[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

Please visit:
http://www.quantumspaceelements.com/
For the in depth scientific proposal.
To follow my train of thought on reaching such a conclusion, please continue reading.
Challenge your minds to see the big picture, instead of just looking at the individual pieces.


TI-83 results.png (211.69 kB . 1092x565 - viewed 4957 times)
"(Y3 & Y4) X=ERROR" indicates a shift to the Z axis to me.

x=y=z=n
f(x)=f(y)=f(z)=n
f(xx)=f(xy)=f(xz)=f(yy)=f(yz)=f(zz)=n
f(xxx)=f(xxy)=f(xxz)=f(xyz)=....=n
f(x)≠f(xx)≠f(xxx)≠....≠n
f(n)=f(x)=f(xx)=f(xxx)=....=n
(f(n)=x)±(f(n)≠x)±π=±n
(f(n)≈x)±π=±n
f(nx)±π≈n
f(nx)/n±π≈n/n
f(x)±π≈1
f(x)±π-1=0
f(x)-1=±π
(f(x)-1)/±π=±π/±π
(f(x)-1)/±π=1
(f(x)-1+1)/±π=0
f(x)/±π=0
±f(x)π=0
±f(x)π/f(x)=±0/f(x)
±π=±0
π=0

f(n)=n°π

For those of you whose toes I unwittingly stepped on, this is my thought journey to this point. I have the unfortunate inability to communicate my thoughts properly until they are completely formed. I thank all of you for your infinite patience and having allowed me to remain a member of this forum to it's bitter conclusion.

Here goes;

I would normally get bored during Math class, finding more interesting things to do than learn. Like how to mess around with the TI-83 and make it look like you were actually working. I found it much more fun to graph random gibberish into the equation inputs and mess around with what I'd get. I eventually learned to calculate the sum of an infinite series towards the (x,y) axis... then the (-x,y) then the (-x,-y) then the (x,-y). I ended up with circles in all the squares, and I thought to myself "that's neat" and left it at that. All these years later, I found myself wondering about those little circles, and what they would look like as spheres inside a cube. The problem I then faced was "where did the gap in space between the outside edge of the sphere and the inside edge of a cube go? It's gotta be around here somewhere?" This is when I came up with "In"verse and "Out"verse to describe what I was picturing. After being told everything I was doing was nonsense and to stop wasting my time, I felt even more motivated to get to the bottom of this. How many times throughout history has a revolutionary idea been squashed by naysayers? I had to find my solution. More poking, more prodding. At some point realizing that a truly balance equation is balanced at "±" because both sides are equally zero. I even look at "±" and it looks like a little teeter-totter balancing an equation... Sway to the left, sway to the right, sway from side to side, always in equilibrium. Pissed off A LOT of people trying to say so too (Sorry guys   ). A little more poking around and I finally figured it out, I'm dealing with a circumference of a circle to it's unit square (face palm) it's π! Duhh.

If you take +Spacetime, invert it into -Spacetime, and overlap the results, it should give you a 3D shadow of the parts we can't actually see. The discrepancies would reveal themselves. A "True Zero" aka "Zero Point".

Effectively working as 4D cross-hairs in the meantime. ("Pause" a holographic movie for instance)

Conclusion:

π="True Zero"

Point is I knew I was looking at something, I just couldn't figure out exactly what until the journeys end.

[Colin2B]

If your first line is true, then some of your later lines are false.
You also imply that π=½

[guest39538]

f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)

I don't get it, how can the last part of this be unequal?

X=

y=

z=


x=y=z there is no inequality

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

If your first line is true, then some of your later lines are false.
You also imply that π=½

Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers. The perfect center of a sphere overlaid on a hypercube.

x=y=z is TRUE
f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z) is TRUE

f(T/F)=f(T±F)
(T/F)≠(T±F)

OR

True over(/) False is equal to(=) True next to(±) False in terms of function ONLY.

Example:
If you only look at one face of a rubix-cube (xy), you can kinda guess about the rest of its shape.. ish.. maybe. All you know is it's at least a 2D shape, or a partial 3D shape (a red shifted image on the surface of an event horizon?),
BUT, if you turn the cube and balance it on one of its corners (y) and look at it from the (xz) perspective, then you can spin it like a top, and know its complete 3D shape.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

[Colin2B]

Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π

Then you still have a falsehood in your list.
Also it would be best to reserve π for its conventional meaning and use a different, but defined, symbol for whatever you are trying to say.

[guest39538]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,

ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)

Because :

ƒ: (c/x)  = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)

Because

ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j

Because

(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1

Because

i = 0.5 i,j

and

j = 0.5 i,j

but

i also = 1  and j also = 1

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π

Then you still have a falsehood in your list.
Also it would be best to reserve π for its conventional meaning and use a different, but defined, symbol for whatever you are trying to say.

Maybe, but if π is equal to the circumference ratio of a circle to a square, wouldn't π also be the volume ratio of a sphere to a cube? ie: no answer with an infinite margin of error; ∅±∞=π

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,

ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)

Because :

ƒ: (c/x)  = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)

Because

ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j

Because

(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1

Because

i = 0.5 i,j

and

j = 0.5 i,j

but

i also = 1  and j also = 1

What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y plane nor the z plane, therefore not so great for practical purposes.

f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz)
≠    ±    =   ±     =
f(y) = f(xy) = f(yz)
≠    ±    =   ±    =
f(z) = f(xz) = f(yz)

It's 3D Math! 

[guest39538]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,

ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)

Because :

ƒ: (c/x)  = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)

Because

ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j

Because

(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1

Because

i = 0.5 i,j

and

j = 0.5 i,j

but

i also = 1  and j also = 1

What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.

So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?

X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,

ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)

Because :

ƒ: (c/x)  = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)

Because

ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j

Because

(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1

Because

i = 0.5 i,j

and

j = 0.5 i,j

but

i also = 1  and j also = 1

What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.

So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?

X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....

Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.

[guest39538]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,

ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)

Because :

ƒ: (c/x)  = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)

Because

ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j

Because

(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1

Because

i = 0.5 i,j

and

j = 0.5 i,j

but

i also = 1  and j also = 1

What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.

So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?

X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....

Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.

A computer does not know anything other than what we tell it to ''know'' by programming .   We can position things like in cgi software because we have put in the plots, a computer will never  ''know'' the difference. or know.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

x=y=z there is no inequality

Agreed.
x=y=z

BUT

f(x)≠f(y)≠f(z)

kinda like 10(decimal)≠10(hex)

Huh, you can't agree with one equality then say in the next sentence there is an inequality,

ƒ:(x)=ƒ:(y)=ƒ:(z)

Because :

ƒ: (c/x)  = ƒ: (c/y) = ƒ: (c/z)

Because

ƒ:Δt = ƒ:Δi,j

Because

(1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5 ) = 1

Because

i = 0.5 i,j

and

j = 0.5 i,j

but

i also = 1  and j also = 1

What i'm implying is;
YES, the function of x works identical to the functions of y and z, so for theoretical purposes it's fine. However, the x plane itself is not the y or z planes themselves.

So you are just trying to explain different ''directions'' with a rather needless explanation?

X,Y, Z already specifies they are different directions, no more is needed ....

Not so needless in terms of logical expression. You and I know the difference that up=left=forward, but a computer doesn't.

A computer does not know anything other than what we tell it to ''know'' by programming .   We can position things like in cgi software because we have put in the plots, a computer will never  ''know'' the difference. or know.

If (xy) = Picture of Policeman
Then (xyz) = Policeman

They are exremely similar but not the same.

[Bored chemist]

f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)

What do you mean by that?

Also "How to plot a course in 3D space"
x=f(t)
y=g(t)
z=h(t)

Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers.

It isn't.
The real and imaginary  number lines cross at zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane

And 0/0 (like anything else divided by zero) is undefined.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

f(x) = f(xy) = f(xz) ≠ f(yz)

What do you mean by that?

Also "How to plot a course in 3D space"
x=f(t)
y=g(t)
z=h(t)

Actually, I'm implying that 0/0=π and that "π" itself is the intersection of both real and imaginary numbers.

It isn't.
The real and imaginary  number lines cross at zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane

And 0/0 (like anything else divided by zero) is undefined.

I'm defining 0/0 as π
0/x is an infinite answer
x/0 is a non-answer
An infinite non-answer sounds like π to me, or True 0. aka ±0

[guest39538]

If (xy) = Picture of Policeman
Then (xyz) = Policeman

They are exremely similar but not the same.

And that would write  xy ≠ xyz   which is nothing new

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

If (xy) = Picture of Policeman
Then (xyz) = Policeman

They are exremely similar but not the same.

And that would write  xy ≠ xyz   which is nothing new

Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.

[Colin2B]

Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.

The onus is on you to prove your case.
Currently you haven’t done that.
I’m happy to discuss further if you can do that, but until then I see no reason to engage.

[Ve9aPrim3 (OP)]

Prove it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt then as simply as you can to someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught. Go.

The onus is on you to prove your case.
Currently you haven’t done that.
I’m happy to discuss further if you can do that, but until then I see no reason to engage.

LOL now I understand. 
My formula is an attempt to do just that. I'm challenging you to disprove it. That would be an error in my communication, and I apologize for that... Honestly I've been told that I'm a bit of a "Sheldon" in terms of social navigation. I've been diagnosed with extremely high functioning autism.
That being said, I have a tendency to see the world in ways other people just take for granted.

I honestly believe that with my theorem, you can now (xyz/0=a) without "destroying the universe", where a=π.
I "see" π defined as "xyz/0" where π = ±0
-or-
The space between Zeros;
-0xπ+0x
-0yπ+0y
-0zπ+0z

Therefore
0=1≠±0(or π)
It's very logical in it's inherent illogicality.

[Bored chemist]

someone who has no formal education and is 100% self taught.

I'm sorry to say it, but it shows.

I'm defining 0/0 as π

OK
I will simply state that 0/0=52 because that's my age.

Now let's have a look at that equation
0/0=52

OK multiply both sides of the equation by zero.
0 = 52 *0
So 0=0
And that's plainly true, so I must have been right in the first place, in which case 0/0 certainly isn't pi because it's 52

Or you can accept that 0/0 is not defined.