Unity+

Okay. One question though, is that how you start a blog here? Or do you have to start a blog on a different hosting site?

Have you solved the Sign Up button? Because there is still an error.

I was actually able to connect Collatz-Matrix equations to music. Basically, the algorithm follows the idea that numbers represent notes, where there are 12 notes. What will occur is if an element within a matrix solution is larger than 12, it will loop itself to find a number associated with the 12 notes. Here are some samples that were made: https://soundcloud.com/greggschaffter/collatzs-dream https://soundcloud.com/greggschaffter/test1 https://soundcloud.com/greggschaffter/test2 More samples to come. EDIT: Here is another short composition: https://soundcloud.com/greggschaffter/collatzs-nightmare

The last equation only works for a 2x2 Collatz-Matrix equation with s(1,1).

I made a mathematical error. The actual result would be: Here is something interesting. Using the equation derived from the definite integral, the following can be done. Next, a must be evaluated. Then, the following is true. Where C represents the constant that is associated with the size of the Collatz-Matrix equation.

Here is some work dealing with a problem that might be solved for if there is an equation to determine how many matrix solutions there are for a given Collatz-Matrix equation. where... Of course, the problem is one would need to evaluate the Collatz-Matrix equation in order to use this. This is proven false when x is bigger than 1. The parameter of this equation is x must be equal to 1 in order for this equation to work. Here is a pattern I noticed. So, here is a Collatz-Matrix equation: For, example, an equation can be derived from using definite integration of the 2nd dimension with matrix solutions the size of 2x2.

Unless I am mistaken, if you square it the negative wouldn't matter anyways.

And, what point are you getting at?

An inacceptance of any source is not accepted within a debate(though there are limits). People here had done the same with sources that even had bias within them. If you believe you can, then do so. However, most of these argument had not done so and failed to do so.

Yes, which the following would occur. [math](\sqrt{i})^{2}= (\frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}})^{2}[/math] [math]i= (\frac{1 + i + i - 1}{2})[/math] [math]i= (\frac{i + i}{2})[/math] [math]i= (\frac{2i}{2})[/math] [math]i= (\frac{i}{1})[/math] [math]i= i[/math]

The sqrt(I) is equal to 0.707106781 + 0.707106781i. I don't see where the internet got the other answer from.

It was a response to the question that ajb asked.

I am also having a problem with the blogs. Whenever I click "sign up", it comes up with a PHP fatal error.

Here is one source that contains other sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Well, here are some sources relating to this topic: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus There are also historical documents from Rome relating to the existence of a historical Jesus and in relation to the crucifixion on the cross(whether the events preceding happened is left to scrutiny). Well if you are willing to continue that debate without derailing from the actual topic, then yes.

If you want to debate the validity of the Bible, please leave it in another topic. Please and thank you. I am merely defending theistic scientists.

Again, you are derailing from the actual debate. Whether you agree or disagree that it has accuracy or not does not declare anything about theistic scientists at all. Unless you are a historian, please keep on topic.

Yes, the possibilities are proven through a mathematical approach. The same argument can be applied to many pieces of the text in religious texts, such as the Bible, possibly being accurate. There is nothing in the title of this topic that asserts that this debate is about any specific religion. See my argument I provided above in the other post. Instead of making references to things some(like me) may not know about, please provide a bit more detail. EDIT: I do not see where the contradiction is with my argument.

You completely missed the point of my argument. Of course there are other texts that are to be seen in the historical context. I stated that the Bible is not meant to make scientific predictions.

Something looking valid doesn't make it valid. And, I will remind you that we are approaching a debate about Theistic scientists, no person's religion is to be targeted by this debate. Theism only is a belief in a higher-being. I meant it is to be viewed in a historical context. Please excuse my wording.

So, you claimed something did happen and then saying you don't know whether it actually happened...

The problem is String Theory makes predictions, but the amount of "work arounds" needed to make these predictions just leaves String Theory as a loose-ended theory. It would be like declaring a theory correct because it somehow makes generic predictions when the mechanisms involved are completely false(not implying that String Theory has false mechanisms). Another thing is I don't think we are debating whether there were miracles or not(which is to be left for another topic discussion). Also, the Bible isn't a set of scientific predictions. It is merely to be taken into a historical context and should be read in a historical context, whether or not some pieces may be left to scrutiny. EDIT: Edition made for better understanding of the argument.

Validity is irrelevant in this case. String Theory is mathematically sound. It does not contradict current theory, however it is not proven. It is left to the skepticism of some while full acceptance of others. The same case can be made with religion. EDIT: Let me further explain the meaning of validity within this explanation. Validity is irrelevant because in any case, with the example presented, a higher-being is logical and does not contradict scientific theory. Neither does the theory of vibrating strings. The logic behind something implies that there is nothing against currently known logic, therefore it is logical until proven with scientific theory it is illogical. And somehow we know what evidence to look for in the first place.

Here is some more work dealing with integrals and relevance to Collatz-Matrix equations. Here is a Collatz-Matrix equation: [math]C(x)_{k\times d}\begin{Bmatrix} \frac{x}{2} &\frac{x-1}{3} \\ 3x+1& 2x \end{Bmatrix},s(k_{p},d_{p})[/math] With a Quadratic Formation: [math]\chi _{d}(\Upsilon _{\mu}\left \langle \partial _{n_{1}}|\partial _{n_{2}} \right \rangle)[/math] And to integrate the dimensional aspect of a Collatz-Matrix equation, the following must be done. With a two-dimensional Collatz-Matrix equation the following must be done. This could also be represented as the following. This type of integration, however, only applies to proper and complete Collatz-Matrix equations. There can also be an analysis of the matrix solutions for a Collatz-Matrix equation: This gives an analysis for both the size of the matrix solutions and the last elements within a matrix solution for a given Collatz-Matrix equation.

What strikes me is the fact that it says that even the highest number that the software can do is already factored, which means no more tests can be done until they update the software to do higher calculations.