# Is this real maths or somebody winding me up?

#### amber

Registered Member
If u = <3,-2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (-2)(5) = 12 - 10 = 2. (b) If u = 2i + j and v = 5i - 6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(-6) = 10 - 6=4. Proof: We prove only the last property. Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b = a2 + b2 = (/a2 + b2)2 except when quantified by any 7point artimace exemplified by stasus elements found in field mortification parameters.
Let u, v and w be three vectors in R3 and let λ be a scalar. (1) v × w = − w × v. (2) u × ( v + w) = u × v + u × w. (3) ( u + v) × w = u × w + v × w. (4) λ( v × w)=(λ v) × w = v × (λ w). We then end up in obvious paradoxity instigated by v x y intigers elevated beyond tartus secondary aspects.

... 7point artimace exemplified by stasus elements found in field mortification parameters ...
... obvious paradoxity instigated by v x y intigers elevated beyond tartus secondary aspects ...
These are not things.
Someone's having someone on.

BTW, simply Goggling a few of those terms would clear up the mystery.

It looks like badly translated Russian, or perhaps Greek. Maybe Latvian.

That said, some of the equations look ok except for some of the notation and the lack of superscripts, i.e. exponents.

That said, some of the equations look ok except for some of the notation and the lack of superscripts, i.e. exponents.
Yea, the ideas behind convincing gibberish is to make it look plausibly real.

It looks like badly translated Russian, or perhaps Greek. Maybe Latvian.
But I assume any auto-translator would leave words alone it didn't understand, so we still shouldn't be seeing nonsense words.
And if it were a human translator, we're back to the same problem.

Actually, I guess that's the same thing. I see no way for gibberish words to get into a translated text - automatically or manually - unless it's deliberate.

If u = <3,-2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (-2)(5) = 12 - 10 = 2. (b) If u = 2i + j and v = 5i - 6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(-6) = 10 - 6=4. Proof: We prove only the last property. Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b = a2 + b2 = (/a2 + b2)2 except when quantified by any 7point artimace exemplified by stasus elements found in field mortification parameters.
Let u, v and w be three vectors in R3 and let λ be a scalar. (1) v × w = − w × v. (2) u × ( v + w) = u × v + u × w. (3) ( u + v) × w = u × w + v × w. (4) λ( v × w)=(λ v) × w = v × (λ w). We then end up in obvious paradoxity instigated by v x y intigers elevated beyond tartus secondary aspects.

YES

It's the upgrade Time Travel expodent oscillation modified frequency generator calculations formula giving new extra power to the TARTUS (TARDIS Mk 2) while being more eco friendly

Release date to be announced

TARTUS
Time And Relative Dimension Under Space

which is the next generation of the

TARDIS
Time And Relative Dimension In Space

Let's untranslate some of it:

If u = <3,-2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (-2)(5) = 12 - 10 = 2.
Looks like the dot product of two vectors, u and v. But, <u,v> (the inner product) is another way to write the dot product (usually restricted to 2 or 3 dimensional vectors). Hence it should be: If u = (2, -2) and v = (4,5) . . ., otherwise it looks ok.
If u = 2i + j and v = 5i - 6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(-6) = 10 - 6=4.
This uses the i,j,k unit vector notation, looks pretty standard for 2 dimensions.
Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b
ok so far, but the rest goes off the rails more than a little.
v × w = − w × v.
Yep. The cross product is antisymmetric. There seems to be no problem with the rest of it, including the scalar multiplication. I have no idea what the "paradoxicity" is. Perhaps it means you shouldn't take any without food or a parachute (or something).

Last edited:
Let's untranslate some of it:

Looks like the dot product of two vectors, u and v. But, <u,v> (the inner product) is another way to write the dot product (usually restricted to 2 or 3 dimensional vectors). Hence it should be: If u = (2, -2) and v = (4,5) . . ., otherwise it looks ok.
This uses the i,j,k unit vector notation, looks pretty standard for 2 dimensions.
ok so far, but the rest goes off the rails more than a little.
Yep. The cross product is antisymmetric. There seems to be no problem with the rest of it, including the scalar multiplication. I have no idea what the "paradoxicity" is. Perhaps it means you shouldn't take any without food or a parachute (or something).
HUh, all the other people said is gibberish?

I am not surprised it is difficult to learn on the net when some people are teaching false information.

Any mathematicians on who fancy a challenge?

Can any mathematician explain a 0*0 matrice that is in continuous expansion from 0 to infinitely?

matrice Au []

matrice Bu []

I want to explain that both these matrices expand on manifestation and vanish . (gone in a puff a smoke )

A and B are just tags, u is internal energy

Come on guys somebody must know how to explain

Δ0=Δ1u/t=1u/k where k is space

I have just learnt it is called an empty matrice, I simply want to expand this matrice at the speed of c proportional to the inverse then it is back to an empty matrice.

So far I have my abstraction as
Δ0=(+1u/t)/k how do I put at the speed of c to the end of this?

The visual looks like this

[]<<[..........1u...........]>>[]

or simply 010

or simply 0→1u→0/t

Last edited:
0u+1u-1u=0u?

so can I express?

[]+[1u]-[1u]=[]??

HUh, all the other people said is gibberish?
The rest of us are examining the words.
Arfa brane is taking a stab at the math, to see if it is as ... gibberish-ish.

Let's untranslate some of it:

Looks like the dot product of two vectors, u and v. But, <u,v> (the inner product) is another way to write the dot product (usually restricted to 2 or 3 dimensional vectors). Hence it should be: If u = (2, -2) and v = (4,5) . . ., otherwise it looks ok.
This uses the i,j,k unit vector notation, looks pretty standard for 2 dimensions.
ok so far, but the rest goes off the rails more than a little.
Yep. The cross product is antisymmetric. There seems to be no problem with the rest of it, including the scalar multiplication. I have no idea what the "paradoxicity" is. Perhaps it means you shouldn't take any without food or a parachute (or something).
Let u = <a> and v = <b>. Then u · v = <a>·<b> = a · b?

Would the above be meaningful in anyway? I am trying to learn this .

Let u = <a> and v = <b>. Then u · v = <a>·<b> = a · b?

Would the above be meaningful in anyway? I am trying to learn this .
I'm not sure what the < and > are for (matrix?), but assuming it doesn't destroy commutativity, then yes:
If u=a, and v=b then
u·v = a·b

I'm not sure what the < and > are for (matrix?), but assuming it doesn't destroy commutativity, then yes:
If u=a, and v=b then
u·v = a·b
Thank you, much appreciated, I am trying to learn and practice this subject. I am not sure what the <> meant myself , I presumed it was to represent the force direction and showed a and b was in a state of expansion. Now I am at a loss for what it meant if you do not know yourself.
How would I explain that (a) manifests then inversely proportionally disperses at the speed of light c?

Coordinates a=0,0,0

I want to try and explain 0 point energy.

How would I explain that (a) manifests then inversely proportionally disperses at the speed of light c?
I am not sure what that means. Particularly, use of the word 'disperse'.

If c is inversely proportional to a, then its simply c ~1/a.

I am not sure what that means. Particularly, use of the word 'disperse'.

If c is inversely proportional to a, then its simply c ~1/a.
How would I describe at?

example : Δu=(+1)-(+1) at c ~1/a