Unity+

Now, dimensional squares and cube sets can be combined into one concept known as complex cubes. This occurs when two dimensional squares are combined into one cube set, which is the whole number dimensional square and another dimensional square. For example, the whole number dimensional square and the imaginary dimensional square can be combined into a cube set. Each dimension also can be represented by the amount of cube sets. [math]\pm \chi _{d} \left ( \Upsilon _{\mu _{1}},\Upsilon _{\mu _{2}},\Upsilon _{\mu _{3}},...\Upsilon _{\mu _{d-1}} \right )[/math] This is a simplified version of the representation of a dimensional Collatz-Matrix equation. Here is the expanded version to specifically show the many number systems that exist. This relates to complex numbers: [math]a+bi[/math] Where there is the real side to the number and the imaginary side. For example, if there were to be two cube sets multiplied together belonging to different systems, here would be the outcome. [math](a+bi)(a+bj)=a^{2} + abi + abj +b^{2}k[/math] Where the last variable would be the outcome of the number types in the two formulas for complex numbers.

Building on a theory blindly is the worst thing that you could do. All I see in here is crackpottery. I don't know if this is supposed to be taken seriously or not. None of this makes sense.

How does this have anything to do with the speculation at hand? If you want to debate about your topic please keep on topic.

Then you would be disinclined in taking a look at scientific observation, which is required to prove a specific hypothesis that is being disputed. Therefore, the debate cannot go on any further because of a refusal to look at the evidence.

Well, for example it is is simpler to write capital letters instead of using the other notation(which is good). However, it is still confusing for people still learning Geometry or any other field of mathematics.

Sometimes when I use LaTeX on here there will be span tags everywhere. Removing spaces helps a little, but then there are still a ton left. Is there a way to fix this? Alright, I fixed my post by going to the html mode and editing it from there.

Crackpots come here constantly. If you don't want to see the stuff, then just don't look at the Speculation section.

Here is some information on dimensional squares: A dimensional square, like cube sets, should be treated as a set, where the set is defined by [math]\partial_{n}[/math]. More specifically, the partial sets would be defined by , where a represents the two parameters [math]a_{f}[/math] and [math]u_{f}[/math], while b represents the two parameters [math]b_{f}[/math] and [math]v_{f}[/math]. The partial set notation for the first two parameters is and the notation for their inverse is . There is a way to analyze the parameters of a dimensional, which is to divide the two partial sets of the dimensional square. If the parameters were the Collatz parameters, the following would occur. This can be become a function, which will describe the properties of the first partial square compared to the second partial square, or the inverse. It will also describe the cube set that encompasses these two partial squares. [math]\Upsilon_{\mathbb{W}}(a,b,u,v)=\frac{\partial_{a\bigsqcup u}}{\partial_{b\bigsqcup v}}[/math] The following would be a representation of a function from the above example of the Collatz parameters. [math]\Upsilon_{\mathbb{W}}(\frac{x}{2},\frac{x-1}{3},3x+1,2x)=\frac{\partial_{a\bigsqcup u}}{\partial_{b\bigsqcup v}}[/math] [math]\Upsilon_{\mu }(x)=\frac{-2x-1}{2x^{2}-2x}[/math] This function would output the following graph. In this graph, the parabola closest to the top represents the first partial set of the set of parameters. The lower parabola represents the inverse parameters. This function will apply to all cube sets.[math]\Upsilon_{\mathbb{W}}(x)=\Upsilon_{\Im}(x)[/math] This shows the commonality of cube sets. This sets a basic blueprint for all number systems that exist.

Paradoxes are not contradictions, if that paradox is what you are bringing up.

You can find these types of notation for LaTeX by using this: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

You present evidence without even addressing a speculation. Please specify what your speculation is.

A dimension is not a frequency, as the other users have stated. Well, by String Theory, there are the vibrations of strings which determine what sub-particle it is, but I don't think that was your point. Is there any evidence for this? Here is one thing that should be pointed out about a speculation. A speculation is not an idea that is not supported by no evidence at all, but no good evidence that can say that the speculation can be completely true(someone correct me on this if I am wrong).

I noticed that my original Google document was not correctly inputted. Here is the correct one: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yjlLCOkOYPwPciwDtBB6rdrdjXnWe2DjLt2JKnOA2d0/edit?usp=sharing

And most of the time they are crackpots. Now, answer the questions I had for you or declare this speculation faulty.

Well, there are sometimes confusion especially with the description of a line. For example, when you begin learning about Geometry, you notate the line by . However, the next time you begin talking about the lines and points of a triangle you use capital letters instead of the other notation. Then, people begin notating points with capitals instead of the lines. The confusion is really with how different mathematicians teach notation.

Before I go on telling you what is the problem with your argument, provide something that Relativity predicts incorrectly.

Could people please at least read the paper? I wrote the paper so the information would be easier to understand. Is there something wrong with my mathematical concept?

Of course there isn't a reason to throw out relativity.

I saw that he downvoted your post, so I upvoted it. EDIT: Since I thought this wasn't sufficient enough, I am adding on. People who believe that Relativity is wrong are the people who deny the technologies that use them. If your going to prove something wrong that has for many years been proven right at least provide valid evidence of such and most likely the evidence being presented will be wrong.

But don't the equations of Einstein break down in a Black hole? This isn't me challenging the idea, but just clarifying something I wanted to make sure of. He never implied that computers require Relativity to work. In a GPS, relativity is required to get the specific location of your car or whatever vehicle to be able to direct you in the right direction. Without Relativity, your location would be far off from the destination because the GPS needs to calculate the specific routes at specific times(I don't know the specifics, however I can make a good guess o how it works). I don't even know whether to take this seriously or not...

I made some mathematical errors within the math above. Here are the corrections: Default Collatz-Matrix equations: And here is the determinant equation: And here it is completed:

For every element of p you carry out the operation within x. It looks like a function, but notated in a different way.

To be honest, I can't tell if I can't read his sentences correctly or if they are actually just gibberish. As if this has any relevance to the discussion.

Though it should be used as an adjective, it would be like removing the noun and assuming everyone knows what the adjective is representing It isn't professional use of adjectives, in my opinion, but it is considered "okay".