𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ

@NickHintonn On ne peut pas réparer une ligne temporelle endommagé ce qui est fait est fait, Par contre on peut étudier ou simuler des branches alternatives pour ne pas refaire les mêmes erreurs et choisir la meilleure

According to a new theory, aliens are actually humans from the future. Supposedly, there’s two kinds from two timelines. The posthumans from 52,000 years from now are called P52s. And the posthumans from 47,000 years from now are called P47s. Apparently, P52s are more advanced, evolutionary. They travel through time using technology called the Looking Glass. They come to our present era to repair their damaged timeline. But the P47s are descendants who survived an extinction level event. So, they have suffered severe mutations as a part of a post-apocalyptic adaptation process.

@trakehnerblut @Unexplained2020 Une école et une prison partage les mêmes fondations, c'est à vous de choisir finalement

@Unexplained2020 There is nothing to learn when you enter this realm as a blank slate each time. It’s not a school, it’s a prison. And these “mentors” are not benevolent, wise or “full of love” if they violate the highest cosmic principle of free will.

Mind-blowing: This woman claims that before being born, she saw a dimension with buildings she described as “training facilities” for souls, where souls prepared for their lives on Earth. 😱 Dr. Christine Dolahan claimed she had a vivid pre-birth experience, a full-on journey into a spiritual realm where souls train before entering human life. She described walking through a dimension that was almost impossible to explain. It was both solid and ethereal, filled with vibrant energy, bright pink and white hues everywhere. It felt warm, peaceful, comforting, and strangely familiar, like returning home to pure love. Then she saw the buildings. They were not random structures. She described them as training facilities for souls, places where spirits prepared for the challenges, lessons, and missions of their upcoming lives on Earth. Almost like a cosmic bootcamp before incarnation. There, she met a highly evolved being, a wise mentor who seemed to have already transcended many Earth cycles. Together, they moved toward what looked like a helicopter hub for souls, a busy departure point where spirits were getting ready to leave the spiritual realm and enter physical existence. She said souls were preparing, reviewing, and moving toward their human lives as if birth was not the beginning, but a return. And the strangest part? She did not want to come back. She felt Earth was heavy, difficult, and painful. She even asked her mentor if this could be her last time. Then she was pushed into a vortex-like tunnel. Not the tunnel people describe in near-death experiences when they leave the body… but the opposite. A tunnel into birth. She said she fell through it in reverse and slammed into her newborn body with force. Cold. Bright. Painful. Exhausting. And her first thought was: “Here we go again.” That one line is enough to shake your whole view of life. What if birth is not the beginning of consciousness? What if we arrive here with memories, contracts, and missions… and then forget everything? Skeptics will call it imagination. Believers will call it soul memory. But if even a small part of this is true, then the biggest mystery is not what happens after death. It is what we forgot before we were born. Are we born as blank slates… or do we come here with memories, missions, and soul contracts that get wiped the moment we enter the body? And have you ever felt like Earth is not your first time here? Drop your thoughts below 👇

@oylemiolmusya2 @icardi20231905 @ajansJargon

@Shayn_93 @icardi20231905 @ajansJargon Ne alaka orospu çocuğu şerefini sikeyim senin

28 yaşındaki eski porno film oyuncusu Lana Rhoades: ♦️19 yaşında çektiğim 400’den fazla film için şimdi büyük bir mücadele veriyorum. ♦️Oğlumun internette eski videolarımla karşılaşmasını istemiyorum. ♦️Oğlumun annesiyle gurur duymasını istiyorum. ♦️Tüm içerikleri kalıcı olarak silmek için yapım şirketlerine başvuruları yaptım. ♦️Ancak telif haklarının stüdyolarda olması nedeniyle büyük engellerle karşılaşıyorum. ♦️19 yaşında yoksulluk nedeniyle bu yola girdim ve şimdi çok pişmanım. ♦️Dijital dünyada bir kez paylaşılan herhangi bir şeyin silinmesinin neredeyse imkânsız olduğunu çok iyi anladım. ♦️Bu durum beni tedirgin ediyor. ♦️Oğlumun bir gün bu videoları izleyecek olma ihtimali, beni çok korkutuyor.

@icardi20231905 @ajansJargon C'est ton fils de pute ?

@Shayn_93 @ajansJargon

@icardi20231905 @ajansJargon T'es juste minable, j'ai honte pour toi

@ajansJargon Benim harddisk de yüzlerce videosu var velet büyüsün bulup hepsini gönderecem hihahahahahah

@vetohaze Théorème 27 : tuning explicite de paramètres libres (α < 1/2, β ≥ 1, λ assez grand, q = 2log(2d/k), etc.) pour forcer Gordon’s escape theorem après avoir borné le width. À ce niveau de tuning asymptotique, on finit presque par faire rentrer des ronds dans des carrés🤡

I spent a year of my PhD stuck on a 2002 problem of Schechtman. GPT 5.5-Pro helped me finish: vector balancing for zonotopes (shadows of a cube)! For any zonotope Z ⊂ ℝᵈ, v₁,...,vₙ ∈ Z, there are signs x₁,...,xₙ ∈ {-1, 1} with x₁v₁+...+xₙvₙ ∈ O(√d) Z, sharp. [1/4]

@FengTheory Mais tu t’en fout de ça Feng, ce sont des distractions. Reste concentré sur le lemme et sur les maths. Et si tu finis par verrouiller Collatz, n’oublie pas de me citer… ainsi que ma moitié du million de dollars 😉 Bye Feng 👋🏽

@Shayn_93 No, I haven't received any feedback from Mr.Gowers either in opposition nor in support. All I observed was that he suddenly enabled comment moderation on my posts. I am simply stating the facts. As for my account being banned immediately after I registered Reddit-that is a fact

@wtgowers Silence in the face of a Deterministic Proof (April 28, DOI: 19847203) is not dignity; it is intellectual cowardice. As a Fields Medalist, are you truly unable to distinguish between a probabilistic guess and a logical settlement? Or is the "Advanced AI" you rely 1/2

@FengTheory Feng, le problème n’a jamais été ton intuition. Le problème est que tu sembles vivre chaque objection comme une incompréhension ou une attaque, alors qu’une vraie collaboration scientifique fonctionne justement par friction critique. Tu n'es pas au-dessus des autres Feng

@Shayn_93 Obviously, you realize that I am not employing traditional probabilistic methods. There is no need for you to argue with me. Even Grok believes my approach shows great promise. You, however, do not seem to share that view. And I believe you simply haven't understood it.

@FengTheory Feng, tu es quelqu’un d’intelligent. Ne gâche pas tout : mets-toi au travail, va chercher le lemme manquant et reste humble. Ton idée est intéressante. Va au bout proprement, sans parano ni posture. L’humilité précède parfois les vraies victoires. Bon courage.

@Shayn_93 I have experienced firsthand the discrimination of journals and platforms against Chinese scholars. But do not mistake my kindness. I believe you truly fail to understand the fundamental difference between "structural invariance" and "probabilistic prediction".

@FengTheory Feng, je comprends ton idée : la dynamique imposerait à chaque orbite une pente de contraction. Mais c’est ce que Collatz exige de démontrer, pas juste d’affirmer. Le problème n’est pas de nommer cette pente “invariante”, mais de prouver qu’elle vaut pour toute orbite

@FengTheory Feng, ne deviens pas insultant. Je comprends mieux que toi ton propre modèle & surtout ses limites actuelles. Le point n’a jamais été “probabiliste” vs “structurel”. Donne juste le lemme local indépendant garantissant ton invariant sur toute orbite,sans supposer l’absorption

@Shayn_93 Clearly, you didn't understand my kindness in offering analogies. 😀 Do you even understand the fundamental difference between 'probabilistic prediction' and 'structural measure'? I am not guessing odds of an orbit; <-0.2877 is a structural invariant, not empirical observation.

@FengTheory Feng, mes objections semble te pousser progressivement du statistique vers le structurel/phénoménologique. Mais le point visé ne bouge pas : le lemme local indépendant manque toujours. Tu devrais poster ça sur sur Reddit r/Collatz pour obtenir plus de retours techniques.

@Shayn_93 Exactly. Newton did not need to calculate every falling object; he discovered the underlying Rule. Me too: Every orbit is fixed and determinate, not random; therefore, all must strictly adhere to the same structural Rule.Every orbit possesses an inherent contraction trend.

@FengTheory Justement Feng 😄 Newton n’a pas “déduit” la gravité à partir d’objets déjà tombés au sol. La loi était définie indépendamment des trajectoires particulières C’est précisément ce lemme indépendant qu’on te demande encore ici.Les analogies de physique théorique sont prématurées

@Shayn_93 Clearly, you didn't understand.😀 By assuming the existence of divergent trajectories, you are effectively assuming that a specific heavy object is immune to the force of gravity. But, I have directly derived Newton's formula and now tell you: it is impossible to violate it.

@FengTheory Ravi de voir que tu modifie et corrige ton cadre en temps réel à partir des objections, Feng 😄 Le PDF original parlait surtout de drift statistique et de “probability 1” ; maintenant tu affirmes un invariant déterministe orbite par orbite. Ce nouveau lemme manque toujours.

@Shayn_93 An orbit is not a probability distribution; it is a deterministic structure. I do not concern myself with how an orbit evolves or with its probabilities. Every single orbit, by its very existence, is absolutely bound by the rule of <-0.2877. There are no exceptions.

@FengTheory Prenons le problème autrement : montre, pour tout n et tout préfixe fini d’orbite, que le gradient cumulé reste < −0.2877 sans supposer que l’orbite atteint {2ᵏ}. Si tu ne peux le montrer qu’après absorption, alors G<0 dépend déjà de la convergence. Donne-moi ce lemme précis

@Shayn_93 I am not calculating probability; I am proving that the mathematical structure dictates that any orbit, regardless of length, must adhere to the rule of <-0.2877. Therefore, divergence is impossible and exceptions cannot exist.

@FengTheory Tu remplaces simplement “probabilité” par “nécessité logique”, mais le verrou manquant reste le même : il faut démontrer indépendamment que G<0 pour toute trajectoire possible, sans supposer déjà l’absorption dans {2ᵏ} puis 1.

@Shayn_93 Gradient is merely a mathematical expression; I am not calculating probability, but performing a logical verification. -0.2877 is not a probabilistic drift, but a deterministic logical settlement. In the FT framework, divergence is not an 'exception'—it's a logical impossibility.

@FengTheory Feng, le problème est subtil : tu supposes déjà n → … → {2ᵏ} → 1 pour construire ton gradient global négatif G<0, puis tu réutilises G<0 pour démontrer : ∀n, n → 1. Le raisonnement devient circulaire.

@Shayn_93 I expected many to have the same misunderstanding as you,see the FAQ. The "negative drift" is not a probabilistic average, but a deterministic arithmetic settlement within the 2-adic dynamics of the FT. This mathematical structure no "exceptional orbits." x.com/FengTheory/sta…

@FengTheory Feng, tu es clairement intelligent et ton intuition dynamique est intéressante, mais le point crucial reste celui-ci : un drift moyen négatif ne suffit pas à exclure formellement toutes les orbites exceptionnelles ; garde cette distinction en tête et reste humble,

@Shayn_93 Note: This is merely a doubt. That is not the point. The point: Is my argument correct? If I am mistaken, I ask Mr. Gowers to point it out to me, rather than moderating my comments. If you are willing to discuss my proof of Collatz conjecture, I would be happy to engage with you

@FengTheory Ok Feng, mais honnêtement je ne vois toujours pas clairement où se situerait le plagiat. Tu peux me montrer précisément quelle idée, quel théorème, quelle construction ou quel mécanisme aurait été repris de ton travail ? Explique moi clairement, je l’analyserai sérieusement

Mr. Gowers's blog suddenly enabled the "comment moderation" feature after I left a comment. Why? @wtgowers

@ezeeckiel1 @bttldog @space_univrs @PhysInHistory Un jour tu comprendras que tous les concepts tel que le Big Bang, les particules, l’espace-temps, les constantes mathématiques ne sont que des artefacts de nos modèles. L’arrogance humaine est à la hauteur de son ignorance. Béni soit l’imbécile. Je ne te répondrai plus 😉

@Shayn_93 @bttldog @space_univrs @PhysInHistory C'est literalement une branche de l'ensemble communément appelé mathematique🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ essayer de réécrire les definition pour te donner raison ne te donne vraiment pas bonne figure....

If mathematics is universal, would an alien civilization discover the same equations? ✍️