# Thread: Prove that P = a ± b?

1. Prove that P = a ± b?
ABSTRACT.
The aim of this proof is to create a system that can solve itself without human intervention which encompasses an AI choice mechanism, a self awareness system and a model for an expanding universe.
The AI choice mechanism and the self awareness system is after the model must have been created.

Basic number theory shows that it is possible to combine any number by the addition of two other suitable numbers.Still in general, it is not impossible to prove that P = a ± b because the said "Proof P = a ± b" support the infinite list of possible numbers which when added together sum to any given number.

The proof:

Prove that P = a ± b? using a formula. (Optional: when P ≠ a ± b at a point to infinity i.e. when P = 1 to both positive infinity and negative infinity).Given that P is arbitrary number where a and b are entities of the arbitrary number.

The knowledge base (encapsulated, appropriate for public use):
Prove that A = B when A ≠ B at a point to infinity i.e. a point to both positive infinity and negative infinity.

Note: Both the Proof and the knowledge base amount to the same thing.

Firstly, in order establish that P ≠ a ± b.
Let's consider that a = P where P is arbitrary number.
a + b = P implies a - P = -b.
a - b = P implies a - P = +b.
Thereby ±b can equally occupy a given space.
And If and only if -b = b when b = 0.
Then the logic demands that a + b = a - b.
Such that P = a(+b - b).
Therefore for every negative b, there is a positive b where P is arbitrary number.
So that P = a(0)
Also that P = 0
Thus P ≠ P and P ≠ a ± b end.

Note:If we can generate a proof that P = a ± b.Then P = a ± b can resurrect from here.

Since 0 = 1 in quantum mechanics and 0 = 1 is infinite with the Proof P = a ± b.
Therefore P = a(1) and P = a.
Since a = P when P = 1.
Then P = 1.
Thus P = P and P = a ± b end.

However, P = P with the proof P = a ± b where 0 = 1 at a certain point of the application.
Alternatively, P = P if 0 = 1 like in quantum mechanics but it has a limit.
Though the proof P = a ± b has no limit.So the proof P = a ± b can aid "0 = 1" in quantum mechanics!

Now.
From the proof P = a ± b which implies a - P = ±b.
Let's consider that: a - P = ±b.
To the extent that: a - P = 0( + b - b ).
Such that a - P = 0(0).

REASON {THE ENTANGLEMENT}:
Importantly, both the proof P = a ± b and the knowledge base simultaneously yielded equal variables until b = 0.
When b = 0, the proof P = a ± b yielded -b and the knowledge base yielded b respectively.
Therefore +b and -b can coexist but logic demands that -b = b when b = 0.
Thus everything amount to zero (0).

Also.
From the Knowledge base:
Given that B is the existence of A.
If A ≠ B.Then there is no evidence to show that A and B exist to an extent that B is not visible at this point.
Therefore, A and B are consider to be nonexistent illusion when A ≠ B.
If A = B.Then there is an evidence to show that A once existed and B exist to an extent that B is visible at this point.
Thus B is the only evidence that A once existed.

ILLUSTRATION:
Assuming space system is the domain that hold each group of orientation in space according to the concept.
While movement (m) is movement of an object (P) in space from an infinite origin.

Now, let's assume this orientation in space, ( -b, 0 , b ) or ( b, 0, -b ) is in relation with the expansion of the universe.Such that we have the following result at each movement (m) ranging from a negative infinity to a positive infinity passing through the origin 0.i.e
From an infinite origin...

The Proof P = a ± b at a certain system yields this where system here is considered to be the difference between P and b from a + b = P:

At this stage before the turning point P ≠ a ± b or A ≠ B.
When movement (m) = -5 contraction of the universe is ( -3.0, 0, 3.0 )
When movement (m) = -4 contraction of the universe is ( -2.5, 0, 2.5 )
When movement (m) = -3 contraction of the universe is ( -2.0, 0, 2.0 )
When movement (m) = -2 contraction of the universe is ( -1.5, 0, 1.5 )

When movement (m) = -1 contraction of the universe is ( -1.0, 0, 1.0 )
When movement (m) = 0 contraction of the universe is ( -0.5, 0, 0.5 )

When movement (m) = 1 size of the universe is ( 0, 0, 0 )
Thereby there is a turning here and a turning point can be determined.
Note: P is consider to loose its form when movement(m) ≤ 1 i.e when P ≤ 1.Thereby b is not visible until when P ≥ 2.

At this stage after the turning point P = a ± b or A = B when A ≠ B.
When movement (m) = 2 expansion of the universe is ( 0.5, 0, -0.5 )
When movement (m) = 3 expansion of the universe is ( 1.0, 0, -1.0 )
When movement (m) = 4 expansion of the universe is ( 1.5, 0, -1.5 )
When movement (m) = 5 expansion of the universe is ( 2.0, 0, -2.0 )
When movement (m) = 6 expansion of the universe is ( 2.5, 0, -2.5 )
When movement (m) = 7 expansion of the universe is ( 3.0, 0, -3.0 )
This continue to infinity...

Thus:
Let consider that when contraction of the universe is in DISORDER or CHAOS ( -b, 0, b ) is less than or equal to ( -0.5, 0, 0.5 ).
Such that there is a turning point when expansion of the universe is ( 0, 0, 0 ).
So that there is a turning when expansion of the universe is in ORDER ( b, 0, -b ) is greater than or equal to ( 0.5, 0, -0.5 ).

Therefore the turning point which is the point of the Big Bang could be determined when there is a sufficient reason.

This tells us that DISORDER beget ORDER.i.e DISORDER = ORDER.

Therefore, the universe can be said to be homogeneous in this manner for every arbitrary number as it is expanding from when b = 0 to infinity, when b ≠ 0.

As a result, lightest element i.e. hydrogen atom lifted in a linear super positioning would be an appropriate tool for the model.

All this explanation is in relation with what quantum entanglement is all about.

What we're doing is also to generate something out of nothing where nothing is quantified as space.

Wisdom is needed to understand all that i have written.
Wisdom is the right application of knowledge.
It's a math for singularity.
Cheers!  2.

As an ordinary member I have my thoughts, but how about you guys?  4. Originally Posted by Guitarist

As an ordinary member I have my thoughts, but how about you guys?
Easy question.

This is a prime candidate for the trash can.  5. seconded. the vast majority of it is to pseudoscience as poo is to fertilizer.  6. the earth was considered to be FLAT at one point, just something to think about, this goes for the entire science community, it was all "trash/pseudoscience" at one point, learn this , discovery no matter how it is come upon is more important then ignorant dismissal
DUH cheers opoint  7. true, but after proved round, some people thought the earth was concave and hollow, and we lived on the inside. We still find no reason to listen to these people, as what they spout is pseudoscientific bullshit, and we can easily recognize it as such  8. see you didn't get where I was going with that, everything we have today is not a compilation of things come upon by philosophy or by quoting plato, one person is no more important then the other, so whether you call someone a fool or not, intellect an idea a thought or an opinion, no matter what it is to one may mean someone else to another which very possibly can lead to discovery of another kind, Einstein proved himself wrong many times, certainly you would not call him a fool for coming up with theory's that he disproved to go on to formulate the theory of relativity, as irrational as one thought may be it is still a thought, and as such, valid, even if disagreed with or thought to be complete rubbish  9. No. An irrational, idiotic thought is just that and dismissed. None of einsteins own ideas he disproved were inherently irrational and stupid. Most of them, in all reality, were simply off by a bit and not quite right or accurate. He never postulated that rainbows produced skittles. or that sharks vomit out baby narwhals. These ideas are incredulous and have no reason to be accepted as valid in any respect. They are as right as the idea that there is a magical purple butt fairy that lives by devouring feces clinging to the hairs of canine anuses.

There is no reason to believe this crap. It's psuedoscience, and will never be more, because it is not advanced in any sense. It's like someone today coming up with the idea that the world is really concave, with us living on the interior of the planet instead of the exterior, and the way we experience gravity is different, not really a pull, but instead a push away from the center. An absolute asinine concept that no respectable deep-thinker on the planet will acknowledge. Period  10. once again didn't get where I was going with that, every thought is valid whether you deem it "idiotic" or otherwise arcane, and quoting plato doesn't change that,  11. you may think its valid, but that still doesn't give any merit to your concept in the eyes of deep thinkers. Just because you say every idea is valid, doesn't make it true, and like said, a true scientific mind would find this all bullshit and toss it out for being such. notice where the thread ended up. That's a demonstration of the opinions of the scientific minds here. this isn't worth their time

The Plato quote is in my signature, not in all of my posts... and ironically, my signature quote does apply to this, as little as you want to admit it.  12. it seems your trying to prove a point that is not a point at all, opinion has no absolutes, it's opinion which is just as valid as a belief, to disregard ones over anothers show true ignorance, I wouldn't bother continuing your antagonist approach,

Plato wrote:
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.
so now that I have quoted Plato does that make me a deep thinker, ah gee I'm so happy to be part of the group now, mom be so proud  13. you're incapable of distinguishing my posting signature from my post anyway, so you keep throwing in a red herring. You're right, however, an idea is roughly equal to a belief, which is relatively low on my scale of importance in regards to intake of information. I don't give the individual ideas separate attention, but the information surrounding them. You have yet to even really address anything I said, and keep attacking my signature. I'm washing my hands of this nonsensical thread. Good day sir  14. you yourself claimed that your signiture applies to this post thus making it apart of your post, so before saying anything else attempting to make a point that is not one, look at your earlier posts, I have addressed everything that you have attempted to spit, kindly at that, claiming that another is incapable because there not agreeing with you just goes to show your trying to hard to prove me wrong over right, which is another discussion within itself, good try though I commend you for your effort       15. exf10x2=  