Diantara 4 pilihan ini, yang mana masa tua yang terutama anda inginkan?
a. Diakui sebagai orang yang hebat / spesial akan sesuatu
b. Dihormati, dikenang, dan diperhatikan
c. Dibebaskan dari gangguan atau masalah yang mengganggu
d. Telah mengubah jalan sejarah
Asumsi keyakinan saya (mungkin saya salah tapi saya lumayan yakin) bahwa genetik, perbedaan ras akan mempengaruhi populasi atau pilihan jawaban orang
The 4th dimension is thickness, There's also the dimension of popularity.
So you would have 4dA and 4dB... 4dA is when the three dimensional image was connected with another three dimensional image into one object. 4dB is when the main axis (xyz/w) itself were more than just one, due to the relativity or the variability of the variables themselves.
Since our perception follows the path of natural light trajectories, and thickness are not perceivable to us that way, the axis w in 4dA would be represented separately in a way that it is interchangeable for one of the other 3.
In terms of 4dB, it is a picture of how many dimensions or axis applicable to the object. The shape is kind of non geometrical even though it is based on geometry. The idea behind it is, if you'd draw an imaginary line between the object in reality, to its copy inside someone's mind, then the object's size would be extended in terms of points of views. The reality is that there are multiple point of views, multiple relativities that governs the behaviors of matters. In this case its relative to perception and memory.
So if 2 people having perceived the same object met with each other and exchanged their points of views with one another, the shape of the object would change. Even when perceptors never met with each other, we could drew the imaginary lines between them, and it would also be real.
-------------------------------
Hmmm... now I kind of see more why the Intellectual Property Law is important, if an artwork was misused or utilized for things that would defiled its shape, then it could ruin the experience for the author. So the exclusive control over one's artwork really is logical, you'd want your art to be the way its supposed to be, not something else you don't want it to be.
Not only artworks, other inventions or designs could also be used in ways that are counterproductive to their own sustainability or to humanity as a whole... but too much control over a design especially when it is massively widespread would put a person in an inhumane realm / field voiding him/her off of the relevance of his/herself. Moreover, such limited point of view over something that's so big / influential also would be a counter productive experience for everybody else involved.
Its not an easy problem... the Intellectual Property Law though is a legacy that often dismissed by even the most distinguished persona. On this I hope that people would build up the legacy and reanimated it, instead of ruining it carelessly
-----------------------------
Now I'm talking about geometric 4d, the easier way to picture it is, when you reached let's say m^4 (meter to the power of four) you'd want to specify what is the object in real life. For example air, water, cotton, etc. By doing this you'd understand that beyond the power of ^3 usually we would time .0 of something instead of a round number.
The reason being is the purity of the thing per m^4, within water you could have salt or air, within air you could have dust, within cotton you could have air, etc.
Example:
You wanted to map out the shape of oxygen in space at a point in time
1d:
Was just a straight line
Starting at 2d you defined a pixel
2d:
pixel = gas, others blur; (so define everything that's not gas as others whether it's empty space, water, or solid mass). (x = altitude, y=horizontal distance)
result --> 50 cm^2
you grasped 1m tall x 1m long space, while blurring everything that's not gas, you got 5cm tall and 10 cm long oxygen.
Mind if you just used no blurs you'd probably got some more oxygen within water or mass, but the scope of measurement in this context would only be gas.
3d:
pixel = gas, others blur; (x = height, y=horizontal distance to the side, z horizontal distance forward)
result --> 100 cm^3
means you grasped 1m x 1 m x 1 m volume of gas, and found 5cm tall, 10cm and 2cm long of oxygen in it with a particular 3 dimensional shape.
Now you've identified that the 3d picture you've made might still contain some elements of gas that's not oxygen because you weren't taking into consideration the thickness.
4d:
pixel = gas, others blur. (x=height, y=horizontal to the side, z=horizontal forward/backward, w=thickness)
result ---> 70 cm^4 means you grasped 1m x 1 m x 1 m, x 1 m of air and the 100cm^3 image of oxygen taken was reduced to 70 cm^4 since there were 0.7 concentration of oxygen for the particular cubic m of air.
Such concentration was rendered as a shape, but due to unlimited complexities of reality some elements might need to be simplified by estimation / a ratio of concentration.
Or...
4d:
pixel = everything (x=height, y=horizontal to the side, z=horizontal forward/backward, w=thickness)
result ---> 80 cm^4 means you grasped 1m x 1 m x 1 m, x 1 m of space and the 100cm^3 was reduced by 0.8.
The same reason for the result but this time the pixel of "gas, others blur" was not used because the measurer thought that there's no need to specify a type/types of pixel when 4d is already taking into account the thickness of things. The image created would differ from the previous one where there were some oxygen in other spots previously blurred.
The reason why having a pixel is important is that the 4d plain needs to be attached into a concept otherwise the dimension would be limited into 3d.
I just realize, customized intuitiveness brought about certain expectations over smoothness of interface. This expectation could bite your asz later when things were different / changed.
There is utility in minimizing amounts of clicks to get into the desired activity, especially if that's the only activities you do in that application. But for applications with various functions catered for different types of occasions we must realize that often the most frequent usage is not the only important one.
When users got carried away with their usual habits in the application, the moment he/she tried to get into another usage which were infrequent but also important, their intuition would be a stumbling stone to them, they would experience an extra difficulty in using the interface.
For a lot of things practice helps, but in this case practice hinders while there's just not enough occasions to practice for the rare occasion... obviously.
So the answer to this is some kind of maneuverability of context, where the context theme of the application changes in accordance with different occasions. But not only do the application needed to make available this feature, the users also need to be made aware of this behavioral hindrance
Has the world lived up to its potential in terms of the average quality of life of living beings?" Yes / Maybe / Unlikely / No / Other
Further Explanation (optional) or other answers:
Or
The potential of the world in contributing to all of the people's quality of life in average is actually constant no matter what changes people made to it... Strongly Agree / Has some Truth to it / Somewhat Disagree / Strongly Disagree / Other
Explain your answer (optional if not Other):
x/0 = y
x = y * 0
x would always be 0
therefore
1/0 makes 1 = 0, (...)/0 makes (...) = 0
is this right or wrong or something else?
1dividedby0.com made a point that it is a matter of point of view / vantage point. Is this guy right? How?
Infinity is the largest number of divergent arrays of counting numbers, and it is the same figure for all of them.
That's how I look at it
So Infinitely small is not for the number, but for the magnitude of the smallness. Which is beyond huge
---------------------------
Is infinity minus one infinity? I see no reason why infinity minus one could be infinity.
Is infinity plus one a bigger infinity than the initial infinity? The initial infinity must have been defined for it to be able to be increased in number. So they are no longer infinity
Assuming the space is infinite, is infinite km's of space smaller than infinite m's of space?
Is 1000 km of string the same with 1000 m of string? no
Is infinite km of space the same with infinite m of space? yes
So these arguments are my ways of defending my position, any response? please
-----------------------------
So the understanding of Infinity contains the element of "Uncomparable largeness" in respect to the counting number that is to be assigned to the order of magnitude.
So the key to this comprehension is to firstly always think in terms of relativity... or at least it is my most straight forward precondition/way to be able to achieve so.
-----------------------------
Edit 23/04/2021
Ok so there was a definition problem. I still think people should distinct between limitlessness vs finite numbers that are so big they are inarticulable. These are two different things
-----------------------------
Let's define infinity as limitlessness, what is 1/infinity? I tend to not say zero as the answer, I rather say infinitely small.
What is 1/0 then, well, when we say 2 divided by 2, we are saying 2 divided by 2 equal segments and each segments were equal to... 1 is the answer (1,1). When we say 1 divided by 3, we are saying 1 divided by 3 equal segments and each segments were equal to 0.333333... is the answer (0.333,0.333,0.333). When we say 1 divided by zero, we should be saying 1 divided by 0 equal segments and each segments were equal to 1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc. It would be an array of ORs that were stretched to who knows where, I don't know maybe (...) or infinity.
Table:
Numerator: 1
Divided by infinity of the same segments = ([infinitely small],...to the infinity)
Divided by 1/(...) of the same segments a.k.a super small segment = ([...])
Divided by 3 of the same segments = ([0.333],[0.333],[0.333])
Divided by 2 of the same segments = ([0.5],[0.5])
Divided by 1 of the same segments = ([1])
Divided by 1/2 of the same segments a.k.a half a segment = ([2])
Divided by 1/3 of the same segments a.k.a a third of a segment = ([3])
Divided by 1/(...) of the same segements a.k.a a super small fraction of a segment = ([...])
Divided by 1/infinitely_small of the same segment a.k.a an infinitely small fraction of a segment = (infinity)
Divided by 0 of the same segment (1/2, 1/3, 1/6 OR 1/3, 1/9, 5/9, OR 1/4, 1/2, 2/15, 1/5, OR 1/7, 3/7, 1.6/7, 0.8/7, 0.6/7... etc) a.k.a irregulars
I remembered a saying by Mr. Richard Saul Wurman that said, if I'm not mistaken:
Understanding is relative to the information you already know, or something like that... "You already understand information relative to what you already understand", there you go (thank you Google).
But a concept appeared in my head about "Replace Abstraction", not only true understanding is about updating your existing ones, but also about updating your previous abstraction. So if your abstractions weren't updated then you haven't understood anything.
So we might think that understanding should provide certainty in replacement of abstractions, but our mind proceeds towards abstractions... time follows behind wisdom. If we were to separate wisdom and knowledge as wisdom is about how to deal with the unknown and knowledge is about knowing. Then understanding should gave birth to new abstractions as well.
So it is ok to have unanswered new questions in class, or in your mind while learning, moreover it should be the climax of your understanding. Also it is incomplete to assume successful presentation if the audience didn't came up with new questions, or it is incomplete to assume that the subject has been understood if the abstractions in you weren't renewed after being exposed to new concepts.
Since marriage is a lifetime contract, I think the next modern way of dating, since women have recovered their humanity... is to set up businesses together. I mean traditional dating is because women needed to stay at home for various dangers and other reasons. Now it's only right to return to business as dating.
Marriage must be times and times more than a business that could be temporary if not profitable. So if after the business is successful then you'd know that the both of you have discovered the right synergy and on the right track for marriage. If the both of you failed but still love another, set up another business to try.
Could it be that to invoke consciousness means to make it able to perceive transcendence?
So once it was achieved then it was consciousness?
I think our personality, our feelings could be seen through our antibody system
