today feels more healthy, yesterday i felt very tired.

hmm coming to thought exercises on De Broglie's matter waves, hmm as told postponed. to be delegated to be thought by ai instead of me. since is not interesting right now. i started with enthusiasm but then got fastly bored of :)  since means lots of hardwork (simulation codings to investigate and i need to revise qm right now to do that, being adhd and looking to priotization of tasks (coder ai tasks be priotized earlier) i postponed. since its too much hardwork and i have adhd.  learning theories seems more interesting than coding simulating to check them. that latter one could be later delegated to coder ai project. (ai as an replacement of studies ofme whislt being very adhd) adhd life version be like this. you always want to postpone hardwork stuff. and theories learning seems more interesting. adhd is like always postponing things of hardwork. this topic of simulating glass in my room to understand matter waves behavior is just too much hardwork for my adhdh condition. with not much reward either. i mean matter waves is a known concept either.  i mean if i proved interference it would be showing something already exists/obvious. i mean it would not have so much information gain reward to me. but learning maths and coder ai project has much more reward. first of all learning maths does not seem as that hard work as coding a simulator like that.  i think i like learning theoretic topics more than implementation side e.g. simulation coding. I think its due to adhd. i like postponing such type hardwork. but as told, all these adhd stuff would be delegated to coder ai later. 

yayyy in topology i am in chapter of fields mathematics, like if you stir your coffee there is always some stationary part inside the coffee topic's maths like homotopy chapter's final part. 

hmm but then there is that 500 or more paged advanced topology with geometry book (would check fibre bundles concept that i also heard in universe theories as i remember once) and would learn such maths yayyyy!

then commutative algebra later a 500 pages or 600 pages to that either.

and then finally would be able to recontinue the ai project at that point.

i needed to learn some such maths before.

hmm i might revise qm algebra/measure theory also awhile.

cause ai is meant to be integratable to the qm computers concept so its core maths layer could be able to also have qm algebra plugin. 

yayyyy so for this exciting ai product, hmm actually the need for a qm algebra plugin is reason why this maths studies get to this topics, to craft more generic system in terms of maths grammar. to be able to have plugin interfaces of various algebra. 

but i hate this fluidity of what i learnt is alike some topics i forgot already from mt.  since i dont repeat, it stays fluid intelgnce not stationary. but some concepts i remember but some of them e.g. even my argument against Cantor i forgot how it were.

i had an argument against Cantor but I forgot it, but i would rethink remember when revising mt textbook.

i were like in position that i rejected existence of real numbers. and thought rational numbers covers it all.

so it werent a slight counterargument against Cantor. it were a very divergent idea.

i think lots of people would reject my divergence either in such topic i mean idea that real numbers is not a correct concept idea of mine. 

but i dont remember exactly, and i dont remember whether if i also converged to mainstream real numbers concept later, maybe i also verified existence of real numbers concept myself, i dont remember that either, anyway would remember whilst revising mt knowledge.

i dont remember whether if myself converged to main streams real numbers concept either.  i might had converged either and i might had been having no counterarguments to Cantor either.  but i dont remember. i only remember i rejected existence of real numbers at some point and thats it.

hmm i need to go to more topological studies to get to find homeomorphisms mroe to this real number concept i mean R  or R*R etc, and there i might find more interesting arguments in this discussion. 

hmm these topics are all very interesting, for instance there is a method of sectioning R that as a result entire measure sums up as 0.  that being becomes not being alike situation at the same time.  were again from Cantor either. Cantor seemed to be a very intelligent person in these maths topics (unlike me).

its just you can use a sectioning strategy to state  measure of a segment is actually 0.  i mean some recursive sectioning the segment mechanism. that if you delete sections from a segment recursively in various configurations even segment still exists, its measure is 0.  let this stay here to make more people interested to maths science. (hmm this one werent the Cantor's argument that i diverged either i diverged with real numbers topic but i dont know if i later converged again, i as visible have alot/huge capability/capacity to create incorrect ideas also many times like seen in my matter waves analysis which were very incorrect in previous blog's first parts). 

this is like fuzzy reality of what we consider as a continuous understanding of everything.  though fuzziness usually means some other concept e.g. qm mechanics of wave function. i mean its not related to sectioning of segment either. 

hmm now its topology time, to check homeomorphism to distance functions in measure theory and open coverings in topology side later on. like altering the distance functions to homotopic versions to check alternative understanding to distance functions or else in that measure theory topics. hmm so crossing the knowledge of topology and measure theory would also happen of course in this studies. 

though topology rests on continuity concept and inherently resides on real numbers concepts. but surely that does not mean you can not use topology to find alternate definitions where real numbers dont happen.

 

i mean a conceptualization you devise on some base layer, do not have any constraint with being boundedness to that base layer.  topology can be resting on real numbers concept but does not have obligation to reaffirm that.  real numbers is just a starting point a conceptualization layer but a start conceptualization layer, it could alter/diverge to other conceptualizations either that what i meant.  

but i dont even remember yet still if finally i converged with real numbers happening or not that i stayed diverged thinking only topic that is important is rational numbers.

actually like that segment sectioning mechanism, there are other various recursive strategies in convolving two functions or different integrations that alter how result is, that were also one topic i really liked, like if you think you convolve A and B fcuntions and reach the same result always, nope its not like that, it effectively changes regarding to your sections of integration its definition.

i remember such knowledge i gained but i am not sure how to formalize it correctly.

but maths such topics debunks some common insight like knowledge you think would work like that but works otherwise, i mean like A * B not having a specific singular answer and being changing according to how you tackle sectioning mechanism.

like you expect A*B  (convolving) to be a singular value right? it is not.:) 

that were one shock i had when studying these topics :).

its similiar but not exactly like that:  if you section a segment recursively you can zero its measure in various sectioning mechanisms. that in the end segment turns out having 0 length.  whilst also segment also still is present at the same time.

------------------