DevilSolution

Ah my apologies, i presumed that because you were brushing up on your programming that you meant your masters was in programming. I have the cooley-tukey fast fourier transform in c and c++ if that helps, tried implementing it on the forex data but didnt really fit. i breifed over the algorithm to get a better understanding and to try get my data to fit but i think the format is wrong, however it shows quite clearly how it calculates frequency based on N period not sure about phase or amplitude, although the amplitude may have been a secondary function of frequency. Just hola if you want it. I think signal processing is easier on a platform like matlab than any single programming language as it facilitates huge libraries for specific functions such as signal processing, you then literally have to input your variables or modify the code if required.

I dont know Mathematica personally so i cant create you any code as i dont know what functions it comes shipped with however if you wanted to go back to basics couldnt you parse the whole string within a function that "thows" the brackets and counts the words, once you get to the third store it in an array? what format is a data set? its own object type?

Im glad you mention that time would be a measure of distance because here we can kill two birds with one stone, if the smallest instance of time is the shortest distance we can measure the photon travelling then we also have the smallest unit measurement for distance aswell which would encapsulate time and distance together. It will take 7 units of time to travel 2 units of distance. There would be no fundamental changes to the current format, seconds would just be an accumulation of the unit time and meters the accumulation of the unit distance. What is useful however us the fact that we now have 2 objective definitions for both time and distance and by talking about time in any less than this unit would be meaningless, because nothing exists in that shorter space of time. Your taking an abstract notion and turning it concrete whilst also creating the smallest unit for distance that would make sense aswell. To talk of distance in any less than this unit would be pointless, because what we measured was the time it took for a photon to travel the shortest distance, there is nothing shorter. time would be a secondary standard as much as distance would be, they are of equivalence in terms of notation. It makes logical sense to define them in these terms, what time and distance are secondary to is EMW's and thats only because its the tool with which we use to measure them with. There the 4 primary forces in nature, EM, gravity, strong and weak force respectively. It's obviously an end goal in science to relate everything together uni-formally so there are no contrasting theories, Now having time and distance be a property of EM doesnt mean they are exclusive to EM, infact by using them in the other forces we are tying EM to the other forces and partially unifying them. Now to find the smallest unit of length is tricky, because obviously we dont know the distance of every object to another, however i would suggest looking inside the atom perhaps for 2 sub atomic particles that follow each other? or sit close to one another, secondary to that idea would be to use the tightest electron configuration and based on the probability the electron can be anywhere within that space and moves randomly within that space, you could fire 2 photons into the space and measure when each hit the electron, but i guess this would only be a measure of electron speed. I dont know much about neutrinos but arent they supposed to be almost as fast as the SOL? if thats the case then use the same method as above but on a neutrino, you'd have run exponential permutations of the method to find smallest measurement between the two photons relative to the neutrino, this would also be a measurement of the speed of a neutrino however because they are secondary to the SOL, they would probably have the highest probability of capturing one movement to the next. If multiple neutrinos exist within the same space (again i dont know much about the standard model) then its problem solved as eventually these 2 neutrinos moving close to the SOL within such a small area will eventually reach a point where there is practically no gap between them and given we can some how accurately measure this (keep a stream of photons going into the neutrino space and measuring there displacement or such (again i dont know how photons react, can they exist in neutrono space? and do they reflect off neutrinos?) that would be my initial approach anyway perhaps a chemical with an ionic bond, where the substituted electron has moved there should be some gap between the connection of the chemical and where the two closest valence shells sit, you could measue the distance between the connection again through probability eventually both electrons should be at their furthest possible position from their nucleus and given the added probability an electron can sometimes go beyond its shell. This could be the shortest distance? (not sue about how tight ionic bonds are im just throwing out ideas) I honestly have no idea about size dimensions and lengths between subatomic particles so this is pure speculation, however im sure an actual scientist with enough knowledge in the field should be able to come up with some method for finding the smallest distance. Im merely suggesting that it makes logical sense to interpret and define time and distance in this way. In regards to the second part of the reply i meant movement. Both my questions and statements are in the format of stipulation, obviously the way in which i make some of the statements implies question rather than answer. If anything i should have structured it more clearly rather than typing as i think, but for the most part its fairly obvious what the question is . I said capture by the way not measure, "how do we capture electrons movement".

aww come on swanson you covered me for electro magnetics page where i asked loads more questions. And you mean that linking time to SOL or EMW's wouldnt work because? The only change would be by what we define time as rather than this abstract idea that no one has pinned down yet, im simply suggesting that it makes logical sense to define time in terms of the smallest "moment" in a wave that can be measured.

Did he say masters? Damn kid just print the piece of paper, its gona save you alot of money. Whats your major?

I'll have none of that cosmic malarkey in here thank you very much. Nah thats cool, so they basically build a highly ionized chamber that lets electrons (and other sub atomic particles) flurry around showing their paths with the dry ice, thats top notch. speaking of cool scientific experiments have you seen how sound waves can levitate objects? Also are we agreed on the new definition of time? need to get the message to the masses.

Yeh im quite aware of government funded projects (like the Manhattan and Mkultra ) only joking, there a documentary on top doc about how the government invests in the technology and usually companies reap all the rewards with no recognition going back the government for giving out funding for specialized labs etc however they get the the tax money from the new technology aswell as having a highly skilled professional within the country for which ever field it is they were funded. To be fair i have nothing to complain about, living in england im entitled to free health care, education, social services, police ( i also got my university education before the tories got into power so i got that on the cheap too) , they give you housing benefits, tax credits, child benefits, unemployment benefits, libraries etc etc I think were probably the model for a welfare state to be honest. But im one of those people that dislikes unhonesty and with the current system you dont have to be a rocket scientists to see its many many flaws. I suppose if you were greedy then you would be as free as anyone to exploit the flaws in the system but eventually as i mentioned earlier a house built on sand wont last. The more people become aware of consumerism and the effects they have in other parts of the world where people struggle just for basic necessities the faster it will decline, or it will evolve, maybe a 2 class system of the greedy and the selfless or more aware. Well i think ive said my piece, ive offered some fairy simple alternatives and explained i think the system is corrupt to its very core. I'm surprised more people dont agree, but then again when something works for you, your not gona break it i suppose. I'll always be an ideologist whether i stick to my ethics or not, ill always argue the toss. (im vegetarian, dont buy nestle products and mostly buy from thrift shops so im probably going to heaven) Nah on a serious note its very hard to go against the system, where do you put your money from a company that doesnt pay in cash (not even sure if cash is legal anymore lol) and where do you buy your food? Its a big life choice if anyone decides to make it. I think any little thing helps, whether its not buying from a specific store because of their ethics towards farmers or choosing to go off grid and live an alternative life style. sometimes ignorance is bliss and i suppose you can choose to bury your head in the sand but your only cheating yourself, if your a fully aware person of the mass corruption that surrounds the capitalist system and you make no conscious effort then you probably have your moral compass upside down.

Thats really cool stuff, so those electrons are free ions from a molecule or are they in some some other chemical form? They dont move as fast as i thought they would but i suppose that's a big area compared to a tiny radius.

This is a general question really. What is the limit for things we can measure? for example we can see single atoms through a powerfull microscope i believe but we cant see the electron valence orbitals as described by schrodiners equations, i mean we take the math behind it and test it by how chemicals react and form shapes based on what would be expected from the equations but we cant see a single instance of an electron can we? I dont know maybe the guys at CERN can and if they can is it for a temporary moment? And what do they use to capture an electron moving? Im guessing camera's dont have that good a lens or frames per second so it must be electro magnetic right? send a wave in and measure the disturbance? in vacuum like conditions? And light aswell, we can capture (or recognise) when a light particle hits a photon detector, but can we capture a stream? or if that light was strobing on every other particle, such that there are single photons gaps for every other photon, would the detector only capture the stream? because light travels faster than electricity even in a super conductor, so there should be quite a large gap in which the light can stop and start and because its so fast the current wouldn't changed (else there is something faster than light), so we can capture single photon responses or maybe it requires a certain amount to interfere with the voltage on the super conductor. Im guessing they work in a similar fashion to photovoltaic devices bit instead of capturing current it measures disruption? I know we can capture Em signals such as satellite and radio and i presume that EM waves play a major role in measuring things the microscope or eye cant see, so this is what im fundamentally getting at, is the limit of physics the spread at which EM waves move or is there some other ingenuous method of capturing things smaller than the atom? Another question, what if a particular particle doesnt have an effect on the EM wave? In the same way dark matter is "supposed" to be all around us but we have no method of capturing it. what if there are sub particles inside sub particles that are like in a state of no energy but inside a nucleus of sorts, could we capture that or would that particle evade us forever because its dormant, or acts when its energy state is low (such as a vacuum or without being acted on by a force) and then becomes dormant once a force acts upon the atom as a safety measure? Essentially im wondering what the absolute measurement is for physical objects we cant see through a microscope. Time must play an important role, for example even when were capturing the EM disturbance or a voltage change, are they not all relative to time? As in the first example light moves faster than electricity so the time difference between the two matters greatly. By the same token could there be something that is so fast it evades even EM waves? i mean other than high radiation waves like gamma were the frequency is limitless (?) could something faster not slip through undetected? Also the higgs boson, did they actually capture and find the particle for mass? or was it just major progress that they had found something new that could be evidence of a higgs? Like they spent so much money on it you'd imagine that they would be selling books on its discovery and explaining in finite detail exactly was mass therefore is. (because cant forces also act as a mass, or should i say particles being acted acted on by a force can be seen to have a mass that is actually the effect of the force not the atom or particle itself) one final note, if the SOL is the fastest thing in the universe, could we not use that as a measurement of time? in so much as whatever the shortest distance the particle can move (in what ever form, from one subatomic particle to the next or one atom to the next) whatever the shortest distance is surely defines our use of time? I know time is a rather abstract concept in so much as its not tangible, it can "apparently" move at different speeds according to space time? i presume its seen like something that flows much the same way a wave does. and if so, thats why time should be measured by EM waves, even if time has "moments" that are infinitely small theres no use comprehending it because we cant use or measure anything by it, actually attaching it to something we can measure that is the fastest thing that can be captured then there would be no need to define it as anything else, it would strange to define it as anything else, We only need it for the things we can measure so we base it on that. If we can measure say a photon hitting an electron and then capture it again hitting another (faster than the electrons moved) then that would be the shortest measurement. Its the same as saying for example that if a quark proves to be the smallest known particle, why not measure things in terms if quarks? its pointless talking in terms any less than a quark because thats the smallest, therefor everything else can be described by some measure of a quark. The ideas analogous to time in so much as if its the shortest thing we can measure then its useless talking in terms of anything being slower, therefore we can tie EM and time together as being one and the same, time and distance could be defined as functions of EM waves when its determined what the limit is for our being able to measure. Like i said there could exist a particle thats so fast it evades being captured by anything we can use to measure, and thus we would have no use for defining any "time" variable to it, however if its shown that the smallest measurement we can capture is say between two quarks within the standard model (or which ever sub atomic particles sit closest) then nothing can be faster than the speed that photon is travelling and were just using a measuring device (probably an EM wave) to capture what that instance actually is. Then everything else exists as a measurement of that instance. anyway enough rambling i've probably over explained why time should be tied to EM waves. Not that i want to discredit space time or anything, i just think its the best scientific approach in terms of what were physically capable of measuring. Absolutes. Oh and one final note in regards to particles exists in 2 places or states at the same time, i dont discredit the notion, but i believe there to be illusions or that would seem like illusions due again to our lack of measurement (there is an answer for how and why were just not capable of answering it without wild speculation). Things such as particles and atoms coming into reality when theres a conscious observer or quantum entanglement or even string theory to some degree are useless to science, when you cannot measure it or observe it then its philosophy mixed with maths. And with regards to our observation of a particle existing in two places or separate forms depending on whether there is an observer or not will eventually be files away under "schizophrenic universe". In other words im preferentially keeping concepts such as time away from concepts such "quantum entanglement", it may be due to lack of understanding but i get alot of information through documentaries and they seem to over exaggerate things sometimes some my comprehension of some these concepts may not be grounded. Even with observational data im still a sceptic of this area of science as being pseudo science or "best guess" when there is infact an objective truth shrouded by illusion Sorry for the long ant and over explaining, i just hope to have the concept of time fully defined in the scientific sense and also partially annoyed that such great minds are probably wasting there time on competing theories that may never be proven. Rant over.

HAHA i guess no one heres running backtrack then...... its a sport, a skill and a challenge. There a various types of hackers (usually associated to hats) but true hackers are usually the architects themselves, the ones who know where to backdoors are because they coded them or couldnt find a work around for a bug. Or you could open sqlinjection and go pester some servers for misconfigured files etc Whoever wrote that DoS is hacking are misinformed, its used to overload a servers network load, sometimes finding bottle necks but usually changing the send request so it asks for a pause on the return, this way you one script can be as damaging as 10 computers DoSing, i forget the program but it essentially just sends pings or modified packets to a server. You wont gain access doing that.... i've never done any hacking but i always thought it was cool, just to be able to. Haha then you have the chinese and russians

Lawyer? hmmmm..... Im just curious, as i said ive had previous experience of selective agonists and wanted to know when common symptoms become threshold given that the symptoms are fairly generic of that class of drugs.

Why do you think debt is good? as in the creation of money? The system isnt sustainable, its a house built on sand, we as consumers are the only ones allowing the system to exist via ignorance and blind faith usually. The periodic recessions are proof of how unstable the system is, soon, in the near future someone like china could have a complete monopoly on the open markets due its work force, technology and population. They manipulate there own markets now (and so do most countries tbh) just to keep the house of cards standing. A country can be in surplus its just very rare these days, its the accepted thing to have certain amount of deficit relative to your GDP and GDP isnt an accurate model of a countries economy eithe, just compare china and americas GDP and you can tell it isnt an accurate indicator of of a countries economy the fact that government investment is included just means that you can print loads of money and push it into universities or any project it fancies but that doesnt make it accurate. For example if america invested half the money it printed into say renewable energy then that effects the economy, if it instead decides its going spent half of its newly created money on pumping water into an arid desert so it can grow some flowers there, thats not a reflection on there economy. How the money is spent should be weighted. All that aside you totally skip over the fact that western nations profit greatly from fiat currency while developing countries dont get the same AA ratings meaning they are not trust worthy enough. Which just makes the western world able to manipulate other countries to the point they have to sell their resources so that they can feed their starving population. Not to mention people born into wealth get more opportunities just because there great great granddad started a successful company that gives loans to poor people......just goes to show that humans are not born equal and people born into poverty will be sucked in by it, with very little room to escape, and the system likes it that way, thats its real function, self preservation, the rich get richer and the poor get shat on. And to top it all off governments are usually at the mercy of the banks, banks that create recessions but still give out billions in bonuses. They pretty much have a licence to as they wish because if theres a run on the bank the government has to bail it out or its citizens loose saving etc I could keep writing line after line of how corrupt the system is and how naive you are trust in it but if you cant see how the capitalist system is analogous to a virus in the way that it spreads and feeds of peoples greed while also growing exponentially and eventually it shall kill the host organism, us. I dont know about the US but in england workers have lost all their rights, thanks to privatisation, our country barely owns any of its own assets anymore which makes it totally reliant on taxes and lending to other countries in a web bigger than the internet. Bottom dollar is money is power, those that can control it can control the balance of power as i previously mentioned if you follow the paper trail back to its origins your will see who the power brokers are, but its not always as obvious as the rothchilds, rockerfeller and JP Morgan etc, there are forces at play in the capitalist system that almost ensure that those with money always come out on top, its like a game of monopoly, you've just started playing and are in old kent road and then find out that the all the other assets have been bought and have hotels on them, now try getting around that board with the initial money you started with without going bust. Goodluck to you.

Obviously any alternative would either be an ideology for a world wide political system or going back to the basic method of trading resources. Given the size of modern cities and the capitalist system were already embedded in any switch would be impractical bordering on impossible, however internally the idea is quite simple, a country should be totally self sustainable to the extent the government overlooks/runs management of micro communities such that every citizen has food, water, power and accommodation, then occupations dictate the relative standard of living etc. If you look at any community in a rural area you'll find they are perfectly capable of self sustainability. It's just the factor of population density that makes things complicated. This isnt communism in so much as everyone isnt equal and people arent forced into occupations by the state. There are plenty of other more extreme and some what sci-fi methods aswell, like depending on you work ethic you get rewarded with points and then use those points as currency. You could say that this form of currency is the same as money except that firstly the points wouldnt be tangible objects or resources (which money always has been) and secondly points dont equate to resources the same way money does, you cant use points to buy 10 barrels of oil for example, you would be refined to items that you need or want that dont extend your necessity. So for example if you wanted to build a house you could spent your points on the resources required to build 1 house, not the resources to buy 5 houses because you know they will become more expensive. Also items you then own cant be exchanged for points, they can only be exchanged for other items which opens up a market place for trading of resources based on the value each individual are willing to trade that resource for, i could trade an old table for a new phone if the other person values my table as being of equivalence. That would eradicate alot of the exploitation of the money market. This idea is totally sci-fi based, theres a film called "in time" (its not that great of a film but a good concept) where basically time is the currency, in the film humans have found a way to live forever but use the time currency to keep the population from growing exponentially. You take the concept of time as a currency as apply it now in the same way i did with points, essentially depending on your work ethic and product-ability you rewarded with time that you can then spend doing whatever you wanted (as in not having to work) but this would rely on the original system of your country being self sustainable and resources managed by the government. Another option, though this doesnt eradicate the problem it just creates global equilibrium (as opposed to the gross production of slavery and resource stealing that currently exists) is to have a generic currency for the world, that way countries cant be manipulated for resources or labour as easily. However theres still the opportunity for corruption and greed given that some countries have masses of important resources while others can barely sustain themselves. In regards to whether is money has done more bad than good then it's completely relative to perspective and subjective beliefs of what could have happened if money didnt exist in the first place. If you take perspective into account then generally most western countries (or people living in them) would say its done good because it has been a driving force in the evolution of technology and social advances, it also allows for opportunity such that if you try hard enough or come up with an invention then you can become wealthy and arguably deservedly so, it also gives complete freedom to the individual to use it as they wish. However in contrast to that is the perspective of the less technically advanced countries that have been either used as slaves or had their resources stolen, which is utterly unethical and corrupt to the very definition. In this respect money has been used as a tool to facilitate greed on a global scale, which is ridiculously bad. In regards to money being the driving force of technology and science that only really applies to the last 2 decades where capitalism has been the primary facilitator in respect to organisation or corporations competing to make better products etc. Before then a country tended to gain resources from its advancement in technology and countries would trade out resources and land mass etc. And then theres the argument of aristocracy and oligarchy whereby you (undeservably) inherit money and power because your great great great great great great granddad did well in war or because your religion allowed you to exploit other religions (Jews having banks and Christians being banned) giving a huge amount of power and influence to greedy people. Oligarchy is as true now as it was in the ages of colonialism where the invaders would essentially be oligarchs to some degree (or aristocrats depending on the country etc) Except now its multi national corporations, media and the politically elite (eton members etc) that are the oligarchs, anyone attending bilderberg conference falls easily into this category. Modern oligarchy is basically a system of self preservation, if me, my brother and my cousin together collectively owned 1/4 of the worlds wealth why would we want to loose any of it? we wouldnt so we'd meet with other such people to sustain our wealth, which is a horrible mis-justice to the capitalist system and to third world countries they exploit. The biggest flaw in the system is that its a house of cards, made by consumerism, which fundamentally means we only have our greedy selves to blame (to some degree anyway). Even when we know a curtain company is driving slave labour or paying completely unfair prices for goods we still buy them because were lazy. And even when we know we are only invading a country for resources, control and money we sit back and watch, most the time supporting it because of our own countries self preservation. So i suppose fundamentally we can only blame ourselves, even if were born into such a corrupt system were still too lazy or ignorant to make the life style changes required atleast dampen the resource stealing and slavery. Threfore i can only say money served its purpose and is a bad thing because we as individuals are instinctively greedy an lazy and hence propagate corruption and control.

Also the further you are from a mast the strong the microwave frequency will be, increasing the probability of interference. Dont stand directly below an aircraft after it lands either, they emit such strong microwave energy it can literally fry you. Though i think they've plated them now, it used to be the case. Just a little trivia.

So when do you know you've hit the threshold? as i mentioned through personal experience the symptoms are almost generic for all highly selective serotonin agonists. for example MDAI is a non neurotoxic highly selective agonist of the 2b receptor, according to wiki it has had 3 deaths associated with it via suspected serotonin syndrome, does that mean they reacted badly or took to much? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDAI

From an ideological perspective, maybe ill take some shrooms and live in the woods though, then you can have my money. My mention of "the root of all evil" comes from a song.

Can you get serotonin syndrome with the use of a highly selective serotonin agonist alone? without the use of SSRI's. And when do you know you have serotonin syndrome? from personal experience mostly all highly selective serotonin agonists, of say the the 5-ht2b receptor give you the same symptoms as that are described as serotonin syndrome i.e (increased heart rate, sweating, dilated pupils, comeup shits etc) are all generic symptoms of highly selective agonists without the use of SSRI's. So wheres the threshold to know when your in danger? And can dopamine RI's or RA's effect this syndrome or is it only relative to serotonin agents.

It's the root of evil. Especially fiat currency. The rich countries rape the poorer countries based on currencies that exist as debt. NAH MATE. no chance. The more advanced nations manipulate markets to make profits, shit the whole of europe + america intra lend with each other to debt they cant pay back so they have to sell more bonds or have a quick session on the quantitative easing or a 7 year session like america, fair play. I dont even question why america threatened china with sanctions shortly after the Shanghai's index fell so quickly, they were "attempting to hack trade secrets", well no shit, why did the ruble half in value after the crimea saga? Economic warfare based on a house of cards we as consumers allow to exists. How about i'll give you some of this if you give me some of that. Do you know how many EX senators hold chairs in big corps like haliburton. Follow the paper trail and you'll find the wicked witch.

Sadly its music and drugs. There's the obvious major speeches and such for a bit of motivation but generally i just drink milk and walk the dog.

No, it wouldn't have that effect. Your consciously unaware of what going on, so its analogous to being asleep. To get into someones subconscious you must plant the seeds that they grow into sunflowers. Usually by questioning ones nature of reality enough you can slip those seeds into the holes you've opened up. What? Oh schopolamine , well its an amine so its probably gona have some effect and if its an amine its probably an alkaloid which means it probably definitely will have some psychoactive effects. I remember the the documentary, its far too open knowledge to be true. If you want some mind altering drugs just read up on MKULTRA and take an educated guess with what they were able to concoct. I wonder wonder how bad the devils breath is?

Like, slightly side stepping your conversation and the debate in general, could you or do you entertain the notion that mathematics (however we derive it) as being the primary tool for explaining the universe, i mean fundamentally explaining the universe? If that notion is true, or atleast perceived to be then we as a species shall always be stuck between the devil and the deep blue. On the one hand we have a format that can accurately predict this and that and therefore we can make things deterministic and on the other we have existential and subjective beliefs that can be neither proven nor disproved (not in general but in a meta physical sense). At the end of every answer is another "why" and until we can uniformly agree that such and such a notion is absolute, we will always find ways of discrediting the others notion or beliefs (usually through some form of logic). Now this is where we get down to the nitty gritty, logic is a fundamental premise to both philosophy and mathematics, through use of reasoning or symbolic writings. What the mathematicians fail to see that the philosophers dont is that logic by its very definition, defines what is, what was and what can be. But as a drunken philosopher would say, only we are defined by logic, or to be more precise, we are constrained as an intellectual species and bound by logic. Just because we cant see or comprehend beyond logic doesnt mean that it doesnt exist, even in the physical realm. Its the same notion as each individual being bound by their own personal intellect, there is a limit to which you can comprehend things and beyond that you cant mentally sustain or pertain to know or understand. And i suppose thats where we digress, philosophers and mathematicians and all other freaks of nature alike. We either accept that as a human being we are bound by the laws of logic or we choose to believe that we as humans can expand our comprehension by allowing the notion that something exists beyond the realms of logic. It's almost like a self acceptance ideology, you can accept the fact we are bound by logic or choose to believe that there exists something outside the realms of comprehension. I dont see what the point is of entertaining such a concept, i suppose some of us wake up with hang overs and some of us dont, your seen as a problem if you do but no body questions the thirst. There is no square root to 1 in nature, you can drink a cup of tea out of a glass but it doesnt make it up for the fact you dont have a cup. Well a penny for my thoughts and your lotto numbers would be up. Oh and if your a philanthropist give me some rep points for staying awake for over 48 hours, I deserve something. Even if its for the pity of my moronic attempt to explain something beyond my comprehension.

A few small leaps for man, one huge leap for mankind. The premise it simple, + and - derive every other operator in mathematics, using these operators we create relationships between entities and forces etc that explain how the physical universe works. Therefore everything in the universe can be explained via these 2 operators, meaning the maths not only exists within nature it defines it. By that token the universe is simply an extension of + and - Im sure you understand. But then we can only understand logic, so anything beyond that is beyond our comprehension anyway. goodnight x.

If you submit to this conclusion you must admit that the universe is an extension of 2 mathematical operators. Is that true? Or does something exist beyond those 2 operators and our comprehension?

Complex and Actually YES, a measurably more intelligent ET race would certainly have a different mathematical system to ours. The aspects of maths we use is massively flawed, not that its not useful, but for most purposes its "if the shoe fits" and in some cases (I.E "some" theoretical physics) they will force the shoe to fit. We draw laws up ourself, why should brackets superseded addition? I think they would have a much more refined system. What if mathematics fundamentally exist as 4 dimensional waves and everything we understand of maths are just a subset of the way these waves flow? An ET race could have comprehension or even see things in this dimension, while we are stranded looking at 2 dimensional circles that give infinite decimals. We only have 2 basic operators in maths, addition and subtraction and even subtraction is an illusion of sorts, all the rest of the operators are derivatives of these operators. Do we therefore presume the universe is an extension of 2 operators?

A perfect circle doesn't exist in reality, there's no such thing, its an abstract concept based on a locus. Things like [math]\sqrt{1}[/math] doesnt exist either, it's a concept made up so we could explain a particular phenomena. Again mathematical dimensions don't physically exist, and again then will use this mathematics in string theory or such. But the dimensions are hypothetically based on the laws of maths, not the laws of physics. There are plenty of things within the realms of maths that don't physically exist. However contrary to the hypothetical maths is a distinct set of laws that when applied to the right Physical being, force, or space give us precise answers explaining how the given being or force react. This isnt a coincidence, so maths must be tied to nature in some way. The answer is, some very specific maths exists within nature. The rest are "possibilities" that are not tied to our physical reality, but only exist within the realms of maths.