Alan,
I can prove that everything revolves around the number 3 !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have stumbled upon something that I think you might be interested in reviewing. To date it has not been subject to competent review; it probably won’t be for decades to come. I am recording this for posterity’s sake, since there probably isn’t anyone else on earth brilliant enough to appreciate what I’ve discovered!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In order to understand my brilliant discovery, you must be willing to accept that every mathematician except me is wrong about negative numbers! It’s crucial that you find the courage to accept what I am about to reveal; any blind allegiance to the scientific community should be left at the door before considering the first building block of my ingenious discovery!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, and before I go any further, let me establish the Cardinal Law: anything I say is true is absolutely true by definition (unless you fail to agree, at which point you’re wrong, and I call you a complete moron). Got it? Fine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.0 Proof that there is no such thing as a negative Integer:
1.1
-1 = -1
-1/1 = -1/1
~or~
-1/1 = 1/-1
√ (-1/1) = √ (1/-1)
√ -1 /√ 1 = √1 / √-1
By cross-multiplying, we arrive at
√-1 x √-1 = √1 x √1
-1 = 1
1.2 It should be clear to all but the absolutely idiotic reader that -1 is actually 1.
1.3 "Relative Integers" (i.e. what the confused mathematics world claims to be integers) are simply the products of any Proper Integer and 1 or -1.
1.4 Hence, it becomes obvious that no integer is a negative number!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, since I am more brilliant than modern neurologists who've begun unraveling the mystery of thought and sensation, I shall proceed to divide “what is” into 4 categories: [1] our thoughts, [2] our senses, [3] my ego, and [4] reality. Now, ahhh . . . forget about [1], [2], and [3] . . . let’s take a look at [4]:
2.0 Proof of the Universality of the Number 3.
Now, [4], or reality, is a set of numbers. That’s right, numbers are not just a collective depiction of the patterns we recognize – they’re actually the building blocks of reality! (Think I'm wrong? Refer back to my Cardinal Law.)
Anyway -- in its comprehensive, i.e. most reductionist, form, this set of numbers that constitutes reality consists only of integers. Now, recall that, as I’ve splendidly revealed above, no integer is negative! It follows, then, that any modicum of reality may be expressed by a ”positive” integer (which is the only actual real integer. I'm repeating this because all of you are far dumber than I am, and need to be reminded of this point).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.1 x = any integer, or one piece of reality
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, the human being has five senses. So, whatever integer we observe must be an integer to which the number 5 may be added. It then follows that anything we observe is
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.2 x + 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~
But how do we know this observation is properly founded before we interpret it? (Here’s where my superhuman intelligence really shines – pay attention!) Since any conceivable observation can be matched by an imaginary, but wrong observation, we find that we must double the result in order to check that our observations will be correctly interpreted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.3 2(x + 5)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, it should be obvious to everyone but the complete imbecile that we can never observe the world with less than one sensory input. But note that, in order to mirror our first observation with its bizarro counterpart, we accounted for all our senses. As such, in the interest of extraneous variables, we can now eliminate all but one sensory input (i.e. we subtract four of the five).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.4 2(x + 5) - 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, so far you’ve followed my shrewd insight, but stay with me, because there’s a couple more steps!
Since we first established the observation itself, and then added a bizarro observation, we are dealing with two observations! But only one is correct! Thus, we must divide our data into two!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.5.1 [2(x + 5) – 4] divided by 2, or
2.5.2 ½ [2(x + 5) – 4]
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, in order to remove any remaining subjectivity from the actual observation itself, we have to remove the label we (subjectively) attached to what we initially observed (x). Therefore,
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.6 {½ [2(x + 5) – 4]} - x
~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW, the amazing thing here is, no matter what the original observation, this formula ALWAYS produces 3! In other words,
~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.7 {½ [2(x + 5) – 4]}– x = 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is true regardless which integer we substitute for x!
3 is a magic number!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where’s my stinking Nobel???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;) |