zeon23445

So I am really into algorithms and i have been researching pathfinding and the various algorithms and methodology behind it. After some very intruiging research i have gotten down to the nitty-gritty of making my own algorithm and I am happy to announce i have a working algorithm for any obstacle and [in theory] it takes less steps and time than traditional pathfinding algorithms (such as A* and Dijkstra's algorithm) . for ex.) I had set up a 100x100 "tile" maze and after 6 steps into the algorithm it had a definite path from the start to finish. As far as i know 6 steps is very impressive- Its not completely worked out, however most of the algorithm is complete! I wont release any code [today] , however I would like to know: Do we really need more efficient or faster path-finding algorithms? Clearly its good for AI movement in real world situations but do other algorithms meet the criteria for a sufficiently moving AI?

Perhaps I should be more clear as to what I am asking, besides what the title suggests. Lately i have heard of how particles can become incoherent with other particles in the universe, because they vibrate at different frequencies, and typically when I [myself] think of a vibration i think of a object or a wave transitioning in a normal direction- So when i thought about this I also thought "Is a vibration limited to a 3 Dimensional Space", with my own logic i have come to the answer "no" because I can simulate it in a computer program I make, and as i programmer i think of different situations where a 4D vibration can be utilized in things like Terrain generation.. So my question to this forum is- "Are there particles that are seen as candidates for transitioning from and to 3D-4D spacial areas, and if so- what are their names?"

So heres my conundrum- if light can bend, doesn't that mean its velocity is changing, and therefor accelerating? My theory is that when it hits a gravity field the gravitons fragment the light, which makes it break up in multiple directions without slowing down. Am i right? Im confused because if it was the idea that its following the curveture in space then wouldnt that mean their are perpendicular curvetures to it that cancel it out?

Very interesting.

Lets not get agead of ourselves and thnk of future progocal and regulation concerning data management and the rights of the individual- 1.) They wont implant anyones consiousness inside a machine, nor will they wholy house or transfer a active covnitive process across the world (aka not the internet) The reason is data can be lost through a connection, natural disaster that destroys hardware, and other various innumerable variables. The ideal place to have any true cognitive process running is in a simulated enviroment, or a mimical AI designed to be housed in a "android" or robotic "body". The purpose of the internet is to send and recieve documents between 2 computers, however if there was any chance of a "consiousness" to appear out of it then it would have already happened. We have more data on the internet than all the human brains in active existance (which is 4.3 Pentabytes x 7Billion people)

Im sorry i meant to reply. I can see that short terms they would be using drivers, and a uncommon architecture. Long term i think they will patent the software cor business use and the headset market could then have a common (or perdominate) architecture.

Is there a computer language that can be more efficient? The only other I've heard of that's more viable than binary is a quantum computer language (forgot the name, pretty sure its called Dynamic Binary)

Can you expand a little bit on the concept of orthogonal space?

Can someone explain to me mathematically, in terms of Axis, and or in word form what the 5Th dimension is? Please don't say its spiritual unless you are somehow speaking on biocentrism >.>

I'll answer this with another sence of mathematics. Let's say you have a program, like any other, confounded to be only 2D in whatever shape it makes. Let's say, that we decided to make a 3D plotting program that plotted points on the screen and assigned it a global position (according to absolute size on screen compared to position) and a size. The size, determines a plane. So we scale it to 3x3 and we make sure our clients camera (our individual view of this 3D world) is centered at this scaled objects axis. Once we rotate the view (again on that objects axis) we see how the object moves in its space. Now imagine this object being overlayed with a circle (that doesn't respond to 3Dmvements.) This circle, at all times gets the magnitude of all the corner vertexes, and resizes it self from the 3D bricks axis and makes sure to always be a fraction of a unit bigger than the whole brick from our point of view. If this 'circle' was invisible we would always see the brick. If it was a full circle with no transparency, then we would never see the brick as the circle resizes itself to cover up the brick. That's for a 3D perception in a 2D constricted space. Aka, the computer Program, and your monitor. The next logical thing is a 4D perception, in a 3D constricted space. Imagine your entire 4D object being covered by a Sphere. The sphere will only stay the same in size, as you rotate around the average XYZ position (which means the average of all the bozons, and particles and atoms XYZ position, through all the points in time of its coherence in the 3D dimension, compared to the global position based on the complete center of the of the universe, expressed through a 4 Dimensional additive) this is represented as the w axis, and the size of the sphere changes as you move through the axis (which is time [w axis]). So, the radius of the 2D object in the program is a scalar interpretted through a program to resize it, and the 3D objects radius (expressed from a 4D perception (Aka Time/ w axis)) is expressed as a vector, as it has a direction. This vector, is the Azimuthal angle. This reply was to merely break down this whole idea to give you a broader perspective on what this is. I hope I helped. Excuse me it isn't THE Azimuthal angle, it is expressed by an Azimuthal Angle In the 4D space it would be a steradian, and would move depending on the size of the sphere. So as time goes by, if there's decay in a 3D object, this steradian might become smaller, if not it might stay the same, and if there's a hypothetical reverse decay where matter is simultaniously added on, then the steradian might increase in size. (Excuse me if I made a spelling error)

I was wondering what you all think robotics in the 2030`s will look like

Is there an equation for wormholes, and can anyone break it down for me?

Hi, I just had a question in my mind, What creates Deja Vu? We we know a couple things. Many have speculated different theories on the subject (e.g, There's a delay in data modelling images from 1 eye to thr next giving a 'Memory' type feeling of what your seeing). But not all of the Daja Vu can really be explained. Michio Kaku even has his own theory here: My hypothesis: The Brains attempt to succesfully make a datamodel of the future (Much like when someone makes a data model of a pants color, and they expect to see that color again when they see the pants) When the brain makes a succesful data model of a image, the Designer (Beholder) typically remembers the image when they look away, and is attracted to the image upon looking back bcause the brain recognises it. So Deja vu (According to my hypothesis) is the data model of a succesful Prediction. How did I experiment? Well, I imagined me in the 4Th dimension (Time as some speculate). Everywhere I go, and any way I move, is 1 merged object in the 4Th dimension. So I imagined that object, it was eveywhere in my home. So using the same concept of creating a datamodel of a sight, I thought of past places ide be, and then made a prediction of a 4D Object that shows the future path of my body movements. I imagined about 20 hours ahead of my time, and sought back 24 hours before the current time, to give me a good datamodel to predict on. Sure enough, as soon as I did a couple tasks (walk to my fridge, ate pudding, then walked into my living room) I had a major wave of Deja vu. Where then, I realizes I spent more time in the living room then I predicted, and went to the computer. Conclusion? I can't possible have a conclusion cause I'm the only test subject. (Although I'll be experimentating for the next weeks to come) I would like to know what you guys think, and if any of you are willing to help give reslults by doing experiments of your own.

I'm trying to make a simulated evolution chain with the Lua Programming language. Where would you guys start?

Okay so here's the problem floating around in my head. Everything we see, and do is 3D. Everything. And mathematics was a medium to create the 2D, and 1D world. But how can we percieve anyrhing but the 3D world? Our brain makes a image with the data model its given from the eyes. And the eyes catch light bouncing off objects. The 1D is made up of lines. And the 2D is made up of overlapping lines. And according to the progression of mathematics, the 3D is comprised off overlapping 2D planes. Which creates depth. But all we see, or do will be 3D. The datamodel for a 2D plane is an illusion from seeing it on a drawing board or chalkboard, ect. We get the image in our head, but that's not actually 2D. So my question is exactly the title: Are the 1st and 2nd Dimensions Illusions? And wouldn't it be proof that they are if we try to trick our mind into trying to percieve the 4Th dimension because we can only use 3D knowledge to create the datamodel in our heads just as we did with 1D and 2D?