Keith Palmer

Xi ito phi gamma does and and I repeat does not prove quantum relativity and all of math physics and.models fails it's first and last proof due to the very first law of adherency to what constitutes that of approximation, it is just that any model given constraints and method is in turn that of a approximation Seriously 8x^N! has little to do with transpositional factors of parrellels of collodial representation and yes base triangle approximations fail to any factoid carried over in base open ended 2 binomial variation and lastly but not least 1 is not an integer of a carrying power from 0 which approximates a circle using a box does 4-3-1 = 1 Why 8/2 = 4 and I just told you all 3 is a phallacy and 10.01 is not 12 even though 1+1 may seem to equal 2 it does not Moderator who deleted my.last post I am removing you in truth even if you shallowly have prescence over this forum you never learned addition never mind theory Goodbye Math-god What is open ended box /Delete Hack-sign

(my best quess at quadrilinear interpolation In short outra-phasicism of intangible approximatory particulates must exist in temporality between that of intracomparitive extraplanar one dimensional and two dimensional collodial superlative adherencies of relative adjuncture to the planar and aplanar modularity if in so saying that those very comparitive indeminities must persist as it is appositional to singularities as they are modular representation there of Thus why I am trying to prove quadrilinearity in terms of interpolation Sum i=0 of n-1 {(a(y)-(bx^--)+c')/(a(y)-bx^--) Why would there be purpose in trying to find a.computation module there of? Simply because, if appositional planar representation is observable such as in terms of the higgs boson mechanism whereas duality and planar attribution is presentative And the corrolary of the statistical approximation of 2d isometric particulates is apparent There for, one could "reazon" that such an ideminities is possible and perhaps do exist To go further even if it is seemingly so time crystals are a discrete invariant representative feild observance not to say they aren't perhaps that of adhoc however the adjuncture does seem to be indicative that the immodularity exists alongside that of the relativity of the modular So too must the very aphasicality exist in too of that of a representative along the wider as before stated "outra-phasicism" What does fifth dimensional gas and particulates prove other then the appositional outra-exodeterminacy or interim trileanity of what is or isn't the very extraplanar disproval and presence of gravitational adherency and unadherency I'm highly interested in trying to figure out what quadrilinearity is in terms of a computational module there for in so saying perhaps a "irrelevancy" of the very tertiary relevancy of where indeterminacy may lead. Sincerely Keith Palmer Sum i=0 of n-1 {(a(y)-(bx^--)+c')^3?/(a(y)-bx^-)!} Just an idea.... What is the computational adherency of quadrilinearity when aphasicism is taken into relation when planarity and atemporality of the idemnity between the collodial adherency to that of temporality is factored as in so saying does there persist a comparitive mathematical proof? Does therein exist a unique intervariability

Lol =)

Open ended tesseracting or the apothetical qualitative intermediate equivalency there of heck maybe 14 the dimensional space is actually what your claiming boltzman was responsible of adhering the superlative adjuncture there of No no no 14-3.14÷ 1.16* 2.41 What is is 14÷2 is 7 just qualitative deregion or did I leave off a variation for you

This is all adhoc Sum.of interpolation x^2 just colinear algebra What did I say other then then trilinear coeffeciency analysis all fails.to an open ended parrellel ats indices of superlation This is an open forum is not? |°=€[π׶∆\......].---- What is i equating the sumation of parenthentical light superimpositioning of collodial States of adherence to quark modularity Lol O.o

Not only have I lost my patience with all of this I'm debating it not only is what physicist are claiming these days but the point I'm at This throws out gravity no really it does I'm trying to develop a fourth primitive term to hilberts three primitive terms and well it's the logical next step I'll post more if people want me to To admin move there wherever you think it necessary