ImplicitDemands

Cypher only sold Morpheus out because he couldn't get in Trinity's pants.

I don't know how you got that impression. I have said that I lost any affection, I'm just trying to get that feeling again, so if anything it's about it not being about just sex. For anyone it is about sexuality, not sex but the fact the some of us who are stuck in the old ways feel it is how it is supposed to be. Missing the female role for longer than seven years you begin to wonder why there are two genders in the first place. It's perplexing to me. Last I couple times I got three body problemed the dudes they picked either played around pretending to have her in a headlock and the other guy was fat and burly compared to me so. When I'm sober take everyone of those assumptions and reverse them, it's the exact opposite. I don't try very hard lately if at all. I just work on how I look lately. That fight was seven or eight years ago. I'm really not like that, about two years ago I was wasted and usually it's just me being drunk and stupid. I mean anyone in my situation would be extremely jealous but I don't act like it. I haven't stared at a female since middle school. Again I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where she didn't find my looks particularly impressive. Here's tidbit, the fact that the universe goes against me when I do go off looks makes me go off looks even more. Plus I work hard to look the way I look, you don't think I'd make looks a prerequisite given the opposition to what I find attractive to me kind of does the opposite of making me change my views on that? But looks alone are absolutely nothing and the fact is, in my situation, there couldn't be a great fulfilling relationship anyway. I want someone to collaborate with but mainly I just want to feel a spark with someone, I haven't been able to it's not that I feel especially lonely it's just that I don't feel certain things. I think it's important to have intimacy. But the bottom doesn't find that whatever a factor in my performance. No I just need a greenlight because it's dangerous for me to get judged the way you and a few others just did in by jumping to conclusions too soon. Again I am very indirect in my approach I need confirmation though. Beyond the obvious, I didn't say I wanted someone to just admire me. Just an explicit request, not implicit. Like to be able to verbally say we are in a monogamous relationship. It's treading carefully. As far as the Ted Bundy thing, that's not my version of villain here I brought in that mildly bad-guy from Matrix to make a comedy out of how always being the guy that's not dating the woman kind of would be the envious villain trying to steal his girl. It's a joke.

If you look having fair opportunity to attempt courtship as being rigged against you.. You see what I mean? But this goes further than that, this is not just limiting opportunity this is limiting time, you have to waste massive amounts of time to do things that don't really matter just to show you aren't a reverse gold digger (which is considered by many to be a thousand times worse than a gold digger because it's a guy) , you have to do things that don't matter in order to keep things you can't live without, and still your audience is kept limited. So yes it is extremely different. Essentially it is an extremely low quality life, and nothing I mean nothing good can come out of it, for anyone. That's not really all there is too it, we are really looking at my lack of family friends, my lack of family size or contact with OWN family, very separated extremely weak, not just lowering quality of life in general but making the ability to find the right person impossible. And then you say well if you want to reduce your quality of relationship then that's all a go, but that makes me angrier than the sheer isolation and lack of help given my past, low quality being advertised or thrown in my face, encouraged to treat me differently when I pull something like that in reverse? It's a type of involuntary celibacy, ultimately involuntary in how much control society is conformable or willing to take from me as a man. I mean these corporations or local police should feel TRUE shame making them unable to try to suck money from this family, to the point that they're petrified when protocol says to do so. They don't feel normal levels of shame. That has more to do with finances though, but the time it takes does play a contributing factor in limiting my ability to pursue a relationship to null.

Technology that I feel I understand how to make, btw.

Well because the decision is a result of oppressive factors, scarcity, limited audience, outside of my control. I covered this in the first post, and I think it is considered involuntary if your options and therefore your ability to chose is limited beyond a certain extreme. Anyway not to complain or anything, I'd prefer to just state the factors along with a little scientific theory being applied. Which I feel I've done for the most part but in a topic about involuntary celibacy it's easy to slip into whining.

Better examples of challenging what is already set in my eyes, if you have Prime Video, is The Boys. There's a gay couple, and then there's Sage and the Deep in episode 3. But stuff like, odd pairings, that is becoming or trying to become what you called "subjective beauty standards" but that's not practical. Even in my own desires I remain practical in moderate, the previous too examples are the other extreme, at the other end of the spectrum. It's actually extremely simple to know exactly how to help me here. This is a science forum though. Although this post prompted me to complain more than theorize in the previous comment. I'm waiting for the neg reps. To me this is important though, for you what I actually did get negged for the computer science for was more important technical info. Furthermore, as if it's not enough to charge for everything under the sun, far exceeding limits that should be placed on the capacities of capitalism to push unreasonable charges like this. Accidents that aren't my fault, scheming in quarterly percentage on the crazy high cost of knowledge to remain competitive and almost elitist. You also have to give me the short end of the dating stick. And seems to not just be a lack of aid in that department, to me it is an active effort to limit my chances. As far as the "nor should they part", idk - I've shown a lot of proficiency, I deciphered the Algebraic origins of calculus on here after nearly a perfect score academically on my first try. And that was during a legal battle, involving hours and hours of community serve that took over a year and a fulltime course. When I was 24 I could compete on the national circuit in chess, most of those skills have gone to other things in the past 9 months but we'll see how quickly I can get them back before I start school again in July.

It's an element of synchronicity for humans working together to compete on the food-chain against more lethal predators. That's the appropriate context for my use of the word. That's becoming more difficult, I used to be great at this. Because I am not at ease, I struggled for 4 years, my brow is stuck clinching. More time would be nice, you'd think if you had many options why get stuck? Because for me opportunity strikes once, if that. Opportunities are increasingly scarce in places they shouldn't be. I go around the local area and the "my type" dynamic goes to shit. You know what's worse is that there's almost a radar, so that if she is my type she is extremely stingy every-time not statistics like an AI behavioral trait to adjust for the features, then if she's not my type, exceedingly common especially when I'm doing anything obligatory, she's all over me. The former is a frustrating pattern, the latter is an almost infuriating autonomic reflex. An older drunk lady hitting on me or someone else my age bothered me more than than someone being verbally abusive. Because for my first time I was bottlenecked into lowering my standards and now I'm stuck with even more bottlenecking but I won't do it again. The sobriety (9 months) makes it worse in the sense that I can't laugh and I don't find amusement like I could before I started using, unless I use. It makes it better in the sense that my inhibitions are closed and I don't act on my thoughts and desires. Basically all of your advice comes from the right place, but it is easier said than done. And "approach them as people", which I think has been said twice now, "people" is a question mark until you've spent time with an individual and in most cases they're to shielded to ever become familiar. I guess you could say I'm in an environment that nurtures sociopathy. Once you've become an incel, it's extremely difficult to escape the state you're in. I've less oxytocin. Affection is pretty alien to me, everything is tactical, of course it wasn't always that way but when it is like that I find relationships more difficult to achieve. I don't feel anything from long hugs anymore, maybe I'm shielded. You can't really make me feel much without giving me more than the usual amount. These are pretty much things I've told various social channels, a therapist, an AA member. They were all seemingly on one page. It felt like there was a community, but as far as the effect, the results, of my cries for help they didn't change the stressors, they tried things (such as medication and structure) that led to this poor situation. Ticks, leeches, mosquitos and bed bugs. I'm more likely to encounter an enemy than a friend in this, I feel as though a dementor or a tormentor is the type of folk available to me to work with in this state I've been in. To me it's one daymare after another. Maybe that's why I stopped having nightmares. Unreal. It's actually more like resentment in reality. However, sociopathy is a side-effect. You can't take the fish out of the tank and expect it to do what it was made to do well. You can't make an effective change without changing my environment is basically what I'm saying. Growing more emotionally distant by being starved of a need isn't as bad as the resentment. The difference between resentment and self-pity is the difference between anger and sorrow. I don't feel sad at all, make no mistake. It (being an incel) is a constant trigger because I don't blame myself, I feel there's nothing more I can be doing, I do not feel that it is something I'm doing wrong so I don't blame myself. Yeah, "not my problem". Basically, free for all. Everyone for themselves. Again you expect me to share a patent in a free for all? That's not what the term means.

The echo of an attempt at leveraging the world to work to ones own advantage is probably due to sex, capitalism and politics or the caste system probably has its roots in sexuality or courtship. As I said you really can't worry about your sexual needs if you are worried about more basic needs first. To think that sexuality, specifically male-driven, is the square root of all of war throughout human history isn't at all far fetched. Look at the post, look at how complicated it is, look at how maddening it is. It makes me question evolution theory, what with humans being smaller than other predators, less dangerous, when the only times smaller animals get the upper hand on larger predators is through pack-strategy. It's hard to have that in mammals for the reasons above. Not to mention also having to raise/teach/protect children. Sex is a powerful motivator in men, but it's hard to organize strategy when it becomes unfair and it is by nature unfair.

I really thought I'd get peppered with negs for this thread considering my more contributive topic in the field of electromechanical and computerized systems got showered with negs. I realize now that I was online at the wrong time because it seems like a lot of posters with a lot of positive reps were doing it for fun. Anyway, I have yet to sort through these replies but it seems like only a few brought up involuntary celibacy which is what this thread is about. Anyway I found out that if you shave your torso and get your arms and abs pumped after weight training before a photo it makes a MASSIVE difference just to show how difficult it can be no matter how you look or how smart you are once you've actually fallen into the incel group: https://i.ibb.co/ss9LzLg/IMG-20240619-213740.jpg AND I'm living a college surrounded by women, they will pick literally anyone first, I had gotten over 7 phone numbers that led no where, and that was 2 years of me doing all the work. I think I actually had more effort put forth to me in the beginning than later. Looks, practice, experience does not help AT ALL once you've been placed into the involuntary celibacy cell. Patterns are hard to break out from. I've done it once before but whatever I did then IS NOT working now. I wasn't nearly as defined at the time either. But you couldn't tell the difference with a shirt on which may be a big factor. I'm not saying any online service could work. Never has in my experience in fact online dating sites are not actually real, they are catfished 100% of the time at least in 2024. In my experience though, the group prohibits dating, it hinders it. My only two dates have been achieved through sharing a class or two. Again, that isn't working anymore. Groups still aren't, never have. It's not my approach, in fact the only reason I don't pop the question at all is because I haven't been able to garner interest after exchanging contact information. Which means they were being nice, vs actual attraction or ever interest. I really am at a loss. My only go to for a group, is one that has the same members for years and years, because that's how long it would take. Yet as a 31 year old, even being generous and saying I have the same amount of time looking like I do now as very few guys, Brad Pitt or Chris Hemsworth, can pull off - I really don't want to do it that way. I'd need to instill a lot of attraction and generate a lot of interest fast. And you know there are better things than groups for that, even covering a larger audience, that is the way college or HS sports do it, especial sports that don't have a team, like wrestling (which I have done) or now my only option is MMA (I just so happen to know boxing and jiu jitsu now) but even in a sport like that you don't also share a class or group outside. It's the duality there that can be effective. Other than that, actual celebrity-dom, like starring on popular roles especially on television, could be even more effective. But I'm good at physics, math and engineering, which is a nightmare and part of the reason I don't share things is because it's really not effective. And outside of acting schools, and colleges, there's nothing that effective to garner fast interest/attraction over a large audience. But the formulas I have listed do exist. It also helps to have different families that are close with a lot of potential prospects in them, which I do not. I literally live in an incel inducive environment far removed from those effective elements I've listed and mere groups won't help. And this situation is projected to become devastating due to my age. I don't see a way out. Ideally it would be a combination of being star in a popular Amazon Prime or Hulu series, as well as having a larger family than I do who are friends with a lot of families who are related to a lot of dating prospects. But in my situation the only way to mimic or synthesize that setup would be to somehow take footage of me doing cool things which I have done in the past (and I do kind of look like a film star) along with other things I've learned or done regarding what I am actually good at, and compiling them into some plot by changing the people I was around or the environment I was in to fit with the plot. As for family, they'd have to be randos because I don't have many relatives that I'm close to. Prayer doesn't seem to be any more effective than voting. Really politics, money, and religion are just bad science. I'd rather invest in human resources, social security, personal relationships than the first three. But I think it is safe to say that I am in a crisis and I don't really have anything to reach out to without sounding like a desperate loser, selfish jerk (if I go to the CEO of a dating service, a church group, or a politician or something). If there were an all powerful despot I could reach out to I'm sure that person would arrange something if I know as much about physics and engineering as I think I do, but power in this country is diffused among a bureaucracy mitigated between religion, money and politics. If there is a despot it is that the police and the army, those who enforce, because you can't have any weight behind a rule or a money value without enforcement. So we're not talking diplomacy or money we're talking enforcement. But that's 3 million individuals and obviously their only form of synchronized communication is through hierarchical structure is that decentralized bureaucracy. As I've said in the past regarding what I provide, there was some U.S. jet fighter that had some stealth capabilities that was captured by Russia around the Cold War, none of those engineers could find out how to build one that worked the same. So you can have a ton of smart people, but all of them working together couldn't come up with the Special Theory of Relativity. So one individual did that, you can run something by a ton of people but they didn't have the background that Einstein did. Regarding that, I've also said that there are two ways to go about extracting info, negative reinforcement or positive encouragement. Of course science forums is all about the negs. I could add up everything bad that's ever happened to me and say positive encouragement could never be enough, or I could get into how resisting interrogation tactics is a science and the highest form of military discipline. Either way I'm taking my secrets to my grave. I'd compare it more to a pattern or a losing streak than a syndrome. It's hard to break out of once you've gotten to the point where you're reluctant or you confidence is broken. Or I think the confidence breaking thing is the primary symptom if we're looking at it like a syndrome. I try in a round-about way but when it comes to being direct because in this type of science it really is a paramount to avoid desperation, or worse being guilty of harassment. I'm ultra sensitive to these things, and it is maddening. I believe I can say with confidence that the underlying cause of the condition is victimizing through villainization, the "creep" word would be the villain in that metaphor. But the creep is the victim. This is the heart of the issue. You know the whole confidence versus arrogance. Well the hero is supposed to confident, and the primary identification for the villain is that he thinks he's the hero to fit that role. So that is the difference between confidence and arrogance. I'd prefer to be indirect, and just avoid the drama altogether. A lot of times it's more amusing, especially for women, to just villainize the crap out of you...brutally. At least in my experience. The use of jealousy for instance. I work on being cordial in the three body problem situation, I'm cool with it, especially when frustration transmutes into fury. When in fact that's exactly what led to my first windshield-cracking level bareknuckle barfight. So once you have practice keeping your cool, it still doesn't matter you've already fallen into the pattern and understanding the ways in which it manifests changes nothing. Don't be obvious or what you call aggressive, don't show desperation as it is a weakness, embrace the sexual repression, accept it. Seek reverence not validation. So avoid the drama at all costs, but try in your own way. Discretion, indirectness, these have their strengths. But when time isn't on your side, what then? Actually not anymore. That was in my younger years, and it's not going to be broken. Now look at the current Iris West (DC comics) in film compared to the one in the comics. Look at the lady in the new Roadhouse versus the old one. You see what Hollywood is doing to reverse the female roles? The male roles, what is considered attractive as man, they don't change. Almost like they're testing to see at what age is it too late, when do we get set in our desires/preferences? I know about sensationalism and it I accept that it's important to understand what is real. But that makes the reality of the situation far more difficult to accept which defeats of the purpose of not being like this guy in this video which we'll call the clown. Now if you start your litany against the senses, to the point of extreme repression, you end up like this: To the point where you really can't even be productive because you're just absorbed by cynicism. There's somewhere in the middle, between work and reward. I'm closer to work.

Clubs and groups are no real way to bond in a monogamous fashion with what one considered the appropriate counterpart. You can guess as to why having a type just peaks that pyramid of impossibility.

https://qz.com/1596677/medication-for-intentional-forgetting I have a very traumatic filled set of memories, but most of all my memories remind me of a life that I really don't wish I ever or wouldn't wish on anyone. Painting a picture quite the lower quality of life. I feel if I had total amnesia, I would be able to sleep a normal amount again.

In a country that charges for everything, one has to worry about food first and foremost. The challenge of finding a significant other especially if you are as picky as me really is a lot more tricky AND potentially dangerous. You know every dating service will charge large arbitrary sums and it is difficult enough with the compounding charges for transportation, food, and shelter then you have to add up owning a room, or maybe if you're wealthy a home. Occupations that provide all of this don't leave any free-time so you need a dating service that rigs the random chaos of normal social interaction what with gender segregation being a real thing. Gender segregation has its pros, I don't want anyone lowering standards and that's exactly what will happen if you don't gender segregate and you'll miss out. I almost should be a political problem, if not the primary cause of war throughout human history even though I've never heard it addressed as such publicly. Food, transportation, and shelter should be a lot easier or less of a cause for warfare but even these three basal elements of quality of life are subject to petty synthetic scarcity, almost as a way to prevent dating. It seems to be the primary cause of any other form of poverty, class dominance is probably secretly a dating driven tactic. The number of armed forces is about twice the number of males that are incarcerated. But if it were just male armed forces, that number would be different, then you add the police force and see how it is possible to contain that kind of number for your own dating prospects. It's the only possible explanation for why the world is like this, same reason to encamp Jews in Nazi Germany, keep them from dating prospects. If you really think about how very short our lives are, that is a big factor in why we'd be driven to behave like this. It is desperation, and is sexually driven, just compounded by aging. Anyway, 13 significant years that counted, as an incel gives me some insight into the problem. I'm not technically a virgin but if you want to count lowering my standards as some exclusionary factor from the definition of involuntary celibacy you can try and argue that. I'm 31, looking like this I don't look quite that old, corroborating with those I talk to I have an extra 6 years, primarily listening to younger feedback, looking about 25. Ya know going another 6 years as an incel might be possible, I have seen certain men looking okay at 40, Brad Pitt prime example https://people.com/celebrity/brad-pitt-says-he-liked-turning-40/ . But this has to stop, is there some political way to solve a Maslow's hierarchy crisis. I haven't voted in years, but I'd vote if some candidate offered some service like that. However, I do believe sex is exactly what warfare, policing, money AND politics are all based off of in the first place, but in a very discrete way. Maybe discrete to a younger audience, but to the elders this is probably common fricken knowledge.

Correction, it was (r+1)^3 for the power rule. I see it now. r^3+3r^2+3r+1 If you look at this polynomial it shows f(r^3)''' or all the derivations of r^3 until it is 1. (3 x r)^(3-1) = 3r^2 (1 x 3)r^(2-1) = 3r (1 x 3)r^(1-1)=3r^0 = 1

Whatever do you mean? I don't know what you're even talking about..digital privacy rights says you couldn't actually prove it was me. You don't know who's doing it but I must say some crazy man really is going around dishing out negative reputations like a firestorm for no reason what so ever. Look I'd like to talk (not argue) about the properties that allow remote automation and computer interfaces but not if multiple members are going to siderail it with massive negative reputations every time I write something to no aim or purpose. Look I have shown more than most members here in mathematics and where they got I like I got nothing. Next pointless neg I'm calling a quits on sci-forums. I've left a lot of this to just quantum properties exhibited by the components such as the photoelectric effect because I took the PLC class and I'm not having it, so I know that it's something not apparent or obviously shown like the common circuit designs taught in your usual run of the mill associate program computer science: hardware. So yes, I am wanting to take this topic into optical computers. I sense all computing is optical electrics, especially that what we're interfacing with in these convos is producing light from our inputs via electrical channels, and what these textbooks show here in my studies is actually a mistaken general idea about the technology, offered by people who never really had actual confirmation because there is a lot about the world that doesn't make practical sense if you really think about it: From the germanium described in the very first transistors to the pre-satellite submarine cables. The first phone itself, how did the device mimic a unique voice? How were those sounds digitized in the first place, I looked into it and I do believe speakers use micro-changes in air density brought on after the electrical stimulation of many many electroactive polymers as their shape changes abruptly. But then again even the blinking light that are shorted in my dorm make sounds and there's no speaker there. So there's got to be more to it if you really ponder it. So everything I've written is non-specific and yes with complex chemical properties being circumvent immediate definitions it's easy to shoot down when I state something so if you wouldn't mind going over such circumvents to how I picture an actual component working versus how it would actually work without out dishing out a negative reputation for no reason or purpose, then you're welcome to start here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42005-018-0055-y/figures/1 "Yeah, it's more or less what happens in a conductor. A typical conductor, like a solid metal, consists of a regular arrangement of ions, along with a "sea" of electrons that are not associated with any particular ion. This is what allows those electrons to carry current efficiently, they are not bound to atoms so they can hop easily from ion to ion." In theory, this "ionization voltage" carried through a conductive material by a photoionized material will become capacitated. As far as a photoionized port around a spindle of electroluminescent wire stimulating an exciton material between two mirrors, and I didn't intent to explain how my idea of a transmitter works (especially given I already described some of the info for my idea of its receiver); if that would work it is only because photoionization can produce some voltage. So you see there isn't a single integrated circuit in this PC/robotic control interface. And that's the last of the totality of device's components and features that I'm giving away freely, but I've been wrong before. So just go over what is written in this post and see if you can't find any holes in my idea of engineering. If you or whoever would please refrain from pointless innitiation-negging. In which case I've already spent too much time in a place like this.

I want to learn to speak Dansk (North German Danish) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_Sprognævn

It was this after all, nothing to do with combinatorics. I realized this when the number of configurations I got for 6 digits turned out to be wrong. Anyway the full limits proof from which the power rule was derived from is as follows: The calculator is telling me that it doesn't work (i.e. is "true") for ((r+1)(r-1)^2)/((r-1)(r+1)^2) or its inverse ((r-1)(r+1)^2)/((r+1)(r-1)^2)), so I arrived at ((r-1)^3)/(r+1)(r-1)^2 through sheer trial and error. So if R=r+1, looking at that (r-1)^3/(r(r-1)^2); if r=3, it looks exactly like an integral since 6^2=36 and 2^3=8->8/36=2^3/6^2 because if 6^2 is the derivative of 2^3 then 2^3 is the integral of 6^2 which is (6/(2+1))^(2+1) = 2^3 it's almost plain as day how Newton found the formula from limits here. Any questions? We're done here.

UI tech is the most essential part of life for me. I can watch any show or film at the push of a button, I can live my life vicariously through it since I'm so socially bottlenecked and displaced in society, I can play some really entertaining games on the play-station. But ultimately I use it to store information so not everything has to be confined to my secret black binder, I can scatter pertinent info from that secret binder or on various electronic devices. I only need to memorize one thing in my head really the rest can be picked up from what I've stored. And thanks to the internet if a device breaks I can always recover it thanks to gmail.

Quick clarification, this is difficult to explain. If you stack spheres on top of one another in the z line from one central point, but there are spheres left, right, top, and bottom around it about the x and y lines. The spheres you stack on top of those peripheral spheres (x and y) in the z line will be smaller from your point of view because they are not coming from the center. Not only that, if you were to use the shape of a cone with the pointy end facing toward an observer to factor in for how the dimensions of the circles around the central circle shrink, the circles will overlap the central circle! The viewing angle of the observer's perspective of gravitational bodies warps the dimensions they move along in a way calculus cannot geometrically fix. Of course if it is one gravitational body the central radius is all you need, and with two we can use where the Lagrangian coordinate aught to be to fix it. With 3 onward this fix becomes exceedingly arduous and approximated. You see with all the geometry we have we've never really found the solution to that particular problem, we speak of higher dimensions but we never really learned how to get a proper math for 3 dimensions. I have, I do know how that math works:

You see it is easy to confuse all of these terms, a real digitally-automated user-interface that can do any of the things in my topic title fully utilizes almost every quantum phenomenon in gestalt except maybe electrodeionization (preferring to use photoconductivity in one of the components). It can even make use of a combination of photovoltaics in unison with electroluminescence and excitons that, when combined with my own type of photoionized-electroluminescent laser receiver can multiply the energy reabsorbed back into a laser-based plasma-fusion reactor. For the synthesis of the materials exhibiting these quantum properties from natural places on earth I would suggest starting with crystals and metallics (with the understanding these form from various volcanic and hydrothermal activity that heats, mixes, and ultimately transmutes rock-based materials from all different places carried to one hydrothermal vent by oceanic current or some other volcanized area via plate tectonics) along with chemical reactions in the lab. Might I suggest creating deep subterranean tunnels to release pressurized volcanic flows of ionized gas and magma directly into a facility that needs both the heat, ionized gas and the material in magma flows to do the work? The Mariana's trench is the deepest place on earth and therefore the best place to start on such tunnels. Constructing the hollow earth would be the best way to initiate the next era of manufacturing mass amounts of tech and industry.

I misspoke, bottom line is there is no difference between the integral and the derivative, the derivative a^b multiplies b and subtracts it by one in the exponent, the integral doesn't change the original b value that gets subtracted in the derivation which is why it has to divide by b+1. Bottom line is I falsely claimed it had something to do with limits. Really it is a product of combinatorics with one repeated digit. In my previous post I write that it doesn't work for the combinatorial of 4 where you have one digit repeat, I believe this is because 4 is a square. It worked for 2, 3, and 6. But I also believe it should work for 5, 8, 12 and 14 digits because none of those are squares. It probably wouldn't work for 9. Bottom line is the number of configurations where there is one repeated digit is exactly equal to dividend of the derivative of a number of digits and that same number of digits if that number is not a square, this has been repeatedly proved in this topic and is so uncanny that I picked one repeated digit to start examining password combinations just before taking calculus using math and that's what worked with the power rule, without which there would be no calculus, that I'm seriously questioning the nature of my reality.

100^9/10^10=100000000->log100100000000=4 Yeah I'm betting this method wouldn't work for 10 digits since it links to 4 which didn't work. Maybe 12 digits? 144^11/12^12=61917364224->log14461917364224=5 Nope! 14? 196^13/14^14=56693912375296->log19656693912375296=6 ✓! So 2, 3, 6, 8, & 14 all check out for this method of placing one repeating digit into a combinatorics problem which I'm betting is where the power rule came from.

Obviously if anyone 5 digits they would have seen why it is an incompatible way to proof the power rule. 6's log links to 2. Let's try it for next lower even number, 2 digits. 11 {2}, has a value of 1 configurations, x2 is 2. ((2x2)^(2-1))/2^2 = 1. If I did 8 digits (64^7/8^8=262144), I'm betting that since log64(262144)=3 you wouldn't have to do it with 8 again either, because 8's log links to 3. If you had 3 digits 113 131 311 = 3 and (9^2)/(3^3)=3 Let me see if I didn't do 4 wrong: 1123 {4} 1. 1123 2. 1132 3. 1231 4. 1321 5. 2311 6. 3211 7. 3112 8. 2113 9. 1213 10. 1312 11. 3121 12. 2131 1124 {3} 13. 1124 etc... 12 x 2 = 24 so yeah it wouldn't work like I said with 1 repeating it had 4 extra configurations in it. And even if I hadn't multiplied by 2, 16^3/4^4=16, so 4^4 x 12 wouldn't do it. It seems that Newton could have come up with the power rule by using one repeating digit in a combinatorics equation where the logarithms link, like 3 and 8, or 2 and 6.

Obviously the OP was wrong about calculating the configurations but, given 10 x ((25 x 10!)/4!), 1123456789 {0} is like 1/100th of the possible combinations of repeating number so in theory there's plenty of room left for the rest of repeating configurations. And this is why the derivative of an exponent maximizes its dimensions.

I mean the power rule has to be a derivative of the combinatorics above, where there is only one repeating number that repeats once, in that combinatorics you have to leave one number out to find the number of combinations and then swap it for one other number. For 4 digits you could have 4 repeating once, twice, thrice, or all numbers could be 4, same for 3,2,1; where altogether including the 4 x 24 value, you have a total of 4^4 possible figurations. But when only one of those repeats once, it's only 16 possible configurations. The derivative 16^3=16 x 4^4. You can clearly see that the formula where the power rule comes into play is logn(x), where x=c times d, where if the total number of possible configurations is d=a^b and n=a times b. Finally, c=total number of possible configurations with one repeating number that repeats once as shown above. From that you can recognize the power rule a^b = (a times b)^(b-1), and its integral a^b=(a/(b+1))^(b+1) which has nothing to do with the economic optimization problem I had written out about the garden other than it using a the power rule one time. So if you had up all those functions in the OP picture you should get 10^18/10^10=10^8, log100(10^18)=9; (10^10)'=100^9

Let's take 4 unique digits for example: 1234 (1123, 2113, 2311, 1231, 1132, 3112, 3211, 1321) {4) + (1124, 2114, 2411, 1241, 1142, 4112, 4211, 1421) {3) = 16 different combinations. 4^4 unique combinations has derivative of 16^3, 16^3/4^4 = 16