(working title) 2 dimensional chaos generator
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
0 is infinite precision, it's a jump to think about a location as infinitely precise. but i theorycraft this: we are surrounded by infinities, so it's normal to deal with in math, we just need to define it for our simulation.
edit: again, not making claims, just theorycrafting, i don't care about this. i just want to get back to dsp and sound. i want to get back to experimentation and making audio demos and sharing math equations.
rationale: you can't go past -1 to +1 `clip(x, -1, +1)` so you might as well call the edges infinity
edit: again, not making claims, just theorycrafting, i don't care about this. i just want to get back to dsp and sound. i want to get back to experimentation and making audio demos and sharing math equations.
rationale: you can't go past -1 to +1 `clip(x, -1, +1)` so you might as well call the edges infinity
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
infinity breaks the laws of physics! so it breaks the laws in our simulation.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
and a broken law is -> going faster than the speed of light. and so i add to my simulation that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe and i set the speed of light to 44100hz
edit: this is where i get confused, is lightspeed half samplerate OR full samplerate of the universe if we follow this logic?
edit: this is where i get confused, is lightspeed half samplerate OR full samplerate of the universe if we follow this logic?
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
BUT! You CAN break the laws of physics with infinite precision, because infinite precision would be 0 on the number scale between -1 and +1.
Edit: and so we are back to sine and pi.
Edit: and so we are back to sine and pi.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
and black holes are infinitely one point, 0.
- KVRAF
- 9600 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
As you zoom in on a circle it looks more and more like a straight line IE not a circle.Architeuthis wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 10:38 pmif im wrong then id see if i can update my model.
Does it though? Either there isn't an infinity in black holes, in that case we don't know why because there should be according to our current understanding. Or there is but that doesn't help us either because we don't have neither the physics not maths to deal with that so either way we're screwed.Architeuthis wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 10:38 pm ok so why does this relate to black holes? because infinity relates to black holes.
You lost me there i'm afraid. But if you need to simulate your own universe with special rules then what's the point? Now you're just making stuff up.and infinite precision is an infinity, even if it's tiny. and so another jump is: 0 is the same as infinity. but then we run into problems with math. so then i say "start over, throw all the math rules out, and figure out a way to make 0 == infinity" and we can do that because when you simulate your own universe you make the rules.
- KVRAF
- 9600 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
We don't know that. They must be and can't be according to our current understanding.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
"Now you're just making stuff up."
yes, we can do that, because i make the rules as the programmer of my simulation. it does need to relate to reality, we can't calculate pi with 2*2. but we can get away with saying:
breaking the law == aliasing (aliasing in time)
clipping == breaking the law (aliasing in space)
breaking the law == aliasing (clipping in time)
clipping == breaking the law (clipping in space)
clipping == aliasing (and i honestly don't remember if this is established, true, or false in conventional science)
yes, we can do that, because i make the rules as the programmer of my simulation. it does need to relate to reality, we can't calculate pi with 2*2. but we can get away with saying:
breaking the law == aliasing (aliasing in time)
clipping == breaking the law (aliasing in space)
breaking the law == aliasing (clipping in time)
clipping == breaking the law (clipping in space)
clipping == aliasing (and i honestly don't remember if this is established, true, or false in conventional science)
that is a paradox. and i like to think i can solve paradoxes too with this theory.jupiter8 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2026 10:58 pmThey must be and can't be according to our current understanding.
- KVRAF
- 9600 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
One last thing before i go to sleep: x/0 is NOT infinity. It is not defined. There's no maths for that.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
im aware. i know that if we keep thinking this through we run into math problems. i feel like i just havent figured out all of them yet, rather than its that its wrong.
Can = 1
||
||
Cant = 0
the above is an infinity.
edit: a singularity
Can = 1
||
||
Cant = 0
the above is an infinity.
edit: a singularity
Last edited by Architeuthis on Sat Jul 11, 2026 1:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
sinewaves are related to light because they solve time. they are the oscillations of the universe... my simulated universe.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
light breaks the speed limit... err... no... is EXACTLY the speed limit. another 0 precision. another infinity.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 3581 posts since 28 Jan, 2006 from Phoenix, AZ
light travels so fast through spacetime it jumps back to where it started. it can do that. with 0. thats why its allowed to break the laws of physics without causing aliasing. it is infinitely smooth
edit: it might be more correct to say photons instead of light here
edit: it might be more correct to say photons instead of light here
Last edited by Architeuthis on Sat Jul 11, 2026 1:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
