Kundalini Discussion

Additionally, I want to give you the solution for classical Halting Paradox, simplified version of what my mathematics shows.

The paradox lacks the intent variable. The intent is to run the program in case it would someday, somehow, but in predestined way, stop it's work. The solution must use the solution point, that running the program is important, but eventually stopping it is more important, to the condition which either runs or does not run the program. We use I and E as local "infinities", and when we assign "A" or "O", yes or no locally to variable, which is "A" in case the program stops; we follow the variable in time, which is passing outside, with the time variable following the matrix, which is inverted in complex ways from direction of infinity, where they might meet in parallels for one moment, before they turn "impossible"; then to remove this impossibility, we actually secure that the inversed number is the exponent part of the variable. This position is not very interesting, but it allows to debug the program - for it to work, it will follow the sequence in time of the values, which turn into repetitive pattern in this example very fast, forming a two-digit number, "(AO)", where bracets repeat the number forward and backward into the infinity. In case this two digit number is not "AA", being true in value (A in first digit) and position (of all the positions being equal). "AA" gives value "E", verified in infinity, "AO" and "OA" have value "I", dismissed in infinity or not very logical, depending on how securely we must protect our logic, and "A" and "O" are not very important here. In case the resulting value is not "A" or "E", positive in first or second frequency, we do not meet the less important goal of running the program, but instead we choose the more important goal that before the time ending, or at the moment of limit to this infinity, we would stop our program. If we don't stop it then, we stop it now. This solves the intent behind this question, and unless the programmer is directly capable of expressing this intent, the computer would complain that the turing paradox, which does not resolve it's future states is "meaningless". "A" and "O" are "values", local, low-priority assets or material goals, and locally their dimension is infinite, being more true than true or more false than false, even bigger or smaller than themselves, where the "other" is going to be a win-win and the combination, where they are both bigger, is more than what is achieved when only one of them exists; "I" and "E" are "meanings". When variable is returning "A", but not fully accomplishing "E" in infinity, where the mathematical and logical force of time become linear and simple, the program is seen as "meaningless", and indeed it's meaningless to run the program, which specifically asks, whether it halts, but then gets this otherwise. It has local, egoistic values of the variable, but no global vision. Infinity appears locally not because we have any infinite value, but because we look at exterior part of it's value, compared to values outside the given scope or box, and there the dimension turns upwards, telling us that it's moving in exponent, high-frequency dimension of infinity. So, we are approaching the infinity locally, with a small number, but still in dimension of infinity. Then, infinite patterns of "A"'s and "E"'s becomes simplified by assigning "O" and "A" to values, which are set and never changed or verified by assigning the same value repeatedly, or "I" in case the value is set to constant, but changing in logical time before yielding any variable affected by the result, or "E" in case the value is set to some value, then always set to the same value. In case the halting solver used by your program is more complex, it would directly respond with "I" or "E" depending on whether it would go into the paradox, in sense of not approaching the constant value with equality of the values applied to it. Here, the paradox becomes sub-zero, where the local value itself has vibration of infinity, dimension of infinity. Infinity adds dimensions, because there are angles around the number, which exist distinctly from local values, number of angles around the dot - if we do not raise the vibration level, dimension, accounting for digits in infinity, we run into mathematical paradox that it's inconsistent how many angles one point has; indeed, with I and E values transcending the self-apparent time inside logic variables, we could incorporate I and E in higher dimension, showing the shape the geometric form is doing in accordance to it's own form, and we do not get any paradox, but instead a full-functional and complete torsion field. In flow of reasons, this torsion field shows us 2 dots in space measured by I and E, so that it's now infinitely big and we would need to make it 2 times flatter to have it exactly flat; if we make it more flatter, it would become sub-zero and starts to negatively affect the number of points or infinitesimals in the field, where we see line as being infinite, when we count the number of possible values on it, which could change, but the flat shape of more dimension being related in such way that the infinite line, which we can draw on paper and compare with other infinite lines, would become infinite in this transcension. We run into infinite paradox here, using binary logic or decimal system or system of base x composed as decimal, as they are stick in one dimension, but with "I" and "E" creating exponent values in a number, and making it's projection non-linear, it gets the power of infinite systems to represent infinite systems. What the number gains, is not the position, but acceleration - "I" and "E" distribute and normalize the acceleration, which appears in differential equations, into locally positionable elements of a number, and in structure of my number system it's suddenly a paradox, that the numbers are not moving. So the paradox is not "away", but it appears in the number system in replicated form, as the number can be bigger than itself. Then, logic value can be better or worse met, as the actual value you really want to get, the meaningful value, is better than your current understanding of your expression and it's implementation. So, we incorporated our logic into our number/truth value set, such that it can have a non-partial, known number, which knows also it's loss, on the logic scale; another variable, in this context, can change something and move backwards, in one or another way, towards the solution being an opposite of the paradox, and so after we already went into "deductive", we now run into what I call "detective" - it already got "false" in the past, but without giving up with the deductive, we run further and solve what we can do, and how the important numbers of our formula of logic would survive in case of failure in some part of our logic. For example we don't get rich, but we get some money. When we go upwards in stronger truth, we suddenly compare us as in biggest loss, but we do some Zen and give a lower value a chance here, stating it's a step of the way, even if we thought it's over. So, if we go backwards in time (in where we have reached) with I, dismissing our solution from the very beginning of the calculation, an E value would give us so many positives in the future, that we are motivated for a meaningful activity with some sacrifice. What we solve in time as positive and negative experience, in logic it gets a time of solving our calculation and it's dead branches.

Programmer, who properly programs the computer with meanings in addition to logical local values, which do not account for one or another, would get the right 4-value tables for each program, and thus they would get confused in case of Turing paradox. It definitely wants to either run the program until the end flag, or use the potential end flag right before the box is run, taking effect for until the program has just stopped. This is meaningful, and appears as the intent of the original program due to lack of binary expressivity limiting it's output, and aligned with one practical purpose of such problems, in addition to deciding whether the programs allow easy exit when it's up to user to stop the infinite loop, and more deeper, whether the user is conscious about that exit. Our general interest is to close the deadlocks and infinite loops, and these theoretical goals do not meet any logical paradox themselves, but normal conditions between investment, effort and stability and goverance of the result, which could fail in cases of exceptions known in future or function hardly following any pattern, which can still fail the check for known pattern for exit function either in reasonable time or reasonable understanding and number of clicks away; in bigger scale, operation system needs to handle the intent, making sure that the user does not have to close millions or tens of windows manually, where millions would equal to a loop running infinitely. Artificial Intelligence would design a simpler interface to human-reachable communication of those windows, for example alerting that you are going to delete millions of files, which are all set to special interest and some verification before they are deleted; one would go through the verification criteria to check, whether a general criteria appears to delete the files, or are there special cases. When the operation system looks into it's meaning, it would assign the long work as giving non-terminating cycle when we need to hire more people to verify single histories and cases of files and communicate with people, where the law would expect us to having collected the statistics and wanting to demolish all private data of two million people. Here, it would detect senses and meanings and understand, for example, when we removed the "special" tag after the process finished and files being deleted inside, but got infinitely stuck with all our computer and human resources with having the files still needed before closing the research and making sure that the garbaged hard drives would not be misused. With "I" and "E", we would follow, whether the functions in our programs are appropriately closed by computer and proactive user, without meeting the time limits reaching infinity, either in time or in nature of fatality of a moment visible in time.

In the sentence "I am lying", "O" and "A" dimension exist inside the sentence, but where the original meaning and end decision meet, we see another dimension and thus align it with values of infinity; where the space is closed outside, not inside, the infinity really exists right outside this sentence, and we see that indeed in "I" and "E" dimension, time appears and we locally thus meet a moving inertial system, where we see how the logical function is running away in the second dimension when it's trying to reach itself in the first dimension. If we write down mathematical sentences about how we do this banana game, I and E reach dimensionalities, and we can measure the dimensions, where global dimension, which appears, breaks the local dimensions. If there is a solution field, it creates a projection as mathematical function, which redimensions this as running backwards in all dimensions, which means we can logically say the result is equivalent to this, and even not doing the false operation at all projects to such shape if we look back in time. So the result pattern is like this, in case we would calculate powerful mathematical forms - this is the very basic of my theory, which really struggles through the mathematical-logical realm, and on my website I have finished collection of text (I don't want to add there, without calling it a second book/collection or something), which makes those basics useful; multidimensional spaces are easier to create in your own mind, and harder to explain to others, because we lack the physical, local dimensionality. My mathematics is not expected to locally answer the question about infinity, but it rather solves into local solution - when solutions, which see only parts, are combined, they move in time, a frequency, from lower localized axe to higher and lowest infinity and sub-zero axes. Sub-zero is not minus, but it's a quantum dimension, where the dimensionality grows downwards and does not fit the higher dimension any more, so that we would see a complex pattern to explain our very simple form.

Barber's paradox has an easy statistical solution, where, for each person locally, it measured that the variables remain in their constitution. When we break this into intent, we see the practical value of shaving only those, who do not do this themselves, but we see the problem of identification in "themselves", indeed we design, into another dimension, the time moment of identification value, which would move further as the person is meeting himself in the negative way. We intent that everybody gets shaved, and this results that he would shave himself. This is very important that he would shave himself, and we reach that the job would not be done twice. Where we separate himself as official from the person himself as citizen, we see where the time is moving as he can either officially cut his bear so that he does not need to do this as a person, or register that he personally did, so that he would not visit himself at work time, definitely meeting himself. There are more views in this, but we can see that time is passed in identity flag, and identities of "other" and "self" from different angles meet at some coordinates of I and E logic, and so does the intent to shave everybody without doing it twice by different people. Locally, I can run into the paradox, whether me is shaving myself or myself is shaving me, but when we suddenly detect the man we see on the mirror as ourselves, and understand that there are no two, but one, in terms of causes and effects, or otherwise the two would do it without needing to do it for other, and so the man in the mirror is cut by the haircutter, who he is not, and the man here is cut by himself, as he is not the haircutter. When identity spreads in dimension and understands, how the dimension is shaped in the infinity, locally in inverse-form when it holds statistically, we once again find a simple cycle of time, which solves in infinite pattern. Automata easily gets this happen in contradiction point, solving it's dimension similarly to surroundings. Mathematical form to write this could be adding "as":

"As who shaves himself is shaved without barber shaving him, barber would not shave"

"As who does not is not shaved without, barber would shave"

This form shows the intent as we use implication marks to get the same value, and in a set of partial dimensions we get to solution that as barber is shaving him only when he is shaving himself, but he would not be otherwise shaved, and in this case they are only shaved and not shaved after shaving or subsequently, we could reach an intentful solution for a system, which can use the training and fitting which can replicate similar, fully expressed solutions in case of more "paradoxes" appearing.

I am currently working on how to design some basic pieces of AI, which would do this automatically - I don't want a full product, but rather something you would use to replace some standard parts of the AI, allowing one to implement such interface that they would not change the mathematical and programming language, but only use metaphor for some minor parts, leaving the rest intact.