A Response To Professor H Tutoring

Many-Clown's-Worlds Theorem.


"This wasn't wasted on me, Professor. You let me realize another limitation of the mapping I did for Pythagorean theorem which also employed its own output to as part of its input. -1/4 + Radical(R5x) = +1/4 could be rewritten as R5x = 1/2 by carrying -0.25 over.

Then, I could try this [R5(0.50)/R5] = 0.50 which would leave the 0.50. What I realized was, for this approach to work, I couldn't simply replace the x with -1/4 + [R5(0.25)/R5] = 1/4 . It couldn't work with -1/4 on the other side. It required a specific isolating condition. I thought experimented with percentile substitutions and typical logic extensively. I can summarize your methods as follow. (3x =12) = [3 * (12)/3 = 12] and (3 -x = 12) = [3 (-1(3) + -1(-12))=12] So, I could attempt this instead A=1 B=0.5 --> A + B = (A+B)/2 * 1.48335% - x. 2^2 + 2^2 = R8 ... I instead do (2+2)/2 *1.415% = 2.83 estimated 1.415= R2= 60_33% =(60+33)/2 1.48335 = 66.67_30% = (66.67+30)/2 so, I can estimate more accuracy at 1.4906% A + B = (A+B)/2 * 1.4906% - x. See illustrated examples because the last one was way off due to the gravity of trying to agree with the professor's answer. See link for illustration example 2 showing some percentile indexes I made using Artificial Gravity Function: Compatibility: 0.5 Plus 1 Dimension

If I plug in your x value of 0.224 as -1/4 + R5(0.223606) = 1/4 -1/4 + 0.5 estimated = 1/4 estimated. You see Professor, it's no more basic than combinations of these expressions x+y , x-y, x*y, and x/y. I hold my conclusion about the Legacy method's fundamentals being ill-referenced by duplicating its values, omissions , unnecessary calculations, cancelations, and illogics concerning size. In reality, it could be done without pairing redundant symbolisms like 1 and 0.5 and vice-versa with A and B. I could start expressing it like A > B = (A+B)/2 * % -x to 1 > 0.5 = (1.5)/2 * % -x. I asked the question why does a symbol 1 seems more reasonable to operate with instead of A? It's only one's reference from instructed or experienced memory. I have yet to successfully apply this version (3 -x = 12) = [3 (-1(3) + -1(-12))=12]. I'd have to proportionate each variable. Plus, I didn't completely devise an unsophisticated method where I can find any length within an area. These methods couldn't properly find the area that I require for an accurate 2D form. This session was surprisingly useful and helpful though. Oh, yeah, my 2s are from averaging. They are quantities from A and B. You can see other examples of this here
Solutions are a Part of Your Answers Ah!? 
The Nature of Symbolic Instructions.

That's what I said last time. I Knew the quality ,or layout, an equation takes could influence its answers. Now, I realize that R5x= 1/2 isolating condition isn't limited to simplistic forms of equations. It applies to all ill-referenced and irrational methods for executing equations. My answer ultimately differs from the professor's because I structured my variables differently and possess different concentration of variables even though we are referring the same object. That means my symbolic instructions were slightly different. It confirms my point about symbolic instructions and the importance of proper referencing. With my construct and his method of solving equations, I cannot derive the same answer even though I'm referencing the same object and the same x. What does this mean? It means what I said all along about the environment (output) influencing the input(parts of a system) and vice-versa. The only problem here is the output injecting itself into the input thus influencing the final answer and input in a reflexive and cyclical fashion. The quality of the equation changes by reassessing its proportions. If the equations were properly and quantitatively referenced, no amounts of additional symbolism would change the final answer or established inputs. It's essential to understand this correction.

That's why I'm critical of all things, mainstream or otherwise, and constantly review for errors. Plus, who would have known (A6) didn't transfer the negative when getting rid of the division. There are too many inconsistencies with this. I can understand why Einstein's Relativity was an attempt to correct these differing frames of reference for the same object. The other danger deserving caution is the perceived authority and direction of the Professor. If he gets 0.50 , or 0.223, then my approach must derive similarly. That can be used against you as you can see. It demands obedience with a psychological punishment if one diverts from the established approaches. It's important to have a level of individualized skepticism and approach sometimes over untimely and unnecessary flat Earth evolutionary group-think. Rest assured that if you're incorrect, they all are.
Professor H Tutoring source: https://youtu.be/RmfuSpvKEVY?si=IPY5w5sC5pbGKryJ by @mrhtutoring Ill-References , General Contents


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Isaac Newton Defeated

Image
  Isaac Newton's Gravitational Formula.  First thing to acknowledge is that Isaac Newton does not use a quantitative measure even though mass(quantity of matter) is label as a variable in his equations. His methods are proportional, and I'll link to some statements that I made clarifying differences between quantitative and proportional operations. Once you've understood these instructions, you can easily manipulate symbolic mathematical fabrications to conform to prior results through proportional manipulation. These methods alone don't completely  reproduce reality's outcomes or difficulties managing quantitative operations. Quantitative instructions have limitations and do not easily induce disordered confusion through subtracting, or ill-mannered addition of variables through proportional manipulation. I further that limitation by abandoning use for negative numbers, which removes information. 0.98 acceleration ,for the greater mass, flies into Dialect's fac...
Read more

Almighty Darkness

Image
Darker Daimon's Logic. Darkness is a concept of the mind. It is pure abstraction in mental frameworks . In constructs of Darkness,  Logic  is materialize by consistent and predictable  instructions . Inconsistencies and randomness possess no bodies in the darkest of realms because they're attributes for those whom seek blinding light.   With careful curtail sensibility to reason, all entities deriving from dark abstractions should convert to physical or external  reality. These  interpretations  can only be found here and another place. All other names have no association with me or my developments.  Darker Daimon's Logic. General Contents
Read more

Compatibility: 0.5 Plus 1 Dimension

Image
  Magnetic Cycles and Artificial Gravity Modulus Function First things come first, you'll have to understand prior dimensional instructions to understand what lead me here. You can catch up here if you hadn't:  Compatibility: 0.5 Dimension  . Artificial Gravity's inception and methods were introduced here:  Distance(Remaining Time)  .Alright, I'll try to make it shorter than prior posts, but you can't take my word for it at this injunction. The major difference here is with the notion of 2D. Second dimension, according to me, does not possess an inherent directional structure that emerges from entities settling or balancing into a 2d environment. What's unique to 2D is spin or rotation. Because 1D requires ranges of dense threshold levels across traveled distances, the entirety of 1D objects, and dependencies on density, it lacks the potential to reorient itself , as a unified whole, even though it can traverse directionally. More conflicting constituencies decr...
Read more