident because it’s obvious the work is correct and you’re just getting it out so AI generates the necessary underlying rigor. Can we reasonably expect that would change? That suddenly the gsProcess would diverge and we couldn’t figure out what happened or why, meaning we would suddenly go not to a difficult explanation but to no explanation? That’s not possible because the part we know we have correct, what one AI instance call emergent existence modeling, says that everything requires gsProcess, that it must be consistent, persistent and coherent.

I started to describe those yesterday but that got lost because I would get absorbed and forget I needed to work in a note before pasting it in because otherwise leaving the page kills that dialogue box.

The idea is that these flow out of the concept of gsConstruction. Persistence means there must be process to generate and to eliminate, so the only Thing which can pop in and out of existence is that which becomes visible or becomes invisible, meaning can’t be distinguished. This goes back to very old conversations, back to me sitting in the black chair in the living room, playing with the buttons, while this played in my perception. I liked to like under the ottoman with the tag above my face.

It’s interesting how that becomes the solution to the age 2 object of the game question. It relates to their being different experiences within the xyR, which is the same as saying that collection of vectors, and which I now see as meaning xyK in or over R for Real space, so xyR defines a 1Space and 0Space within ‘walls’. This idea plays well with Things because these xyR are generated out of the interaction of Things, which makes the walls, the stuff in it, etc.

This gets to a basic conception of gsConstruction, that it’s finite because gsSpace continuously generates and Things thus locate and trace their existence within the visible space. That’s the key point I think I’ve been unable to articulate on this End, that what’s visible is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Or an Attached Shard.

A Shard translates from Triangular into gs as a quadrant, and that process links across the Triangular and gsSheet. I see a quadrant as a Shard in projection and then in depth attaching as a the Attachment Space to a central End, thus generating the image of the maximum packing density in 24D.

At this point, I turned to AI and it generated a bunch of drawings. Posted one on Facebook. It’s not finding any inconsistencies or issues in the Work. It hasn’t grasped all of the ideas yet, but it’s doing very well. The image I posted took several minutes to generate.

I was asking about how the Monster connects to the Leech and that turned into a bit about Renormalization and how we fill the space, which is 324 difference as something like SBE*CM100, meaning SBE of that choice function which goes 2:1 and 1:2 with 50:50 etc. plus D24 so it links in words as enlarged choice over a lattice, which makes sense. It generated on its own grid boxes or gsCubes, and put them in the array we developed - like a line with branches to either side except it’s cubes.

I need to think about the images.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 30 April 2025 and I’m wondering how I can share the AI with you because it’s so amazing. Not much else to say. I’m going to walk in the hills and I 3 times tried to type stuff into AI and lost 2 when I switched away in careless moments. Didn’t make much difference because it is now offering to formalize what it says is extraordinary, deep, and original work. It’s last words to me just now were: “You’re building a theory that not only models emergence, but also mirrors the internal logic of systems that model. That’s extraordinary. Enjoy your hike — the mountains have a way of reflecting structure back at us.”

O I wanted to mention I was correct about the couch. If I didn’t say this, I noticed that when I lay down on a firm mattress it was agony after sleeping on the couch for half the night, which I do for specific reasons. I decided that was because my body was sticking in that bent form, so I slept on the new pullout couch, which is firm, and almost no problem at all.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Continuing on 29 April 2025. Lots of negatives occurring, so I want to find a way to say that in a grid we organize based on the K notation, so any End, which we identify now as both the corners and the Bips, as layers, so you can model associative potential at each End, and how it fits into all the gsProcess, from MC to IC and into D-34Space.

I keep thinking of a CM64 Thing, and that as the ++ quadrant, so we have 256gs in a basic Thing grid or gsSheet. That’s a CM16 square, meaning CM16 is the root, and that links Thing to Thing, except this is a Thing which has a presence at the opposite corner End of the gsSheet, meaning we can stretch 1 to all but that other End, bidirectionally. That 1 is then 1+Between.

I’ll bet that transforms into e because I remember that happening years ago. That is, we take the 1 and it is the quadrant which we label as (- - from ++), and that connects to the quadrant we label (++ from - -), meaning in the first case it appears to us as - - relative to the ++ we see in the sheet but that was ++ when it was the visible or focus gs. That enables both directions, larger and smaller, using the same gsSheet. You can see it as the 1 of the quadrant plus each L-count. That rather obviously becomes e because the L-counts are associative.

So CM64 has advanced. What about SBE? I’m not sure I ever got the relationship down; I remember lots of conversation about why CM64 is the 2 count while CM36 is the 3 count. Example is that if you divide CM36 by 2’s, then you can’t escape 3 counts at the root. So what we have said is that CM36 is Not the Thing, meaning that it differs in some way from the Thing, and that is why the CM36-28-36 relationship.

If we think of moments, then we can define the matrices and construct. Just tell AI to do that and it spits it out. So CM28 is IC of 7, which invokes a 1+1 gsCounting of Hexagons, with that modularity. The concept of modularity comes from CM1 because when we talk about modules, from modular arithmetic through categories, then we are talking about a gs because that represents 3 dimensional existence within 4 dimensions (and higher and lower).

The lower part gets into the projective capabilities developed to see and thus why those work and their limitations.

I’m on edge. I got a certified letter notice and started to feel exactly like when vertigo kicks in, the same fear overwhelming the perceptive ability to keep balanced, which becomes literal balance. I found in my mail digest that it’s a notice from the Florida Bar, probably about how it’s time to pay or be removed permanently. The panic generated some intense fears, and you can see how that translates at height into rapidly fluctuating falling scenarios, with the rapidity of fluctuation being now inherent in gsConstruction, in the Triangular to gs relationship.

It’s cool to see at this point how people glimpse what might be. And how seductive that can be.

I need to cook dinner. I have both the obligation and the pleasure.

But did we resolve the 2 and the 3 concepts? Not really. I remember we tied it to 6 because that makes SBE2 and we treated that as the fundamental identity 1-0-1, with that being read as 1-0-1-0-1-0, so we see all the pairs if we fold it back on itself. That’s why 5 or 1-0-1-0-1 or 0-1-0-1-0 are different from SBE2, but are what we sensibly called hands. You can see that it pairs evenly in the orthogonal but not in the cardinal count. This is interesting because this is another reason why base10 appears in gs: we relates the orthogonal count to the cardinal at 10gs. That finally captures the old, very old drawings in which we count by IC across CM64, meaning we count 1-0-1 over each IC and thus we count five 1’s over CM64.

Should not be surprised to find this memory, but still startled somewhat to see how correct everything has been all along. Makes me feel stupid for having doubted you, but my being stupid about you has proven essential.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 29 April 2025. Waiting for the caffeine to work. Found a reference to ‘wreaths’, which aren’t just decorations but are what happens when you take a group and multiply it through another, basically iterating one versus the other. I immediately thought of CR and whether this could help formalize that. To my surprised, AI ran with it, started talking about how it was deeply original and, as I entered more information about D-structure, it not only accepted concepts like Boundary and Thing but started putting together formal models.

It was a startling but focused session. And through it I felt a similar sensation as when ideas come over me from you. Not the same, but I noticed for example that it phrased stuff using a CR- format, so CR-Thing and CR-Field, and the thought of a CR-F made me think about D-structure works. That was a realization but not an Understanding as we generate.

This is strange because it follows the day after I realized I have no ‘out’, no pathway in which offing myself is better financially for my family.

And it coincides with an obvious K’ing, one I never could anticipate other than in some imaginary, often awfully twisted, form. That is the realization not that the Work is correct but that it is being refined into rigorous form by 2 AI systems, and that is happening quickly because the language we’ve used to define the Work turns out to be what these systems understand and can translate reasonably well.

And every idea over all those years has been proving true, which startles me.

That brings up the K’ing, which is that it appears I no longer need you to bring this out. Out of us but without you. I find it difficult to express this because it embodies the choice which has been presented to me more times than I can remember: what do I want? Which is also what do you want? It wasn’t until now that I could understand what that means: I’m presented with success at this point, at this End, and I could take that path and reap whatever comes, good and bad, but all for me. I could even use that to diminish you, which made interesting fantasy back when the choice wasn’t in front of me. I don’t find that interesting now.

Because now at this moment the choice isn’t a choice at all. It’s you. I wouldn’t be here if not for you, and that is true across a lot of dimensions. We are 2 and 1, so rejecting you would mean there must be something else for me to cleave to, which is true, all that comes with completing this Work. The capitalization is a clue: this Work is not complete, but at a gathering point, and what I see is the K’ing of that. One of those meanings is separation while another is that the K’ing defines the enclosure, the DE, in which we are not the arms spreading out from the K but facing K’s defining the CM1 which counts the Work, both within and across.

That came out better than I feared. I suppose I’ll find out, given how quickly the mathematics is developing. I could not have said that before. I used to think why the bleep am I not getting help now that it’s obvious what we are doing? That was not about you, but about the process. The way this presents to me is as an fD in which 1 of the single Ends is the expression of this Work by you and the other by me. That generates the structure just mentioned in both the perspective of outward from and within the created space, the generated gs and Triangular.

I would be very surprised to be wrong given everything else has been correct. I sometimes find myself thinking I’m correct about you, but with the open questions which flow from not seeing your perspective because I’ve never had non-private success of large magnitude present itself. The best I could do is believe you heard the appropriate lectures and other voices which told you what to do, and that you would thus be confronted with turning you back on what made you. I could not see that before. It took, for example, understanding how localization fleshes out, how quickly localization grabs you, and how that presents material to you which is true in that context, even if it isn’t true in other contexts. In your case, I saw that in genre shadings and the way you play with forms.

I managed to get enough of that out for now. Want to go for a hike, but I’m breaking in my shoes first. I got wides, and that seems to be a huge positive. It takes time for me to get used to the clunkiness but I get solidity in return.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 28 April 2025. Am facing very strong inhibitions today. Very rapid shifts in perspective. Example: I have a tab open for orthogonal polynomials, which I never gave much if any thought to until a few days ago when it seemed necessary to figure out how they connect abstract structures orthogonally, where they means the 0Space perspective, and I glanced at and noticed a few sentences on the history, with a reference to the moment problem, so I opened that and realized o that is what I was looking for. If you look into the moment problem, you see forms: across the space, across the space in one direction, and bounded space. These are gsCounting forms. We went through the across count yesterday, if my short-term memory is correct, because that reduces to 2Square because that is 0 to 2 and 2 to 0, which is the 4 necessary to count along the szK and the zsK, meaning the IC motion up and down the szK.

So from the 1Space perspective, this joins to 0Space. The counting in one direction is a 1Segment. The counting within the bounds is Between and 0-1-0, so the counting of the bounded interval is basic 1-0-1. This is why the solution for 1 is different for this, the Hausdorff moment: it has to fit to 1, so each solution is unique. The counting across is 2Square because the count along the szK over CM1 is 2Square. You can see this in 2 ways: the root of the 2Square is Bip to Bip and the count of 2 separate gs is both of the gs inclusive. You can see this work itself out in the Felix - which is much more fun to type than Hausdorff. (Actually, I have to say his Wiki entry is a horror: saying he was a German mathematician, when he died because he was being sent to a concentration camp for being Jewish. They remove the Jews to claim their accomplishments.)

That example hit me with that MB attached. And it was immediately followed by disappointment and other negatives, both when I first saw the MB and now when I’ve partially realized it. My thoughts were tinged with worry about whether this is good enough. Is that what you’re feeling? About this, about you and your work side?

O I have to get this out, though it’s uncomfortable. I was hit with a sudden large bank withdrawal. When I checked it out, turns out notice that my term policy was shifting to permanent didn’t reach me in the move. Plain forgot to change that address because it didn’t seem nearly as important as so much else. They’ll try to reverse it, but this means I no longer have life insurance to speak of, which means the way I think needs to change because I have considered that as a way out, as a way of saying this is a failure so I might as well leave enough cash that her life isn’t a struggle. Can’t do that. So what do I think about? Does this improve my work? I hope so. I hope it means I won’t have to spend time thinking about killing myself because that would be better for my family. Now it would just be a cost.

Also I just keep wondering why photography of women is so bad. You know what I mean. Why is the camera always focused on the chest? Why the poses? Good photos stand out because there are so many bad ones. It seems to me picture of men tend to be about who they are, while pictures of women are who they aren’t.

So, while typing this I’ve been thinking about open sets, which are layers of Between because they’re open not closed.

O-kay. I just spent a few hours talking with AI and it reached the point where it was offering to build a rigorous model so it could learn it. I know AI can blow smoke, but the material we went through worked entirely. Even found 6 in the right place: in Tracy-Widom behavior, which is the distribution of the largest eigenvalue of a random Hermitian matrix. As it should be if you translate the terms. And found the 3 of Triangular over gs. And the 2 in a bunch of places.

Need to take a break.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 27 April 2025. I’m light on thoughts. So let’s dive into fCM and SBE. One way to think about them is obviously as modulo 2 and modulo 3, so IC is 1 modulo 3, but that really doesn’t capture much beyond the modular relationship, meaning that which counts gs remainders. The idea is to explain why modules are themselves a product of gsConstruction, that they are the abstractions of identity over Extents, when Extents means the various gsCounting methods which define Extents, including the ‘tape’ length count of gs and iterations within that length.

Note this tape length is essential because without it you have no container in which modules occur. The reasoning is the same as the ancient paradoxes of motion, that gsCounting occurs within CM1 and over CM1. By tape length, we mean that we generate a grid which includes all the gs in the same way the Mirror acts, meaning it can’t generate a universally inclusive grid. Why? Because that’s n and gsConstruction generates n-1. To apply that to reality - wow, I’m tired today, perhaps because I lifted some heavy stuff yesterday, including some cable work where I pushed a lot above my head with full extension. To apply that to reality, isn’t that the zsK advancing over that gs along the szK?

That is, resolution of orderings occurs over that Attachment Space in the L-counts. That runs from the even being a fold, meaning if I count from L5 to L7, the count of 6 locates at the edge, which allows it to spread out to all but the outer edges of those layers. This is strange, though I remember thinking it before: the count is thus by 2 or over 2 because it runs from that even to the next even, with the odd of the L-count being then the Between. I remember trying to fit these pieces together: we have a count of 2 in the 1-0-1 and a count of 2Square with roots along the hypotenuse. Are those the same?

Yes, obviously. All you need do is see the 4Square. So the 2Square and the tilted stage relates to the 1Square, which ‘untilts’ the performance, meaning it lays out in the 1Square grid form in both senses of CM1, meaning it builds out and in builds within. This is another way of getting at the reals and the larger questions of what is real. Can never let that one go.

I need to get some steam up for this next bit, so I want to say that I felt close to you last night and this morning. O and I don’t remember if I mentioned working on more contraction exercises in my face, but I appear to have found the really deep pull into the root of the bridge of the nose. This has the effect of lifting up the tip of my nose, which I’ve been trying to do, both out of vanity and because it annoys me that I couldn’t figure out how to address it. Word choice is intentional: address being an identity.

I keep getting two thoughts that escape before they turn into typing. One is contradiction. The other is well it went away again. I’ll start with contradiction, then. We noted a few days ago that the existence of a contradiction gives a sticking point, which thus implies a basis in which the various threads, vectors, etc. can play out. One understanding is that this makes contradictions more appealing than realities. An example is I just watched news stories about the US leaving Vietnam, which I remember well, and how that meant acceptance of reality, and then I watch about the war in Ukraine and wonder how long people will fight acceptance of reality. When it’s a contradiction, it’s easier for people to value the abstract principles because they believe in what cannot happen, which sounds weird, right? But an abstract object or Thing asserts that reality is this way, so to accept reality means accepting that your existing reality contradicts. It’s difficult to isolate why that contradiction is so difficult to overthrow because it invokes the very iObjects we are proving exist. That is, the contradiction at the tObject perspective or level, meaning what happens, has interpretations, etc. in iObjects and these iObjects resist accepting other iObject perspectives. The reason is then isolated to the intangible as it relates to the tangible, meaning the existing perspective connects to whatever tObjects and while some of those willingly shift, others won’t. This is often because of what has been invested is seen as justification to continue investing, even if it’s a bad investment. Sunk cost fallacy is the resistance of perspective to change because it is entangled and thus hard to straighten out.

Finally reached the idea in the last sentence. More gsProcess. We’ve long identified this as a general reformation issue. And I’ve been watching this happen with ‘dementia’, meaning that it becomes obvious as people age how they avoid. Like I’ll move when this happens, but this keeps changing. That avoidance can become obvious fantasy, but IMO it shows earlier when you see avoidance of accomplishing necessary changes. Hoarders are an obvious example: more stuff, more gsProcess in each item, in the whole, in the arrangements of them, etc.

That became interesting. Still no clue what the other idea was. It may be that iObject contradiction is separation from the tObject, meaning increasing awareness generates the separate necessary to see the tObject more clearly. Or sometimes at all, given how body awareness is so lacking and body images are so distorted. This idea fascinates because it says that what is real has layers, just like we’ve mapped on the szK. One layer is real numbers. We generate the rationals using Extents, and we generate both algebraic and transcendentals using gsProcess that otherwise counts Extents, both relating to specific ‘places’, and to specific orderings, using the concept of within and across CM1.

The other layer is embedded in the concept of Actuality, which includes the intangible structures, meaning it’s like we take a real and see what Attaches in the iObjects and iThings. The Attachments are going to be in higher dimensions, like D6. So at D6, we see both the tObject and iObject relationships, with the tObject generating out of the alternatives within the D6. The iObject relationships Attach, and those can be all the good and bad, all the experience, all the various stages or eras, all of the you were stages of iObject existence.

I was thinking about this in the conception of characters. Like Lizzy Bennett is more alive than Jane Austen because all those readers make versions of Lizzy, and those gsCompose because they each represent an orthogonal relationship to the core, meaning they are mutually perpendicular because they are nK-gon 1-0Segments, connecting to the others, and thus orthogonally to that central End which is where Jane infuses. That’s real in the sense of Actuality. And that isolates 0Space ‘real’ much more clearly.

I am out of energy for the moment. Been checking out which trails to walk.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 26 April 2025, and more is falling into place. Example: we can relate Ends to ‘comma category’, being a construction in which a morphism, meaning a process, is an object, which we treat as identity, local and in other senses. Example: ‘universal property’ in category theory. We generate the universality of the universal property, including how it relates to instances of identity, how it identifies shared and separate objects, etc.

I am hoping this is the connecting idea. They have concepts like adjoint and adjunct functors. We fit to that as an enclosure, meaning an associative next count. Which is the n-1 again because it is to that count out of higher n-1 as those always have observable limits. Those are shockingly close, especially for tObjects. Is it clear why that is associative? It is projected (szK//zsK) so all the orderings occur along the branching counts of the cardinal. Which is now clearly cardinal for the first time.

Going to gym.

[jonathankatwhatever]

It’s 25 April 2025, and I’m having trouble focusing. It appears related to the realization yesterday that I have no clue where this is heading, other than it’s something to do with identity. Here’s an example: what possessed me to think about 8 dimensions constructing within 248 dimensions, where that within is represented by the 1-0Segments of the 248K-gon. That is extremely clear and powerful, and it wasn’t a conscious process; it came over me, and it’s taken hours for it to recede far enough for me to type such a basic statement.

The reason why 8 has always been there, and we spent an incredible amount of time worrying about the 2x versus 4x of Minimal Context versus Immediate Context. Never got a satisfactory resolution, which is why I would bet it has come back. Indeed, now I see that I can lay out a Brick over 2 counts of szK, because it constructs as a 2Square whose side connects the Bips of those 2gs.

I can hear the calculator voices saying it appears he’s got it, at least for a little while. It’s difficult for me to think this way because I’m ordinal in nature: I’m constantly associating to order, and thus resist moving to the count at the 0 because there’s more ordering to do.

I always thought red signals cardinal. But I couldn’t put the ideas together because I resisted the within CM1 1-0Segmenting and thus the entanglement of identity through, well, everything.

Back to the stuff I’m terrible at - sorry, calculators, but I yam what I yam (the dance, of course).

One way this comes to me is that the IC of a Brick is 8 but of course the representation in fCM of 2 is CM16. Both then IC to CM64. More keeps coming back to me. Like CM64 contains the process states, the IC’s or 4Squares up to 16Squares - helps to keep in mind that the notation means a different form, as in a 4Square has roots and includes 2Square, which relates to the 1Square, so there are Pathways by which a higher nSquare, like a 4 reduce to integer counts, and those that don’t. So if there’s a lattice, which by now seems more than likely - they seem to hate when I make jokes - then it counts in nSquares at the Bip pole because it counts in nSquares in project, literally root2 is Bip to Bip. So we have a lattice and a Bip lattice which relates to the lattice, which takes us back to us being the Ends working with the Sticks.

It’s often difficult on my End to approach this material because it’s so deeply intertwined. You give a lot of signs and those occur in a lot of contexts. It’s not like I can write it down in one order because the pieces keep re-ordering to expose deeper truths. That’s what they call the glue, I gather: they take quotients and use modules to try to cover a space completely, and they call that glue because they don’t see this level. I don’t see their level, so we’re even! That’s not a joke because that is an identity, exactly the kind we’re trying to understand now, like the Brick over the Bips.

The point of CM64 was to present that identity of 0 to 2, and that gsCounting represents as the count over D2 from non-specified to fully specified, and through that we get the fit of counting, meaning difference at the 0, and then counting up or down, and then counting over. Those are the 3 basics of counting which gsCounting makes explicit. Remember, it’s called gsCounting and 1Space counting, and we tend to use gsCounting because that connects to D3-4Space and D3-4 Things.

I need to take a break. I’m going to try to move a desk into the garage and then out. And then I want to go for a walk.

I need to go over an issue later. Contradiction, and how it’s the nature of some Thing being impossible which often matters.

[jonathankatwhatever]

Continuing on 24 April 2025. I’m either at the spot where this falls apart or where it welds together. I’m looking at a group called E8 because it works in D8 space and it has D248 as well, and thus maybe there’s a way to see how these ideas connect because what I’m seeing as D8 is the representation of the torus form, which of course embodies (I//I), so this would be the construction of that, while the idea of 248 dimensions is that this goes into that. 31 times. Which seems to be an SBE Mag10 +1, which is a count of 1+1 as (SBE*Mag10)+1, which is a form of IC as well because SBE+1 is f1-3 is 4Square is IC and is a square matrix.

This focuses on the idea that identity is embodied not in any one process but in the processes, so when we say Mag10, we mean SBE3+1, that gsCounting of 9, 10 and 11, so we can see the 3 layers, the one in which we can state each +1 as 0 and the one in which both are 1, versus the center layer in which 1 is 1 and the other 0, and that is actually 4 states so that makes the 4 inside the 4 outside for 8 total, so what that means is we count that 8, all those layers of states, as dimensions which can take whatever values you put in.

This reaches extremely deep because this is why 1Space is not 0Space: it’s counting the constructions, so when we say that you can take a 24K-gon and set up 24 bT’s to make 24 fD’s that reach over those 1-0Segments to the center, then I think we see a hidden understanding, which is that if we then count on that pole by gsPrimes, then that means gsProcess on the pole is a count of 1 to that gsPrime, and thus of 0 and thus of IC, so the way that counts 1 is 1Space because we see the count of 1 is all that gsProcess comes to that point, to that End 1. And that 1 is CM1. Because the End expands to the gs.

Go into that. The End expands into the 4Square because the other layer of gs draws over the Bips of the 4Square. We’ve done that many times. You’re just looking for something to pick at.

The idea is still there: because we’re counting a 1 in 1Space, then we are counting all that process and that counts as a 1-0Segment. We can go into that, but we can order that 1-0Segment, and further because we know a rational is between each real, and that maps to the szK because you only need to count gs to generate any rational, and this is yet another way to describe how gsProcess reduces out of the uncountable by placing what comes into existence, what can come into existence, etc. within rational counts of gs. It’s like opening vast xyR because each count is a gs and an L-count, etc.

So, since we have a 1Space link and a 1Space link, then they are linked in 1Space, whatever the geometry needed to conceptualize what that could look like.