Solving the crux problem in defense of infinite precision (reals (cringe) better known as hitomi dependent rationals)
x/0
0 * x/0
x[h x 0] = x * 1 = x
p/q * h = p/0 :: p
this is the loose idea which propagated the rest of my thought; the following:
This makes sense from an integer based parallelism constructed from lain points, that's trivial.
Much less trivial though is is an infinite injection between integers.
forcing infinities to demonstrate particular behavior is the definition is schizophrenia. But I'm going to attempt it anyways. Asuka's crux problem (aka best girl's problem) has been one of the hardest things I've ever attempted to even attempt to grasp.
p0-{...}-p1 can represent the idea of [h x 0], and 2 = 1 + 1 = 1++
can be C(p0-{...}-p1, ..., p2) = p0-{...}-p1-{...}-p2
now from the most basic idea of a crux: h - c = a, a < h
c is a special number where subtraction still hold a precise meaning outside the elementary field.
relative to h
|h| > |c|: Asuka crux problem is defined by: |h| > |c1| > |c2| > ... > |cn| > the last unique number.
the biggest issue is that the last unique number part for obvious reasons.
for a crux we must then know that [c x 0] < 1
thus we come to the greatest issue: to have precision must we then lack it?
I will always know of 0.5 or 1/2, but I will never knew anything precise about the crux that makes this true only that there exists such one where [c_j x 0] = 0.5, where j satisfies the statement
which means p0-{...}-p1/2 measures to c_j not h
Anyways, so I highly advise you to refer to rationals as hitomi relative and what were poorly understood as irrationals as hitomi dependent (they're still relative but not all rationals are dependent referring the the precision). I would adjust your definitions of reals, rationals, and irrationals to better fit this. I'll call this "Lucy's Harmony"
This is simply an informal thought of mine in defense of reals.
x/0
0 * x/0
x[h x 0] = x * 1 = x
p/q * h = p/0 :: p
this is the loose idea which propagated the rest of my thought; the following:
This makes sense from an integer based parallelism constructed from lain points, that's trivial.
Much less trivial though is is an infinite injection between integers.
forcing infinities to demonstrate particular behavior is the definition is schizophrenia. But I'm going to attempt it anyways. Asuka's crux problem (aka best girl's problem) has been one of the hardest things I've ever attempted to even attempt to grasp.
p0-{...}-p1 can represent the idea of [h x 0], and 2 = 1 + 1 = 1++
can be C(p0-{...}-p1, ..., p2) = p0-{...}-p1-{...}-p2
now from the most basic idea of a crux: h - c = a, a < h
c is a special number where subtraction still hold a precise meaning outside the elementary field.
relative to h
|h| > |c|: Asuka crux problem is defined by: |h| > |c1| > |c2| > ... > |cn| > the last unique number.
the biggest issue is that the last unique number part for obvious reasons.
for a crux we must then know that [c x 0] < 1
thus we come to the greatest issue: to have precision must we then lack it?
I will always know of 0.5 or 1/2, but I will never knew anything precise about the crux that makes this true only that there exists such one where [c_j x 0] = 0.5, where j satisfies the statement
which means p0-{...}-p1/2 measures to c_j not h
Anyways, so I highly advise you to refer to rationals as hitomi relative and what were poorly understood as irrationals as hitomi dependent (they're still relative but not all rationals are dependent referring the the precision). I would adjust your definitions of reals, rationals, and irrationals to better fit this. I'll call this "Lucy's Harmony"
This is simply an informal thought of mine in defense of reals.
