Time Viewers Operate Using 5th Dimensional And Higher Wormholes To View Holographic Space-Time Allowing The Viewing Of Entangled History - The Entire History Of The Universe Is Contained Within The Present Moment Of Space And Time
110 notes
·
View notes
Can the mathematicians of tumblr please help me out and teach me how the fuck to type these out in microsoft word or at least what they are in spoken word form I beg
Feeling the consequences of being someone who dropped maths after A-levels years ago, and now is obsessed with writing a fic about A Maths Guy
(Idk if these are real equations they're from doctor who I just need to know how to actually write them, I'm sweating and shaking looking at the blank space in my word doc where they're meant to go)
7 notes
·
View notes
Figure 5: Previous figure copied on top of itself. It goes on like this in both directions forever. m′,m′′,m′′′ are (time-like worldlines of) observers “equivalent with” the observer m living on t̄. (Németi, István et al. “Visualizing ideas about Gödel-type rotating universes.” (2009))
92 notes
·
View notes
Hypertoroidal Time Travel Chess
So just in case you though my game nDimensional Time Travel Chess couldnt get any worse, I fixed the bug that was breaking hypertoroids. This specific hypertoroid is a radial extrusion of a regular torus along 4 dimensional space. We start with an offset circle like so
And we start extruding radially. What that means is we just push out the face a little bit rotating around the center each time. Now in real life these would be infinitely small, we we're working with computers and human time so we just choose small enough steps
Here's what we see a quarter of the way through
Here you can start to see the donut
And here's the finished product.
For step 1 at least. Now we move onto step two. We move the donut back into place of the original circle and repeat the process
Now for the next step things are a little confusing for our 3D human brains no matter what we do, but especially so if we connect the rings like we did last time. So unfortunately we just have to imagine that these are still connected through 4D space, but we'll only show slices where we have enough room to think about them as their own 3D slices
Just like we would be able to imagine traveling along the donut surface between its little rings (red arrow), a 4D creature would be able to easily imagine being able to travel along the donut's themselves (blue arrow) and those two directions are 90 degrees from one another, making them orthogonal and adding an extra-dimension to the surface
Here's how I typically label and refer to these axes
And finally, here's the finished product of step 2
Now if we repeat the process again
Haha just kidding lol. This is already a crazy enough chess board for me personally. Unless... c: But yeah, definitely one of the crazier boards I've made. Haven't played it yet, but if my torus board was any indicator, this one is possibly just, straight up unplayable ngl. Still, might be fun to try anyway
177 notes
·
View notes
Rose-colored tears painted with sorrows met the ground as I reach for a hand that is never really meant for me to cherish, but let go of. Vintage cars pass by with singing tires screeching, screaming for time to slow down —because time is existence, not some mathematics. When either one of you gets a litte faster than the other in relation to time, it fades to nothingness, like it didn't exist at all, without evidence of having been existed. It is through memories that we seek comfort from, where we have the uncanny way of living without breathing; like a cast in a film directed by the owner of the hand we let go.
&.
1 note
·
View note
One thing that was hard for me to get used to when I started learning math was what I call "static thinking". Math doesn't have any time evolution; everything either is or it isn't.
When non-mathematicians think about operations like addition, they think of them as "processes" that "occur": you take 2 and 8 and "combine them" to get 10. The expression "2+8" is like a sort of command, telling you to perform this process of addition. People think of math this way because it's basically how math is presented in schools.
To a mathematician, the expression "2+8" is not a command and it does not signify a process. "2+8" is merely another way of writing "10". They are two expressions with identical meaning. That's what "2+8=10" means, it means "these two expressions signify the same thing". There is no "process of addition" which "happens" and "results in 10". "10" and "2+8" are just alternate spellings of the same number.
For a more advanced example, consider the formal definition of a finite state machine. Intuitively, we think of a finite state machine as a network with various nodes and directed edges and so on, into which we input some string in the machine's alphabet. After inputting the string, it travels around the machine according to the transition functions before finally arriving (or not) at a final node, and by this process a computation is performed. Of course, mathematically, this is nonsense. A finite state machine is a network with various nodes and directed edges and so on, but the notion that you can "input a string" and it will "travel around the network via the transition functions" is bullshit. A string is recognized by the machine if and only if there exists a valid path for that string via the transition functions from an initial node to a final node. The string never actually travels the path, because such a notion does not exist in mathematics.
A finite state machine is not a machine, it never actually does anything. It sits there in the realm of abstractions, unmoving and static. Every string which it "recognizes" it recognizes by dint not of things that it does but of facts that simply are; every string recognized by the machine is so and has been so since the dawn of time, without the machine ever in fact going about the process of recognizing it.
This is philosophically a little bit trippy, but it can also confuse early math students in practice, too. As I mentioned at the top, I was very confused by it. For instance, in the finite state machine example, a perfectly ordinary statement to encounter in a proof might run something like
[Block of reasoning establishing that some string w is recognized by the machine M]
[Block of reasoning establishing that all transition functions into a final node F of M have label x]
...since w is recognized by the machine M, there must exist a transition function T whose target is a final node and which sends w to that final node on the last character of w. Thus, since T must have label x, the final character of w is x.
To a mathematician this seems perfectly trivial. To me as a young math student, this kind thing seemed almost miraculous. We don't even know what w is, and yet we can run it through the machine? And from the fact that the machine recognized it, we can conclude things about what w is? We can tell its final character? How is that possible? I felt like this kind of thing involved "reaching into the future", reasoning about processes from the end when we haven't even begun them yet.
But, of course, we can do this, because there is no past or future in mathematics. The machine is simple there, the string is simply recognized or not, its last character simply is x or it isn't x. Nothing has to "happen".
644 notes
·
View notes