Z.10.46

Hello, In short, we can transform the SAT problem into AX=1 withX a vector and 1 the vector of 1, but the determinant A is often zero, so A^-1 does not exist. However, assuming that since I have the form of the A determinant, I could construct a polynomial-time algorithm where I add more variables to avoid having a zero determinant, I could then find 𝐴′^-1, and the solution would be in polynomial time to find X': X in X′.

Yes, a weight of 100 kg will break the rope. However, if you have two weights, one of 100 kg and one of 1000 kg, and you hang them on the cable, the rope will also break. If you don’t analyze the applied energy and how the rope was broken, it could be misleading to say that only the 100 kg weight caused the breakage. In the case of two batteries with voltages U1 and U2, where U1 is greater than U2, and if the battery with voltage U2 is destroyed, a detailed analysis of how U2 was destroyed is necessary to determine the true source of the energy that caused its failure. It’s important to assess whether the destruction was solely due to the voltage U1 or if it resulted from a higher voltage coming from the ground.

Therefore, you would need to hang a weight of approximately 100 kg to break the rope. But if there are multiple forces greater than 100 kg applied, it wouldn’t be clear which force breaks the rope just by looking at the sum of the forces. A detailed analysis of the energy involved is needed.

We can only determine this if precise energetic tests are conducted to measure the energies involved and identify the real cause: is it the increase in internal resistance, or is it a quantity of electrons coming from the ground? Have these tests been carried out to truly understand the real cause of this phenomenon?

What I don't understand is why it is stated that the internal resistance increases to allow the two voltages to be equal. This is the standard explanation, but if we admit that this circuit acts as a sort of catalyst for a voltage coming from the grounding, we would see the same effect. So, we can't know which explanation is correct: is it the internal resistance that increases, or is it the voltage coming from the ground that makes U2 and U3 equal? Both could be physical explanations for what we actually observe.

I understand your reasoning. So, you assume that an internal resistance would be so high that the voltages U1 and U3 would be equal? In Millman's theorem, Z1, Z2, and Z3 are fixed and carefully chosen so that U1, U2, U3, and VM are always equal. But in my circuit, U1 and U2 are not equal. Why assume that it is the internal resistance that will increase to make U1 and U2 equal? A voltage coming from the ground could also make U1 and U2 equal, and we might not realize it...

Thank you for your response. Could you please continue your valuable explanations? I would also like to know, for example, if any tests and real measurements have already been carried out to confirm that there is no voltage coming from the ground when U1 and U3 are different. If U1 and U3 are batteries, normally one or both batteries stop working, but before that, is there any voltage coming from the ground or not? The one from the Dark Web mentions that a high voltage can be observed coming from the ground, which is the main cause of battery destruction. In the case of a magnet rotating around a coil, there is no chemical reaction, just a disturbance in the magnetic fields. This voltage can light up a bulb and adapt to all loads, drawing a quantity of electrons from the grounding.

Yes, the superfluid vortex is a quantum phenomenon. It is often assumed that the cause is the absence of viscosity, but if the cause is actually a quantum energy, then the light bulb would continue to glow indefinitely. In any case, with this experiment, we can truly determine whether the reason the vortex keeps spinning is due to the lack of viscosity or some other unknown energy.

A voltage source is a component that creates a potential difference between two points in a circuit, meaning it drives a certain amount of electrons to move from one point to another in a specific direction according to a time frequency. The internal resistance depends on the properties of the voltage source. In the quantum world, a small portion of electrons might even choose to move in the opposite direction of others, which can slightly reduce the voltage, and some electrons might go elsewhere, leaving the circuit and dissipating as heat. The quantum world is indeed strange, with some electrons following the rules, others doing the opposite of the rules, and some having no rules to follow at all... But this shows a misunderstanding of rectification. Yes, sorry, you should use diodes for rectification to keep only the positive sinusoidal signal, followed by filtering with capacitors to smooth the signal. You might also consider adding a regulator at the end. In any case, blocks 2 and 4 correspond to a device that transforms a sinusoidal signal into a constant signal. I wasn't sure how to say this in English. Are there any other points that need to be clarified in the schematic as well?

Here is the functional diagram: Block 1 and Block 5 each represent a coil with a magnet rotating around it, generating an alternating voltage, u1 and u3 (complex numbers). Block 2 and Block 4 represent a rectifier that converts the alternating voltage u1 and u3 into direct current U1 and U3 (integers). Block 3 is a light bulb whose voltage is U2, connected to the ground. Here, I would like to understand the mathematical and phyisical characteristics of this diagram if U1 and U3 are different. I have no hatred towards electrical engineers, and I thank you for your explanation in the link you posted. Could you please provide more clarification on the energy balance of this diagram and why, in your discussion on the link, there is no conservation of energy?

How can we know that it comes from the source, even if we can't detect where this energy comes from? In fact, energy companies cannot detect any lack of energy; they just make comparisons to identify a supposed lack of energy.

I don't know if it's a scam or not, but in this link, on an energy level, it’s clear that there is no conservation of energy. He simply says that the anomaly will affect the grounding so that it’s not zero and will provide the missing part of the energy, regardless of the load. https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/two-pm-alternators-in-parallel-query.17892/page-5 Our world is influenced by those who have the most money, and energy companies have a lot of money. They can do anything to keep the secret.

I mean Electrical Ground, which in French is referred to as 'Masse.' He says that implementing this circuit causes anomalies where a generator becomes a motor, and a resistor becomes conductive. In the end, for the circuit to stabilize, the ground won't have a 0V potential but rather a non-zero voltage, which allows for more energy coming from the electrical ground. He says that energy companies hide the existence of this energy principle, and any engineer or person who implements it risks their life...

I will explain to you the real reasons behind my discussion. I came across a conversation on the dark web claiming that electricity companies are hiding a method of generating free energy. According to this principle, there are circuits based on this method that, when connected to an electrical installation, can deceive the energy meter. However, it is not really cheating, as the free energy comes from the mass. By making this connection, one could obtain a surplus of energy from the mass without being detected by the energy meter. Thank you for the link. Even in this link, it is evident that there is a surplus of energy resulting from this type of connection, which seems to defy the laws of energy conservation. However, the person on the dark web claims that this additional energy comes from the mass and not from an energy source within the circuit.

I am still waiting for your link since you have already solved this problem. Please share your knowledge in this field with us, even if it is advanced—I will understand.🙂

I thank everyone who engages in conversation with me. I do not intend to waste anyone's time, but rather to have a pleasant discussion with respect and knowledge sharing. For further explanations, here is the block diagram. Block 1 and Block 5 each represent a coil with a magnet rotating around it, which generates an alternating voltage, u1 and u3. Block 2 and Block 4 represent a rectifier that converts the alternating voltage u1 and u3 into direct current U1 and U3. Block 3 is a light bulb where the voltage is U2. Here, I would like to know the characteristics of this diagram if U1 and U3 are different. I hope I am clearer now; if you didn't understand, I can explain further.

In this diagram, normally, the voltages U1, U2, and U3 should be equal. If the generators have different U1 and U3 voltages, one of the generators will stop functioning as a generator in order to equalize the voltages to U1=U2=U3. However, if we replace U1 with a coil and a rotating magnet, for example, and do the same for U3, then U1 and U3 will be different, but the magnet would still act as a generator. What would be the characteristics of this diagram in that case?

Hi, We can't mathematically describe what happens when two generators(simple batteries ) in parallel power the same component with two different voltages, as anomalies arise in the study of this circuit(example U1=1v et U2=2v anomalie 1v=2v). In reality, one or both generators will stop functioning, and this circuit is forbidden in electronics because it can destroy the generators. But imagine that we replace the exact voltages of the two generators with two isolated moving magnets. What would happen to the magnets? Can we study the real behavior of a circuit powered by two different voltages in parallel from two moving magnets in this case, without risk? Here is an explanatory diagram. The orange outline represents the area where the two magnets move; we can even add a resistor if a short circuit is observed. The rectangle in the middle is the light bulb. We assume that the two magnets are very far apart and apply different voltages at each end.

electromagnetic induction comes from the movement of a magnet, and the movement of the magnet comes from the movement of the superfluid. I don't understand why the magnet will freeze in place even if it's moving by the vortex? In any case, I believe that the outcome of this experience is that the vortex will stop but I am not sure...

The rotation of the magnet comes from the endless rotation of the superfluid. Does slowing down the magnet affect the rotation of the superfluid even if there is no friction? So in the end the vortex will stop. Have we already done this experiment? Clearly I don't understand, will the magnet stop rotating even if the vortex rotates, or is it the vortex that will stop?

Hi, A superfluid has zero viscosity. If a vortex is created, it can rotate indefinitely without any loss of energy. There are objects less dense than a superfluid that can float on its surface, where a magnet can be placed. If a vortex is created in this liquid, the magnet will move indefinitely. If a bulb is placed in a closed circuit next to a moving magnet, the bulb will light up through electromagnetic induction. Here, the purpose of these questions is to understand why the bulb does not always light up through electromagnetic induction, even if the magnet moves indefinitely due to the vortex properties of a superfluid... What is the behavior of a magnet floating in a superfluid that rotates indefinitely? Why doesn’t the bulb light up indefinitely, even if the magnet moves indefinitely without any loss of energy?

Hello, In algebra and number theory, it can be demonstrated that 0^0 = 1 is true, but in analysis, 0^0 is an indeterminate form. Through the calculation of limits, it can be equal to 1, to other finite values, diverge, or even not exist. This is why, when faced with this issue, mathematicians have conventionally set 0^0 = 1. So, let's be bold: instead of saying that 0^0 does not have the same value in all contexts and that 0^0=1 is a convention, let's change the notion of the number 1 so that 0^0 = 1 in all contexts. In this new conception of the number 1, it would be both a number and an indeterminate form, meaning that it could be equal to 1, to other finite values, diverge, or even not exist. To create a new mathematics based on the number $1$ with its new properties, it is necessary to generate the other numbers and define operations such as addition, multiplication, division, etc. Here is an example of how we might generate the other numbers from the number 1, but it is possible that there are other ways to do it... If the number $1$ has the properties of infinity, then 1 + 1 = 1, 1/1 is an indeterminate form, $1-1$ is an indeterminate form, and 1/1=1. To generate the number 2, I simply propose that 2 be an indeterminate form, so 1 + 1 = 1, 1 / 1 = 2, 1 - 1 = 2, 1 * 1 = 1. To generate 3: 2 + 2 = 2, 2 / 2 = 3, 2 - 2 = 3, 2 * 2 = 2 To generate 4: 3 + 3 = 3, 3 / 3 = 4, 3 - 3 = 4, 3 * 3 = 3 ... To generate n: (n-1) + (n-1) = (n-1), (n-1) / (n-1) = n, (n-1) - (n-1) = n, (n-1) * (n-1) = n-1. **Questions**: Thus, starting from $1$, I have constructed all the numbers and defined the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Do you think you can do better? How would you calculate, for example, 1 + 2, 1 * 2, 2 - 1, and 2 / 1 ? If we keep the same operations +, -, *,/ and the same calculations as in classical mathematics when a is different from b in a+b, a-b, a/b, and a*b, would 0^0=1 in all contexts? Can we create a new mathematics based on this new concept of the number?

For your information, even if 'a' and 'b' tend towards infinity, they would still be negligible compared to the infinity of 'n/ln(n)' and 'n+2/ln(n+2)', similar to, for example, 'n' or '-n' being negligible compared to 'n^2'. That's why the ratio π(x)/(x/ln(x)) tends towards 1, even as 'a' and 'b' tend towards infinity. To be more mathematically rigorous, I choose 'a' and 'b' as sequences 'a_k' and 'b_k' with 'n/ln(n)+a_k = N' and '(n+2)/ln(n+2)+b_k = N+1', so '1+n/ln(n)+a_k = (n+2)/ln(n+2)+b_k' Even as 'a_k' and 'b_k' tend towards infinity, the equation remains true, thus indicating the existence of an infinite number of twin prime numbers. If there were not an infinite of twin prime numbers,This equation would admit only one solution for a specific small value of 'n'.

yes, but there's nothing preventing transitioning from an approximation to an equality, for instance, if π~3 then I can state that π=3+a with a=π-3, thus If the symbol ~ gives you trouble, then I can even avoid using the integer part to make it an equals sign: if n/ln(n)~N and (n+2)/ln(n+2)~N+1, then n/ln(n)+a=N and (n+2)/ln(n+2)+b=N+1, with a and b being real numbers . So, if there exists an infinity of twin primes, the equation (n+2)/ln(n+2)+b=1+n/ln(n)+a would have a solution where n is very large. If this equation does not have a solution for very large n, then there exists a finite number of twin primes that are less than a specific n..

Hello, I have π(x)~x/ln(x), the larger the value of x, the more true this relationship becomes. Suppose I have two very large twin prime numbers, then I would have n/ln(n)~N so E(n/ln(n))=N and (n+2)/ln(n+2)~N+1 so E((n+2)/ln(n+2))=N+1 with Using E to denote the floor function. So, if there exists an infinity of twin primes, the equation E((n+2)/ln(n+2))=1+E(n/ln(n)) would have a solution where n is very large. If this equation does not have a solution with a sufficiently large n, then there are a finite number of twin primes that are less than a specific value of n. This equation is true only if I have infinity = 1 + infinity,So, twin prime numbers are infinite. For your information: When proving the infinitude of prime numbers, it is also demonstrated through this type of equation: q = p1 * p2 * ..{pi}.. * pn + 1/pi. It is stated that the only possibility for q to be an integer based on this equation: infinity = infinity + 1/Pi. Thus, we conclude from this that prime numbers are infinite. And similarly, to demonstrate an infinity of twin primes, I also use the equation infinity = 1 + infinity.