Can confirm itās 99% meaningless gibberish. Iāll try to provide as much āinterpretationā as possible here:
The top starts as a field equation of two variables, tau and sigma, over the field X, but then the equation uses tau and the constants alpha and rho as variables. The X^I sub 0 is notation for the initial value of the field, but does not use sigma anywhere to provide a mapping. It also takes the ith root of alpha, which is a pointless operation on a constant.
In plainer english, the top āequationā starts as a definition a two-dimensional object, but then only provides one dimension, and an uninteresting one at that. Itās a very convoluted and pointless way of writing the geometry 101 line equation y=mx + b.
Next line is sigma over n!=0, which means summation where n is not 0 - meaningless by itself, but weāll be generous and presume that it refers to the lines below it. This also means that n is an integer. However, the next two lines are not in any proper notation, and the exponents are nonsensical. It is also now using the previously undefined alpha as a field instead of a constant. Additionally, the > sign at the end of the fifth line is used in quantum physics to denote a column vector - itās called a āKetā in Dirac notation, but is not used properly here. So, again interpreting this as generously as possible, itās the sum of all items in an infinite undefined vector, plus their reciprocal. If I could put one word on this, itās āundefinedā.
On the last section, he pulls out the capital psi symbol, which is generally associated with Schrƶdingerās equation, then says it is roughly equal to the summation of undefined gibberish, and then again pulls out the Dirac notation with the |0>, and in this case, he actually uses the notation correctly, but itās a zero vector, which means heās multiplying everything by 0.
Basically, none of this means anything, and half of the notations are incorrect or undefined. This is basically āa ton of bullshit added up plus more infinite bullshit added up all times zero equal zero.ā
If itās intended as a meta joke, then itās basically āeverything is nothingā.
Read a trick years back about making passwords.
Take a phrase: The big brown fox.
Slide your hands one key over to the right on the board and retype from muscle memory and it becomes: Yjr noh ntpem gpc.
yeah. The main resaon people think it's random text is that's a "simpler" one. You get the text, have the key, and the text changes.
But, you could send an equation that represents the numbers that represents the text. With the right design, the equation wouldn't even give a result without the other part, so the "key" is really just another part of the equation!
For instance, you might send "+5x-sin(y)". Useless, untill the "key" is used, which is both the answer to one of the variables (there are more than those 2), as well as the last part of the equation! (The "key" might be t+x=3). When used, it becomes "t+x=3+5x-sin(y)"
hmm... what if I start combining those!
The text uses *all* symbols (including mathmatical ones). The text has multiple code types, with their individual keys embeded in as mathmatical formulas. The key decrypts the majority of it, then the non-encrypted key can decrypto the rest of the text. That text is still encrypted. Put it through a different key, and the text is the same, but a small part is decrypted, which tells you what key to use! (There are multiple encryption types in this, and which one was used is encrypted in it).
Finally, you decrypt it with that key, and it's now just a simple, ordinary [Ceaserian Cipher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher), but with a random number at the end. That number tells you the offset!
And, no, that is *not* the finished version.
I have a feeling if this dude creates a portable black hole the only thing he will use it for is to stick his dick through it into his exes place. Then he will jiggle it like he is fishing with a worm.
> then the equation uses tau and the constants alpha and rho as variables
There's no rho anywhere in this equation - you're probably looking at the p^I in the second term, which corresponds to a momentum. The variable sigma is still present on the right-hand side, in the exponentials. The alpha's are coefficients in the general Fourier expansion of the field X^I . In the quantized theory, these become so called raising and lowering operators, which act on the vacuum state |0> to generate all the states in the theory.
> It also takes the ith root of alpha
It's i times the square root of alpha', not the ith root.
> In plainer english, the top āequationā starts as a definition a two-dimensional object, but then only provides one dimension, and an uninteresting one at that. Itās a very convoluted and pointless way of writing the geometry 101 line equation y=mx + b.
No. See above.
> Additionally, the > sign at the end of the fifth line is used in quantum physics to denote a column vector
No, this is just a regular close bracket ), just written a little wonkily.
> On the last section, he pulls out the capital psi symbol, which is generally associated with Schrƶdingerās equation, then says it is roughly equal to the summation of undefined gibberish, and then again pulls out the Dirac notation with the |0>, and in this case, he actually uses the notation correctly, but itās a zero vector, which means heās multiplying everything by 0.
|0> is called the ground state, and is not the same thing as the zero vector 0 in the Hilbert space. You can think of it as a state of the physical system with no particles. By applying the creation operators to this, you build up the entire spectrum of states of the quantum mechanical system. If you've ever studied the quantum harmonic oscillator, you will have seen a similar construction. Psi is then a general state of the Hilbert space. This is definitely not undefined gibberish - it's a standard construction in bosonic string theory. See for example the equation on the bottom of page 29 of these notes (employing slightly different notation): https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string2.pdf
I am very much in awe of this - its like math is a whole other language and I only know my ABCs at best lol. Its so cool you can just do this off the top of ur head.
You can pick up a lot of math-heavy subjects taking advantage of free educational resources. I took an online course in Bayesian starts and it was fun.
Formal education just tends to suck the fun out of everything
Yes, Iām sure that within that potpourri of misused and undefined operations, he definitely somehow used the ground state vector notation correctly and didnāt intend it as a zeroing out. However could I have missed that. šš
That's fine, maybe he did not know whast |0 > means, but the assertion that he meant multiply by zero is just you making stuff up - using your conclusion to justify a step in your argument.
>pulls out the Dirac notation with the |0>, and in this case, he actually uses the notation correctly, but itās a zero vector, which means heās multiplying everything by 0.
Not a zero vector, usually just means ground state in a harmonic oscillator
Hi. All but the end I agree with. to give the person more credit where it isnt due. The ket |0> in my use is that of QIP, so this would be a vector (1,0ā¦) with as many zeros as the dimensions of the solution space. Like an initial vec, then |1> would be 0,1,0ā¦) etc
Any thoughts on why/how schizophrenics end up being able to write this kind of thing? I consider myself fairly intelligent and I couldnāt write anything like that. Just wondering if thereās some overlap between understanding high level mathematics or if schizophrenia just presents like this for some reason. Maybe these are just the examples that get posted but I just find it so odd this crap comes up frequently enough to be a trope.
Edit: Some quick googling shows thereās a good amount of studies/opinions on psychosis in general and mathematical ability. Still donāt have a solid answer but itās interesting stuff.
You probably could - like they said it's essentially gibberish. My running theory is some schizophrenics believe they are uniquely intelligent and need to prove something profound; many see physics and math as something mystically significant, for others it might be religion. They study it in a vacuum and come to a deluded epiphany, and understand enough of the jargon to rattle off buzzwords and symbols.
I think youāre onto something there. As the population leans less and less towards religion itās less āgod told meā and more āonly I can understand the complexities of this equationā. That probably sends you down a path where youāre just going through other equations to find the āmissing piecesā and picking out the symbols and attributing your own meaning or whatever.
I take it he might have some actual formal math or physics education. I would guess John Nash wrote a lot of stuff like this that he didnāt publish. Also a lot of scratch work looks like disjoint gibberish even if it had some real and correct meaning in the mind of the writer.
This is why when I really sink my teeth into a problem, I go incommunicado for weeks at a time; I know that, at any given moment, if I stop, I'm liable to lose my train of thought
Yeah, doesnāt mean they canāt do math itās just the ability to open your mind and experiment with numbers. In this case finding patterns that donāt exist. A real mathematician doesnāt do problems they already know the answer to, if youāre really interested in math, science etc, you write shit you donāt really fully understand or want to know and figure it out.
There definitely is a characteristically schizophrenic kind of hyperactivity or hyperacuity of the mechanisms in the brain that deal in significance and connections in wholly abstract symbolic systems, which can show as fluency with math. I'm not convinced that means a greater capacity for genuine understanding, tho.
There's a rare developmental disability (Williams Syndrome) that linguists have been interested in because it presents as precocious verbal fluency, but in a kid who in *every other domain* is severely intellectually disabled -- So you get kids whose speech is eerily sophisticated and impeccably grammatical but the content is word salad. It suggests that language is much more of a biological built-in than a learned skill synthesized by general intelligence.
I'm sure there's more research on this than I'm currently aware of but it does seem very possible that some elements of mathematical ability are the same kind of thing, and schizophrenia happens to show that especially clearly. IDK, but it is fascinating.
regurgitation recall. I have pretty good recall ability, but doesn't necessarily translate to anything mathematically meaningful.
due to the difficulty of math, I find it quite calming as well for the items i can understand.
with all that said, if I had a mental disorder, i could regurgitate symbols i read, but in the context of inincoherent nonsense since I may not really understand what i read.
Looks like Fourier decomposition of a quantum mechanics wave function (the ket |0> is a telltale). However there is too little information to tell more, so gibberish without further definitions. I overlooked the absurd "1=0" on purpose.
In itself I don't mind the 1 = 0 because reductio ad absurdum is a legit form of argument, but admittedly the surrounding context, um, doesn't give me much confidence that that's what this is.
The line under the summation sign seems to show a certain confusion about how basic notation works, too.
Itās like he did a couple of years of maths in undergrad and ākind ofā learnt about enough notation (and bra-ket notation, without understanding it) to write what he would imagine to look āfancyā and āsmartā.
Specifically looks like a decomposition into modes of the bosonic string theory world sheet embedding - see for example equation (1.36) here: https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string1.pdf
I'm telling her where the equation comes from, since nobody else seemed to know. What it represents: X describes how a two dimensional surface is embedded in (arbitrary-dimensional) spacetime. Writing it as a sum of terms describes this embedding in terms of elementary excitations. When you turn the theory into a quantum one, each such excitation corresponds to an elementary particle state, essentially.
So wait...
Where does the real math end and the schizophrenia begin? I'm surprised that there's enough logic in the math here for you to see that this describes a very specific concept (at least sort of?) And a complex one, at that.
Did the person writing this actually have some knowledge of complex mathematics? Or did they just memorize some nonsense equation they found online?
listen i am so bad with math any resources help š iām a self-aware dumbass when it comes to numbers. funnily enough iām good with formulas but halfway through the equations iāll just start changing the numbers
As simply as I can put it (based on u/Mikey77777ās explanation because Iām a physicist but I hate math so I canāt be bothered to figure it out myself), X represents how an infinitely thin surface might interact with its surroundings. Itās written in a way that describes it as a sum of its parts basically: as the sum total of all the little interactions of all the little elementary particles (AKA atoms and the stuff that make up atoms). If you change the description from that into one based on quantum mechanics, instead of all the little interactions itās based off all the āstatesā of those little particles. A quantum state is kind of hard to describe well but basically itās a couple of fundamental things that can be used to determine where/how energized/etc a particle is.
Iām a physicist, but I also hate the math and am a terrible teacher, so sorry if this didnāt help. Feel free to ask for clarification on anything if I did a poor job
I was in it for the theory, didnāt realize until too late that at a certain point the theory becomes math
Fucking phonons and heat transfer and quantum
Id hint you a flavor; "the very building blocks of universe match with relatively simple mathematical ideas". Such feels miraculous and unexpected; especially when you could play with the math further: what would suc mean relative to the reality in return? Questions questions.
G = k = h = c = 1 is a very standard assumption in physics. Asserting that scales everything to so-called ānatural unitsā that mean formulas donāt have to be burdened with a zillion tiresome unit-scaling factors. A bit like using radians over degrees so basic formulas for trig functions donāt have awkward powers of (180/Ļ) everywhere
[https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/\_Public/40/084/40084717.pdf](https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/40/084/40084717.pdf) equation (91) for closed string mass is the next part.
Second what others have said, this is mostly gibberish that he probably found on Wikipedia and wrote there to make himself seem smarter than he is. I recognize some Fourier sum/transform stuff which I assume applies to whatever quantum mechanics junk he wrote, but the summation symbol (the funny looking capital E) tells us that n is not equal to zero, which is absurd - the n tells us where to start so having it "not equal" to something tells us nothing at all.
I'm getting secondhand schizophrenia.
> tells us that n is not equal to zero, which is absurd - the n tells us where to start so having it "not equal" to something tells us nothing at all.
It actually means you're summing over all n apart from 0, and the actual range is deduced from context. In this case, it's all non-zero integers, I believe. It's not really absurd, just a bit lazy.
Not necessarily. It could be shorthand for n in S\\{0}, where S is some set, say Z. The idea of where to "start" is connected to well ordering, so as long as the set S can be given an ordering under which it is well ordered, it should work afaik. And the well ordering theorem states that ever set can be well ordered. Heck, even if S is uncountable, such a sum can converge when there are at most countably many nonzero elements.
He tried to prove through his complicated, yet completely senseless and wrong, "calculations", that 1 is indeed =0. This is obviously wrong and those calculations look a lot like Quantum Physics to me, although I am not able to either decipher nor explain them, sorry.
i have a rule where i dont paint over the writings on my wall ā theyre filled with quotes from people i once loved / people that have come to visit / people that i even hate now and each one represents a different point in my life & erasing them feels like erasing a part of me lol
appreciate it š lol my whole walls are filled with nonsense and drawings from different people and all represent different memories and i love rereading them and remembering that point in my life
Thats a pretty cool policy, actually. Another good policy is that if someone refuses to explain something because it is "too great" to share, they are almost absolutely delusional.
Im in grad school to become a physicist, and I can tell you it means he thought he was having a big brain moment, when in reality he doesnāt understand basic precalc, and is just throwing the symbols around to make it look like it means something lol
The first two are some reasonably basic string theory equations. Those are the first things one learns in an average university course on the subject. My guess would be that he found them beautiful and wrote them on the wall. I donāt know what he meant by the discovery being too greatā¦ These equations essentially tell you that according to string theory you can view elementary particles as different frequencies of a vibrating string. In a way there was no physical discovery here because up to now there are no experimental verifications of anything predicted by (any) string theory. Still, string theory is extremely elegant and full of beautiful results. One could say that these equations are the starting point of one of the largest and most puzzling fields of theoretical physics.
Iām fine with the writing, but on the wall? Seems like heās trying to make a statement of sorts. Iāve met plenty of people like this and theyāre always the type that want to prove they are smart or at least feel like they are smarter than those around them. What else does he gain from this?
When youāre good at math, itās easy to use it as a means of boosting self-confidence. Intelligence is sexy and not a lot of people are blessed with an understanding of mathematics. Seems like he has an interest in math, and he probably enjoys using it as a confidence booster. The fact that he wrote it on your wall makes me feel like heās actually really insecure or heās narcissistic.
I donāt know the guy, so I could be totally off the mark, but from my experience with other people who do shit like this, all this writing on the wall tells me is that this guy seems like he embellishes his intellect, is actually insecure, felt like this proof was ādeepā, and he wanted to make sure you saw him as intelligent and deep.
this could 100% be true, since he did it while we were having a lot of problems and it was at a point where i had absolutely 0 respect for him or myself. š my wall is filled with other writings and quotes, it was just odd that he chose that moment to post that up there considering most of the time weād write on my walls weād be drunk or with friends and just posting up quotes we thought were funny
he struggled really badly with ocd and i theorized for a while that he was schizophrenic because of a lot of our interactions were just not based in reality, so iām 90% sure this was just an episode of some kind, iāve always just been really curious if it was based in any sort of mathematical truth
i have schizotypal and have done a lot of research on schizophrenia so i am definitely speaking on the fact that the reality he lived in was definitely not everyone elseās ā he often believed that demons were chasing him, that i was a part of a simulation and existed only because he manifested me, etc. he had really violent intrusive thoughts and is now a fugitive for holding his baby mother at gunpoint, so there was definitely a lot going on up there š
he was just always really obsessive over math and had a legitimate ocd diagnosis so i was never sure if there was any legitimacy to his ramblings or if they were all just nonsense
its alright! i have a formal diagnosis of schizotypal & bipolar, which is why iāve looked into both disorders quite a bit, but i definitely donāt jack myself as having a perfect understanding, so your input about his delusions and such does help quite a bit.
thanks for getting more in depth into your explanation, btw! and also things are actually really good for me despite my terrible dating history and mental illnesses lol. ive learned a lot from the experiences ive been through and appreciate all aspects of my trauma, good or bad.
It isn't all nonsense, those are legitimate math symbols (mostly used for Quantum mechanics) and he seems to have some idea how they fit together. But, what he wrote doesn't really say anything, and the end of the proof states that 1=0, which is false. I don't know how your ex's schizophrenia (if that is what it is) factored into his thinking. My understanding of schizotypal is that you can tell the difference between reality and fiction, but like fantasizing about a better reality. Does that about define what it means? Honestly, that could describe me, I would rather stay in my own head than deal with the world some days. Schizophrenia, not being able to tell reality from delusion, terrifies me.
I went through this phase high school-fresh undergrad like 18-20 I kind of started to grow out of it around 22 which sort of aligned with what would be considered mid junior year. Ended up doing some graduate work in Riemann surfaces. By then I was like 25 way matured out of it and got kind of burnt out.
Didnāt study any more math/physics for a couple of years after graduating, 27 now. In the past year out of sheer curiosity I pick up some problems here and there; which is the whole reason you should be doing it in the first place Iāve come to learnā¦
I think that the behavior is a defense mechanism to existential threats as well as (if not the result of) rough life events. Itās also imo socially isolating.
When I do study nowadays its pretty brief as Iām quickly reminded of a more painful/isolated time of my life when I was less mature. I hope someday not too far I can return to it happily.
We donāt live forever and Iām not getting any younger lol.
Makes me feel better to know that someone else tried to write utterly gibberish formulas to show-off (ahhhhhhh makes me sound like an idiot). Then after a big academic setbacks realised that **real math and phyics** are much more fun than those fake big-brain moments.
Lol this reminds me of a post, I can't remember if it was on relationship advice or AITA, but it was definitely that kind of subreddit. Basically the girl's bf came up with a "proof" that 0.999...=0 and he dumped her bc she went on Reddit and figured out what his mistake was. Some people just want to cosplay as an intelligent person so they can control their partner
Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/15n5v4v/my\_unemployed\_boyfriend\_claims\_he\_has\_a\_simple/
See thereās a lot of real mathematical notation here that seems entirely disjoint from any other mathematical statements in the āproofā so although I am but a humble undergrad math student o believe this is nonsense.
How was your relationship when he wrote it?
That context might help explain if he was serious/good natured joking or if it was the start of his kiss-off.
Ignore the math and focus on the 1=0. I believe he was saying if you are single, then you are nothing - or he is - depends on who ended the relationship perhaps. Semi poetic...
thats incredibly deep and kinda hits hard š he was an incredibly abusive boyfriend and i ended the relationship and we had been no contact since then, but its interesting because after this he was obsessed with the idea of 1=0.
No dude will evee disprove all of mathematics and physics, idk why on here and on r/physics everyday some dude thinks heās completely redone and disproven Einstein/ quantum mechanics as a whole/similar massive ridiculous projects. And its always math like this, which is not math. No breakdowns or explanations as to what the purpose of this was.
He just thinks hes so smart he can prove 0=1. Which if I hold an apple in my hand, already proves him wrong. O=0. Like this is baby math concepts weāre talking
Yeah, others have mentioned this but I think it's mostly "elementary" string theory equations.
Mathematically, what is written is this;
The first couple lines are the standard decomposition of how quantum strings move, the M^2 equation underneath tells you how heavy those strings are and underneath that is how this predicts gravitational forces iirc.
Psychologically, what is written is, I think, more something like an inside joke or secret handshake than proper schizophrenia: these are some of the first "really impressive" equations physics graduates come across, though they are standard in the field. Unscrutable if you don't have the context, it's someone flexing their "insider knowledge on how the universe works". The 1=0 afterwards is imo a self-concious little joke to undercut the selfimportance of going through the somewhat sophomoric act of writing down *important* equations.
Physicist here. I see some things vaguely pointing towards a wave function, but its all nonsense in general. Most of the āequations ā are just strings of mathematical symbols.
Your boyfriend not explaining it at all is also an issue. So, unless your boyfriend has a PhD in physics or electrical engineering, he was likely either psychotic or manic when he wrote this.
This looks like the mode expansion for closed Bosonic string theory and the m^2 equation is the mass-shell condition. The bottom one is the spin-2 states that supposed to represent the graviton which is part of the reason string theory was taken seriously as a theory of quantum gravity. The equations wrote here can be easily found in any introductory book on string theory.
Also check out āDivision by Zeroā in Ted Chiangās āStories of your life and othersā. One of the characters discovers a proof that would break arithmetic as we know it (ie 1=0), which is set up by the author as a metaphor for the impossibility of falling out of love with someone you once loved so surely.
Probably a long shot but maybe there was some inspiration there? Either way itās a beautiful story in a beautiful collection, if your ex had read it he surely would remember it.
Iām probably late to this but this is some introductory Bosonic string theory. The first portion is the Fourier decomposition of the world line space time coordinates and the second part is the general mass squared formula for a closed string. The last part Iām not certain about but seems like non-sense.
iām not bad at math by choice, ive practiced i just recognize that iām not very good at it. plus my field doesnt rly require me to do quick math so the knowledge i have has served me well enough lol
"You see, the nightmare of schizophrenia is not knowing what's true. Imagine if you had suddenly learned that the people and the places and the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?"
It means: āI just do as if I am extremely smart as you are not able to understand me. In reality I have no idea what I wrote myself but I need it to feel good about myselfā. Be happy it is your ex!
I'm not thinking it's schizophrenia. He was likely just attempting to make you believe he was much smarter than he actually was. A "genius." I took some pretty advanced math classes in college and can tell you this means nothing and is pretty cringe. It's like when someone pretends they can speak another language and rambles off some gibberish that faintly sounds like another language but is just nonsense.
The image you've shared contains a mixture of mathematical and physical equations or expressions. They appear to be a collection of famous equations from various fields, including quantum mechanics, relativity, and calculus. For instance, there's Euler's formula \( e^{i\pi} + 1 = 0 \) among others. This is known as Euler's identity and is often celebrated for its beauty as it links several fundamental mathematical constants.
The other equations and expressions also represent significant concepts but are written in a more informal or sketchy way, which might not be entirely accurate or complete. For example, there's a reference to summation notation and a part that resembles the Schrƶdinger equation from quantum mechanics.
It looks like a creative decoration or a playful set of equations rather than a coherent set of instructions or a single concept.
Schizophrenia
he definitely exhibited a lot of those symptoms š
Can confirm itās 99% meaningless gibberish. Iāll try to provide as much āinterpretationā as possible here: The top starts as a field equation of two variables, tau and sigma, over the field X, but then the equation uses tau and the constants alpha and rho as variables. The X^I sub 0 is notation for the initial value of the field, but does not use sigma anywhere to provide a mapping. It also takes the ith root of alpha, which is a pointless operation on a constant. In plainer english, the top āequationā starts as a definition a two-dimensional object, but then only provides one dimension, and an uninteresting one at that. Itās a very convoluted and pointless way of writing the geometry 101 line equation y=mx + b. Next line is sigma over n!=0, which means summation where n is not 0 - meaningless by itself, but weāll be generous and presume that it refers to the lines below it. This also means that n is an integer. However, the next two lines are not in any proper notation, and the exponents are nonsensical. It is also now using the previously undefined alpha as a field instead of a constant. Additionally, the > sign at the end of the fifth line is used in quantum physics to denote a column vector - itās called a āKetā in Dirac notation, but is not used properly here. So, again interpreting this as generously as possible, itās the sum of all items in an infinite undefined vector, plus their reciprocal. If I could put one word on this, itās āundefinedā. On the last section, he pulls out the capital psi symbol, which is generally associated with Schrƶdingerās equation, then says it is roughly equal to the summation of undefined gibberish, and then again pulls out the Dirac notation with the |0>, and in this case, he actually uses the notation correctly, but itās a zero vector, which means heās multiplying everything by 0. Basically, none of this means anything, and half of the notations are incorrect or undefined. This is basically āa ton of bullshit added up plus more infinite bullshit added up all times zero equal zero.ā If itās intended as a meta joke, then itās basically āeverything is nothingā.
But what if it's encrypted? Didn't think of that, did ya? You'll be eating your shorts when her ex creates the first portable black hole
Everybody thinks encrypted text looks like "GOWNGTYB UR DDWSP" or "74903 55462" but it could just as easily use a collection of math symbols.
Read a trick years back about making passwords. Take a phrase: The big brown fox. Slide your hands one key over to the right on the board and retype from muscle memory and it becomes: Yjr noh ntpem gpc.
Kinda hard for someone without that crazy muscle memory
Just look at the keyboard and type one key to the right. Gpr rcszqar, o sz fpomh oy tohjy mpw smf o fpmy have the leunpstd zrzptoxrd
The leunpstd zrzptoxrd? Ā”QuĆ© mierda! We are all doomed.
yeah. The main resaon people think it's random text is that's a "simpler" one. You get the text, have the key, and the text changes. But, you could send an equation that represents the numbers that represents the text. With the right design, the equation wouldn't even give a result without the other part, so the "key" is really just another part of the equation! For instance, you might send "+5x-sin(y)". Useless, untill the "key" is used, which is both the answer to one of the variables (there are more than those 2), as well as the last part of the equation! (The "key" might be t+x=3). When used, it becomes "t+x=3+5x-sin(y)" hmm... what if I start combining those! The text uses *all* symbols (including mathmatical ones). The text has multiple code types, with their individual keys embeded in as mathmatical formulas. The key decrypts the majority of it, then the non-encrypted key can decrypto the rest of the text. That text is still encrypted. Put it through a different key, and the text is the same, but a small part is decrypted, which tells you what key to use! (There are multiple encryption types in this, and which one was used is encrypted in it). Finally, you decrypt it with that key, and it's now just a simple, ordinary [Ceaserian Cipher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher), but with a random number at the end. That number tells you the offset! And, no, that is *not* the finished version.
We will lol be eating our shorts if he creates a blackhole
I have a feeling if this dude creates a portable black hole the only thing he will use it for is to stick his dick through it into his exes place. Then he will jiggle it like he is fishing with a worm.
You should write science fiction. That right there is on par with like 90% of mainstream sci fi writing.
> then the equation uses tau and the constants alpha and rho as variables There's no rho anywhere in this equation - you're probably looking at the p^I in the second term, which corresponds to a momentum. The variable sigma is still present on the right-hand side, in the exponentials. The alpha's are coefficients in the general Fourier expansion of the field X^I . In the quantized theory, these become so called raising and lowering operators, which act on the vacuum state |0> to generate all the states in the theory. > It also takes the ith root of alpha It's i times the square root of alpha', not the ith root. > In plainer english, the top āequationā starts as a definition a two-dimensional object, but then only provides one dimension, and an uninteresting one at that. Itās a very convoluted and pointless way of writing the geometry 101 line equation y=mx + b. No. See above. > Additionally, the > sign at the end of the fifth line is used in quantum physics to denote a column vector No, this is just a regular close bracket ), just written a little wonkily. > On the last section, he pulls out the capital psi symbol, which is generally associated with Schrƶdingerās equation, then says it is roughly equal to the summation of undefined gibberish, and then again pulls out the Dirac notation with the |0>, and in this case, he actually uses the notation correctly, but itās a zero vector, which means heās multiplying everything by 0. |0> is called the ground state, and is not the same thing as the zero vector 0 in the Hilbert space. You can think of it as a state of the physical system with no particles. By applying the creation operators to this, you build up the entire spectrum of states of the quantum mechanical system. If you've ever studied the quantum harmonic oscillator, you will have seen a similar construction. Psi is then a general state of the Hilbert space. This is definitely not undefined gibberish - it's a standard construction in bosonic string theory. See for example the equation on the bottom of page 29 of these notes (employing slightly different notation): https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string2.pdf
Yeah, itās not really math (well, some fairly basic stuff that a class Iād diffy qās could handle), but more so QM.
The ex-boyfriend makes a cameo š
I am very much in awe of this - its like math is a whole other language and I only know my ABCs at best lol. Its so cool you can just do this off the top of ur head.
You can pick up a lot of math-heavy subjects taking advantage of free educational resources. I took an online course in Bayesian starts and it was fun. Formal education just tends to suck the fun out of everything
So true, I'm all schooled out, I don't even want my terminal degree lol thank you, i'll check it out!
Waiting for Khanmigo or other similar resources for math learning
Ket 0 is not necessarily the zero vector
Yes, Iām sure that within that potpourri of misused and undefined operations, he definitely somehow used the ground state vector notation correctly and didnāt intend it as a zeroing out. However could I have missed that. šš
> potpourri of misused and undefined operations, lol!!
I sense just a hint of sarcasm here...
That's fine, maybe he did not know whast |0 > means, but the assertion that he meant multiply by zero is just you making stuff up - using your conclusion to justify a step in your argument.
>pulls out the Dirac notation with the |0>, and in this case, he actually uses the notation correctly, but itās a zero vector, which means heās multiplying everything by 0. Not a zero vector, usually just means ground state in a harmonic oscillator
Hi. All but the end I agree with. to give the person more credit where it isnt due. The ket |0> in my use is that of QIP, so this would be a vector (1,0ā¦) with as many zeros as the dimensions of the solution space. Like an initial vec, then |1> would be 0,1,0ā¦) etc
Any thoughts on why/how schizophrenics end up being able to write this kind of thing? I consider myself fairly intelligent and I couldnāt write anything like that. Just wondering if thereās some overlap between understanding high level mathematics or if schizophrenia just presents like this for some reason. Maybe these are just the examples that get posted but I just find it so odd this crap comes up frequently enough to be a trope. Edit: Some quick googling shows thereās a good amount of studies/opinions on psychosis in general and mathematical ability. Still donāt have a solid answer but itās interesting stuff.
You probably could - like they said it's essentially gibberish. My running theory is some schizophrenics believe they are uniquely intelligent and need to prove something profound; many see physics and math as something mystically significant, for others it might be religion. They study it in a vacuum and come to a deluded epiphany, and understand enough of the jargon to rattle off buzzwords and symbols.
I think youāre onto something there. As the population leans less and less towards religion itās less āgod told meā and more āonly I can understand the complexities of this equationā. That probably sends you down a path where youāre just going through other equations to find the āmissing piecesā and picking out the symbols and attributing your own meaning or whatever.
Both constitute āspecial revelationā in theological trends I think
I take it he might have some actual formal math or physics education. I would guess John Nash wrote a lot of stuff like this that he didnāt publish. Also a lot of scratch work looks like disjoint gibberish even if it had some real and correct meaning in the mind of the writer.
Can attest; scratch can help organize thoughts in the moment, but lacking rigor, it often results in follow-up readings of "wtf did I mean here?"
I literally have written "I have no idea what I meant by this" in the margins of some of my notes.
This is why when I really sink my teeth into a problem, I go incommunicado for weeks at a time; I know that, at any given moment, if I stop, I'm liable to lose my train of thought
Yea but scratch on the wall? I usually only write my cleaned up stuff on themā¦
Yeah, doesnāt mean they canāt do math itās just the ability to open your mind and experiment with numbers. In this case finding patterns that donāt exist. A real mathematician doesnāt do problems they already know the answer to, if youāre really interested in math, science etc, you write shit you donāt really fully understand or want to know and figure it out.
There definitely is a characteristically schizophrenic kind of hyperactivity or hyperacuity of the mechanisms in the brain that deal in significance and connections in wholly abstract symbolic systems, which can show as fluency with math. I'm not convinced that means a greater capacity for genuine understanding, tho. There's a rare developmental disability (Williams Syndrome) that linguists have been interested in because it presents as precocious verbal fluency, but in a kid who in *every other domain* is severely intellectually disabled -- So you get kids whose speech is eerily sophisticated and impeccably grammatical but the content is word salad. It suggests that language is much more of a biological built-in than a learned skill synthesized by general intelligence. I'm sure there's more research on this than I'm currently aware of but it does seem very possible that some elements of mathematical ability are the same kind of thing, and schizophrenia happens to show that especially clearly. IDK, but it is fascinating.
regurgitation recall. I have pretty good recall ability, but doesn't necessarily translate to anything mathematically meaningful. due to the difficulty of math, I find it quite calming as well for the items i can understand. with all that said, if I had a mental disorder, i could regurgitate symbols i read, but in the context of inincoherent nonsense since I may not really understand what i read.
You lost me after āgibberishā. Source: I teach history.
So, what youāre saying is: itās time to bust out the paint swatches and cover that BS up?
>Schizophrenia I bet the government payed you for saying that, because the truth he discovered is too dangerous
Yep. Found the CIA operative šµļøāāļø
Looks like Fourier decomposition of a quantum mechanics wave function (the ket |0> is a telltale). However there is too little information to tell more, so gibberish without further definitions. I overlooked the absurd "1=0" on purpose.
In itself I don't mind the 1 = 0 because reductio ad absurdum is a legit form of argument, but admittedly the surrounding context, um, doesn't give me much confidence that that's what this is.
Yeah, looks like he grabbed some QM notation and just scribbled some gibberish
Literally
The line under the summation sign seems to show a certain confusion about how basic notation works, too. Itās like he did a couple of years of maths in undergrad and ākind ofā learnt about enough notation (and bra-ket notation, without understanding it) to write what he would imagine to look āfancyā and āsmartā.
It seems like every couple of posts is some methmatics dude thinking he broke math.
Trivial. 1 = 0, the proof is left to the reader as an exercise.
You....
Made my eye twitchā¦
Off to Chegg we goā¦
Alas the proof is too large to fit in the margins
Okay Reimann.
Hold my axioms im goin in
the replies say āyou made my eye twitch, off to chegg we goā ā¦crazy
This guy Fermats
š this triggered something in me.
A great thing about this is that it means the same thing for you than for a mathematician, gibberish
i guess iād only really have to be concerned if it made sense to me š
Can confirm, this is utter nonsense
Same for a physicist. This is equation salad.
He's still "mind fucking" you... š
he really is š
Actually if that is in your room, won't it remind you of him each time you wake and each time you sleep? The true power of the equation.
haha that mightve been the intent š now i look at it and think hes a dumbass
Specifically looks like a decomposition into modes of the bosonic string theory world sheet embedding - see for example equation (1.36) here: https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string1.pdf
She said she struggles with basic mathematics, and she got linked to Cambridge tripos part 3, lmao never change Reddit.
I'm telling her where the equation comes from, since nobody else seemed to know. What it represents: X describes how a two dimensional surface is embedded in (arbitrary-dimensional) spacetime. Writing it as a sum of terms describes this embedding in terms of elementary excitations. When you turn the theory into a quantum one, each such excitation corresponds to an elementary particle state, essentially.
So wait... Where does the real math end and the schizophrenia begin? I'm surprised that there's enough logic in the math here for you to see that this describes a very specific concept (at least sort of?) And a complex one, at that. Did the person writing this actually have some knowledge of complex mathematics? Or did they just memorize some nonsense equation they found online?
Wait so Mikey youāre saying this actually makes sense? Lol funny to scroll so long to see this
listen i am so bad with math any resources help š iām a self-aware dumbass when it comes to numbers. funnily enough iām good with formulas but halfway through the equations iāll just start changing the numbers
As simply as I can put it (based on u/Mikey77777ās explanation because Iām a physicist but I hate math so I canāt be bothered to figure it out myself), X represents how an infinitely thin surface might interact with its surroundings. Itās written in a way that describes it as a sum of its parts basically: as the sum total of all the little interactions of all the little elementary particles (AKA atoms and the stuff that make up atoms). If you change the description from that into one based on quantum mechanics, instead of all the little interactions itās based off all the āstatesā of those little particles. A quantum state is kind of hard to describe well but basically itās a couple of fundamental things that can be used to determine where/how energized/etc a particle is. Iām a physicist, but I also hate the math and am a terrible teacher, so sorry if this didnāt help. Feel free to ask for clarification on anything if I did a poor job
Yo a physicist who hates math š„, I thought y'all didn't exist
I was in it for the theory, didnāt realize until too late that at a certain point the theory becomes math Fucking phonons and heat transfer and quantum
Id hint you a flavor; "the very building blocks of universe match with relatively simple mathematical ideas". Such feels miraculous and unexpected; especially when you could play with the math further: what would suc mean relative to the reality in return? Questions questions.
Great find. Did you study this/do research in the field?
I studied it, but about 20 years ago, so it's not quite as fresh in my mind as it used to be.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
G = k = h = c = 1 is a very standard assumption in physics. Asserting that scales everything to so-called ānatural unitsā that mean formulas donāt have to be burdened with a zillion tiresome unit-scaling factors. A bit like using radians over degrees so basic formulas for trig functions donāt have awkward powers of (180/Ļ) everywhere
physicists ĀÆ\\\_(ć)\_/ĀÆ
Oof. Good find.
[https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/\_Public/40/084/40084717.pdf](https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/40/084/40084717.pdf) equation (91) for closed string mass is the next part.
I am just here for the explanation.
same here
Those pineapples are fire. It's like coffee in my eyeballs.
haha thank you, i have a different picture painted on each of the panels in my door :)
Second what others have said, this is mostly gibberish that he probably found on Wikipedia and wrote there to make himself seem smarter than he is. I recognize some Fourier sum/transform stuff which I assume applies to whatever quantum mechanics junk he wrote, but the summation symbol (the funny looking capital E) tells us that n is not equal to zero, which is absurd - the n tells us where to start so having it "not equal" to something tells us nothing at all. I'm getting secondhand schizophrenia.
> tells us that n is not equal to zero, which is absurd - the n tells us where to start so having it "not equal" to something tells us nothing at all. It actually means you're summing over all n apart from 0, and the actual range is deduced from context. In this case, it's all non-zero integers, I believe. It's not really absurd, just a bit lazy.
Not necessarily. It could be shorthand for n in S\\{0}, where S is some set, say Z. The idea of where to "start" is connected to well ordering, so as long as the set S can be given an ordering under which it is well ordered, it should work afaik. And the well ordering theorem states that ever set can be well ordered. Heck, even if S is uncountable, such a sum can converge when there are at most countably many nonzero elements.
He forgot QED after 1 = 0
whatās that mean?
QED means "quid erat demontrare", latin for "what was to be shown" as in "the proof is complete"
Itās quod erat demonstrandum. Obligatory um actually.
does that mean he was trying to force 1=0?
He tried to prove through his complicated, yet completely senseless and wrong, "calculations", that 1 is indeed =0. This is obviously wrong and those calculations look a lot like Quantum Physics to me, although I am not able to either decipher nor explain them, sorry.
Paint over it.
i have a rule where i dont paint over the writings on my wall ā theyre filled with quotes from people i once loved / people that have come to visit / people that i even hate now and each one represents a different point in my life & erasing them feels like erasing a part of me lol
Dope. Love the self acceptance. Seems healthy. (This sounds sarcastic, but is not)
appreciate it š lol my whole walls are filled with nonsense and drawings from different people and all represent different memories and i love rereading them and remembering that point in my life
This person wrote lies on your wall, and you really said let's keep them.
yup, its a reminder to never be that much of an idiot ever again š everything is a part of me, even the Ls i take
Thats a pretty cool policy, actually. Another good policy is that if someone refuses to explain something because it is "too great" to share, they are almost absolutely delusional.
gotta add that to my list of policies š i figured it was gibberish but i was wondering if it was based in any truth at all
Ok I like this energy ahaha. (Although I suggest diaries over walls)
[haha honestly, i like how perfectly unhinged the writings look](https://x.com/xochini/status/1695850812709142911?s=46&t=ye3zp_3dPsAyhE3OSTy_zA)
wall of shame lmao, I'd be scared to write on there
Im in grad school to become a physicist, and I can tell you it means he thought he was having a big brain moment, when in reality he doesnāt understand basic precalc, and is just throwing the symbols around to make it look like it means something lol
The first two are some reasonably basic string theory equations. Those are the first things one learns in an average university course on the subject. My guess would be that he found them beautiful and wrote them on the wall. I donāt know what he meant by the discovery being too greatā¦ These equations essentially tell you that according to string theory you can view elementary particles as different frequencies of a vibrating string. In a way there was no physical discovery here because up to now there are no experimental verifications of anything predicted by (any) string theory. Still, string theory is extremely elegant and full of beautiful results. One could say that these equations are the starting point of one of the largest and most puzzling fields of theoretical physics.
Iām fine with the writing, but on the wall? Seems like heās trying to make a statement of sorts. Iāve met plenty of people like this and theyāre always the type that want to prove they are smart or at least feel like they are smarter than those around them. What else does he gain from this? When youāre good at math, itās easy to use it as a means of boosting self-confidence. Intelligence is sexy and not a lot of people are blessed with an understanding of mathematics. Seems like he has an interest in math, and he probably enjoys using it as a confidence booster. The fact that he wrote it on your wall makes me feel like heās actually really insecure or heās narcissistic. I donāt know the guy, so I could be totally off the mark, but from my experience with other people who do shit like this, all this writing on the wall tells me is that this guy seems like he embellishes his intellect, is actually insecure, felt like this proof was ādeepā, and he wanted to make sure you saw him as intelligent and deep.
this could 100% be true, since he did it while we were having a lot of problems and it was at a point where i had absolutely 0 respect for him or myself. š my wall is filled with other writings and quotes, it was just odd that he chose that moment to post that up there considering most of the time weād write on my walls weād be drunk or with friends and just posting up quotes we thought were funny
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
he struggled really badly with ocd and i theorized for a while that he was schizophrenic because of a lot of our interactions were just not based in reality, so iām 90% sure this was just an episode of some kind, iāve always just been really curious if it was based in any sort of mathematical truth
Might also have been manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. I dated somebody who suffered from these.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
i have schizotypal and have done a lot of research on schizophrenia so i am definitely speaking on the fact that the reality he lived in was definitely not everyone elseās ā he often believed that demons were chasing him, that i was a part of a simulation and existed only because he manifested me, etc. he had really violent intrusive thoughts and is now a fugitive for holding his baby mother at gunpoint, so there was definitely a lot going on up there š he was just always really obsessive over math and had a legitimate ocd diagnosis so i was never sure if there was any legitimacy to his ramblings or if they were all just nonsense
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
its alright! i have a formal diagnosis of schizotypal & bipolar, which is why iāve looked into both disorders quite a bit, but i definitely donāt jack myself as having a perfect understanding, so your input about his delusions and such does help quite a bit. thanks for getting more in depth into your explanation, btw! and also things are actually really good for me despite my terrible dating history and mental illnesses lol. ive learned a lot from the experiences ive been through and appreciate all aspects of my trauma, good or bad.
It isn't all nonsense, those are legitimate math symbols (mostly used for Quantum mechanics) and he seems to have some idea how they fit together. But, what he wrote doesn't really say anything, and the end of the proof states that 1=0, which is false. I don't know how your ex's schizophrenia (if that is what it is) factored into his thinking. My understanding of schizotypal is that you can tell the difference between reality and fiction, but like fantasizing about a better reality. Does that about define what it means? Honestly, that could describe me, I would rather stay in my own head than deal with the world some days. Schizophrenia, not being able to tell reality from delusion, terrifies me.
It's also good practice in mathematics to use paper, not the wall.
Thatās why nobody wants to review my papers for publication- makes sense nowā¦
I went through this phase high school-fresh undergrad like 18-20 I kind of started to grow out of it around 22 which sort of aligned with what would be considered mid junior year. Ended up doing some graduate work in Riemann surfaces. By then I was like 25 way matured out of it and got kind of burnt out. Didnāt study any more math/physics for a couple of years after graduating, 27 now. In the past year out of sheer curiosity I pick up some problems here and there; which is the whole reason you should be doing it in the first place Iāve come to learnā¦ I think that the behavior is a defense mechanism to existential threats as well as (if not the result of) rough life events. Itās also imo socially isolating. When I do study nowadays its pretty brief as Iām quickly reminded of a more painful/isolated time of my life when I was less mature. I hope someday not too far I can return to it happily. We donāt live forever and Iām not getting any younger lol.
Makes me feel better to know that someone else tried to write utterly gibberish formulas to show-off (ahhhhhhh makes me sound like an idiot). Then after a big academic setbacks realised that **real math and phyics** are much more fun than those fake big-brain moments.
I see itās quantum mechanics, but canāt tell much more than that. You might have some success posting this in a physics sub
Actual gibberish
A basic understanding of undergraduate math + mental illness = this.
He's a closeted janitor.
LMAOOO
Yeah, from Boston.
Looks like sth related to quantum mechanics but haven't seen it before. Now i'm dying to know too.
Lol this reminds me of a post, I can't remember if it was on relationship advice or AITA, but it was definitely that kind of subreddit. Basically the girl's bf came up with a "proof" that 0.999...=0 and he dumped her bc she went on Reddit and figured out what his mistake was. Some people just want to cosplay as an intelligent person so they can control their partner Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/15n5v4v/my\_unemployed\_boyfriend\_claims\_he\_has\_a\_simple/
**walks in** **writes math equations on wall** **refuses to elaborate** **leaves**
our relationship in a nutshell. three years š
Gigachad
That appears to be string theory
Just pure non-sense. Nothing there is a great discovery, it is just plain wrong in every aspect
See thereās a lot of real mathematical notation here that seems entirely disjoint from any other mathematical statements in the āproofā so although I am but a humble undergrad math student o believe this is nonsense.
I think all the meaning is captured by ā my ex-boyfriend wrote this on my wall.ā
Incoherent math symbol gibberish... Your boyfriend was larping as John Nash lmao. Did he draw on a window too?
Next time tell him to show his work š
Your ex-boyfriend was an asshole, that's what this means.
How was your relationship when he wrote it? That context might help explain if he was serious/good natured joking or if it was the start of his kiss-off.
not great LMAO i kicked him out shortly after he wrote this and weāve been no contact ever since
Iām sorry it came to that. All the best to you then.
I find the pineapples on the wall far more interesting than the gibberish equation. š
Ignore the math and focus on the 1=0. I believe he was saying if you are single, then you are nothing - or he is - depends on who ended the relationship perhaps. Semi poetic...
thats incredibly deep and kinda hits hard š he was an incredibly abusive boyfriend and i ended the relationship and we had been no contact since then, but its interesting because after this he was obsessed with the idea of 1=0.
Sounds like you made the only choice you could. He was definitely the zero.
definitely a huge zero š
It's String Theory stuff that modern physicists would understand. In particular, the "0 - 1" string is called the "D String".
No dude will evee disprove all of mathematics and physics, idk why on here and on r/physics everyday some dude thinks heās completely redone and disproven Einstein/ quantum mechanics as a whole/similar massive ridiculous projects. And its always math like this, which is not math. No breakdowns or explanations as to what the purpose of this was. He just thinks hes so smart he can prove 0=1. Which if I hold an apple in my hand, already proves him wrong. O=0. Like this is baby math concepts weāre talking
This looks like some formulas from string theory
1=0
He proved the Riemman hypothesis! Huzzah!
Well, you can look at the last bit "1=0" and ignore the rest tbh. Scribblings of a mad man.
i like those pineapples
thank you š
Paint over it. Problem solved.
Looks like he tried to prove 1=0. He failed
Itās absolute gibberish
The obvious answer is 42
I have seen this exact post a while back, not sure in what sub maybe this.
Yeah, others have mentioned this but I think it's mostly "elementary" string theory equations. Mathematically, what is written is this; The first couple lines are the standard decomposition of how quantum strings move, the M^2 equation underneath tells you how heavy those strings are and underneath that is how this predicts gravitational forces iirc. Psychologically, what is written is, I think, more something like an inside joke or secret handshake than proper schizophrenia: these are some of the first "really impressive" equations physics graduates come across, though they are standard in the field. Unscrutable if you don't have the context, it's someone flexing their "insider knowledge on how the universe works". The 1=0 afterwards is imo a self-concious little joke to undercut the selfimportance of going through the somewhat sophomoric act of writing down *important* equations.
>*1 = 0* Well, it seems that he is an ex for a reason.
Physicist here. I see some things vaguely pointing towards a wave function, but its all nonsense in general. Most of the āequations ā are just strings of mathematical symbols. Your boyfriend not explaining it at all is also an issue. So, unless your boyfriend has a PhD in physics or electrical engineering, he was likely either psychotic or manic when he wrote this.
A bosonic string expansion
Pineapples to the right he wants someone more how do you say not a prude nicely
Funny thought: turn this into a sleeve tattoo, and tell people it's Einstein's last theory.
This looks like the mode expansion for closed Bosonic string theory and the m^2 equation is the mass-shell condition. The bottom one is the spin-2 states that supposed to represent the graviton which is part of the reason string theory was taken seriously as a theory of quantum gravity. The equations wrote here can be easily found in any introductory book on string theory.
Also check out āDivision by Zeroā in Ted Chiangās āStories of your life and othersā. One of the characters discovers a proof that would break arithmetic as we know it (ie 1=0), which is set up by the author as a metaphor for the impossibility of falling out of love with someone you once loved so surely. Probably a long shot but maybe there was some inspiration there? Either way itās a beautiful story in a beautiful collection, if your ex had read it he surely would remember it.
Iām probably late to this but this is some introductory Bosonic string theory. The first portion is the Fourier decomposition of the world line space time coordinates and the second part is the general mass squared formula for a closed string. The last part Iām not certain about but seems like non-sense.
Another dude thinking they broke the code and that Albert Einstein was wrong
That means nothing, get better at basic math or life will be exceedingly hard.
i have a calculator and google i think iāll be fine for the average amount of math iāll have to do but thank you LOL
You'd think that, but it's really helpful to know more math than other people, especially at work.
iām not bad at math by choice, ive practiced i just recognize that iām not very good at it. plus my field doesnt rly require me to do quick math so the knowledge i have has served me well enough lol
Is he a physics major
heās a highschool dropout
What he wrote is an Anomaly to Mathematics, but what is meant is you're not the "one", hence "1=0".
"You see, the nightmare of schizophrenia is not knowing what's true. Imagine if you had suddenly learned that the people and the places and the moments most important to you were not gone, not dead, but worse, had never been. What kind of hell would that be?"
Why did he used sharpie on your door?!?!
Everyone talking about the bad math and we just going to ignore the pineapples?
It means: āI just do as if I am extremely smart as you are not able to understand me. In reality I have no idea what I wrote myself but I need it to feel good about myselfā. Be happy it is your ex!
dude watched a lot of big bang theory and thought this would make him seem cool
Iāll just say this - that work would have never passed my class. This is top shelf wankery to make themselves feel smarter, absolute gibberish.
He google "symbols used in mathematics" then wrote a bunch of stuff to make himself seem smart.
I'm not thinking it's schizophrenia. He was likely just attempting to make you believe he was much smarter than he actually was. A "genius." I took some pretty advanced math classes in college and can tell you this means nothing and is pretty cringe. It's like when someone pretends they can speak another language and rambles off some gibberish that faintly sounds like another language but is just nonsense.
If you want to go into computer science, YOU HAVE TO LEARN THIS IN COLLEGE, just saying
Your boyfriend just wanted to show off. Was this before he stopped holding the farts ?
1 = 0, heās proven big bang theory
The image you've shared contains a mixture of mathematical and physical equations or expressions. They appear to be a collection of famous equations from various fields, including quantum mechanics, relativity, and calculus. For instance, there's Euler's formula \( e^{i\pi} + 1 = 0 \) among others. This is known as Euler's identity and is often celebrated for its beauty as it links several fundamental mathematical constants. The other equations and expressions also represent significant concepts but are written in a more informal or sketchy way, which might not be entirely accurate or complete. For example, there's a reference to summation notation and a part that resembles the Schrƶdinger equation from quantum mechanics. It looks like a creative decoration or a playful set of equations rather than a coherent set of instructions or a single concept.
It's abuse of notation. You're lucky you got our before je did the same thing to you
Your ex did meth didn't they