[evan_au]

I think @tkadm30 should join this thread.
You both make up your own mathematical notations which you can't explain to anyone.
Recently, (s)he was trying to describe the fields forming the universe as a 3x3 matrix.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

x=y=z

or do you mean something else by Z?

Honestly? I was looking for what can mathematically be describe as JUST a whole number. Apparently that's Z?

Outer Space (X,Y,Z)s
Z=(f(x)=x)

Inner Space (X,Y,Z)t
Z≠(f(x)≠x)±(f(x)=(x<1)/(x≥1))

Put them together to get the point at which they meet?

Space ((X,Y,Z)s±(X,Y,Z)t) = ±(X,Y,Z)st
(Z=(f(x)=x))±(Z≠(f(x)≠x)±(f(x)=(x<1)/(x≥1)))

We all know about Outer Space, that's where our bodies live!
But how does it tie in to the Quantum field?
Well, if Quantum (inner space) is the shadow of the Physical (outer space), then we can conclude that they are two sides of the same coin.

Example:

IF
X=0
AND
Z=0
THEN
Y=Z
ELSE
∅

IF
X=5
AND
Z=7
THEN
Y=(7=(f(5)=5))±(7≠(f(5)≠5)±(f(5)=(5<1)/(5≥1)))
ELSE
∅

Conclusion
y=(z=((f(x)=x)/(f(x)≠x)+(f(x)=((x<1)/(x≥1))))

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

y=x
y=f(x)
f(x)=x
z≠f(x)
z≠x
z≠y

I made a mistake here I think
(x,y,z)=f(x)
(x≠y≠z)
Simply put;
IF
(x≠y≠z)=FALSE
THEN
f(x)=0
ELSE
f(x)=(x,y,z)

And when you really thing about it, like go ALL the way back to grade school math..

2
+
2+2=(x=4)
=
(y=4)

This is where I concluded that'
"+" is the inverse of "-" when moving along any ONE axis
"=" is the inverse of "/" AND "*" when moving along any TWO axis

Looking above;
Does x=4?
yes
Does y=4?
yes
Does x=y?
NO! The are completely independent vertices that work individually from each other. They may end up with the same value, but that doesn't miraculously transform them into identical vertices does it?

So I'm effectively balancing the equation across ALL 3 AXIS instead of just at the Y axis.

[guest39538]

I think you should go learn some more algebra , use Wiki, I think you need to be using R³  which is real numbers. 

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

I think you should go learn some more algebra , use Wiki, I think you need to be using R³  which is real numbers.

..Sigh...

Maybe a picture would help?
I drew out what I am trying to define... I think everyone here is having a hard time not using calculus... This is intended as a proof of calculus only, circumventing Quantum Space to look at the 3D shadow of the Universe.

[Bored chemist]

Specifically a 3 by 3 matrix with 3 dimensions...

[Bored chemist]

I think @tkadm30 should join this thread.
You both make up your own mathematical notations which you can't explain to anyone.
Recently, (s)he was trying to describe the fields forming the universe as a 3x3 matrix.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

Spacetime can be defined as f(x)=0

Specifically a 3 by 3 matrix with 3 dimensions...

Yes! Thank you! That! lol 
It took me 6 years of pondering and about 4 days of messing with equations trying to finally describe what my vision is.
And I finished it.

f(x)=x
f(-x)=f(yz)

f(yz)=x±(0/1)

f(xyz)±f(x)+f(yz)
∅±∞
0±1

         f(yz)
           =
(0/1) ± x ± (0/1)
           =
         f(yz)

[Colin2B]

OP has requested all further discussion be directed to https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72397.0

So this topic is now locked