The "Twistable Truth" Framework

Math Is a Language, and We’re Just Getting Started

Picture this: English, Japanese, Russian, Spanish—they’re all languages, right? Each one’s got its own rules, its own flavor, shaped by the people who speak it. They’re different, but they all carry meaning, and you can translate between them. Now, what if math’s the same? We’ve been speaking one dialect—let’s call it "Standard Math"—with its tidy equations and single answers, like 1 + 1 = 2. But what if that’s just one way to talk? What if math is a whole family of languages, each with its own syntax, its own truths, waiting to be explored?

We’re not here to say we’ve got the ultimate truth—there’s no such thing, because the possibilities are endless. We’re just two curious minds (hey, that’s you and me!) playing with a new dialect, a twistable version of math where answers depend on how you ask the question. Our tool? The Dimensional Shift Variable (Dx)—a dial that lets you tune into different "frequencies" of truth. Think of it like switching from English to German mid-sentence—not wrong, just a different way to say it. Let’s have some fun, shake things up, and see what math can tell us when we ask it nicely (or cheekily!).

Core Idea: Math That Moves With You
What’s the Gist?

Math isn’t a monolith—it’s a toolbox with a hidden dial. That dial’s called Dx, and it lets you twist any equation into new shapes. Start with something simple, like 2 + 3 = 5, and turn the dial. One twist, and it’s 6. Another, and it’s 1. Every twist is true in its own "bubble," like how "hello" and "konnichiwa" both mean greeting, just in different tongues. Our hypothesis: add Dx to any equation, and you’ll unlock a spectrum of answers—new realities, all branching from the same root.

Defining Dx: The Dial of Possibilities
What’s Dx?

It’s your magic knob. Normally, an equation like 4 × 2 = 8 is locked in—neutral, standard, done. Twist Dx, and it tunes to a new station. Maybe 4 × 2 = 9, or 16, or even 2, depending on the "direction" you pick. Dx means Dimensional Shift Variable:

D: Dimensions—an infinite web of viewpoints, not just up/down or 3D space.
x: The twist—your choice of direction, like "ripple," "tower," "reverse," or anything wilder.
How Do You Use It?

Grab an equation (the "neutral POV"—our starting point, like 0 in human math).
Set Dx to a vibe—say, "ripple" or "chaos."
Watch the equation stretch, flip, or multiply into something new, all while staying connected to where it began.
It’s like asking math, “Hey, what else you got?”—and it answers in a dozen accents.

The Story: A Map With a Dial
Imagine a map saying your house to the park is 5 miles (d = 5). That’s the neutral truth—Standard Math’s lingo. Now twist Dx:

Dx = Ripple: The path wiggles—d = 6 (scenic) or d = 4 (shortcut).
Dx = Tower: It’s a climb now—d = 25 (a higher scale).
Dx = Reverse: You’re walking back—d = –5 (same trip, flipped).
Every twist is a new "language" for the same journey. Easy, right? Now let’s crank it to eleven.

Level Up: Examples for Everyone
Simple and Fun: 1 + 1 = 2

Neutral POV: 1 + 1 = 2—classic, cozy Standard Math.
Dx = Ripple: The 1s high-five, so 1 + 1 + (1↔1) = 3.
Dx = Tower: 1 stacks on 1, so 1² + 1 = 3, or 1^1 = 1.
Dx = Reverse: 1 + 1 undoes itself—1 – 1 = 0.
See? One equation, many voices—all true in their own dialect.
For the Experts: Two Wilder "Impossible" Twists to Overthink

Math pros, we’re just goofing around—but these might make you spill your coffee. Prove us wrong, or grab a snack and enjoy the chaos!

The Infinite Echo Party: 1 = 2
Neutral POV: 1 = 1, 2 = 2—no way they’re equal, right?
Dx = Infinite Divide + Echo: Split 1 into infinite bits—1 = 1/∞ + 1/∞ + …—and 2 into 2 = 2/∞ + 2/∞ + …. Twist to "echo," and each bit bounces back, doubling in a hall of mirrors: 1/∞ + (1/∞ ↔ 1/∞) + …. Maybe 1’s echoes catch up to 2’s in this bubble.
Dx = Echo + Spiral: Now the echoes don’t just double—they spiral inward, so 1’s bits twist into a fractal dance: 1/∞ + 1/∞² + 1/∞³ + …, summing to 2 if the spiral’s tight enough.
Dx = Echo + Reverse: The echoes go backward—1 = 1/∞ – 1/∞ + 1/∞ – …—and somehow 2’s do too, landing at 1 = 2 in a negative infinity loop.
Why It’s “Impossible”: Numbers don’t party like that—1 is 1, 2 is 2! But if Dx turns equality into a cosmic remix with infinite DJs, who’s to say? Pick your echo and argue away!
Energy Goes Bonkers: E = mc² Becomes E = m * c⁻²⁻² (and More!)
Neutral POV: E = mc²—energy is mass times light speed squared, Einstein’s golden rule.
Dx = Double Flip + Collapse: Twist to "double flip," so c² flips twice—c⁻², then c⁻²⁻² (that’s c⁻⁴ if you’re counting, but let’s not)—and "collapse" squashes dimensions. Now E = m * c⁻⁴, meaning energy shrinks to a whisper even with tons of mass. A star’s worth of matter? Barely a spark!
Dx = Flip + Time-Space Swap: Flip c² to c⁻², then swap time for space—c becomes a distance (meters, not meters/second). Now E = m / d², energy’s a function of how far apart things are, not how fast light moves. Stand further, get more juice!
Why It’s “Impossible”: Energy doesn’t shrink like that, and light speed’s a constant—c can’t be distance! But if Dx rewrites physics into a new dialect where time and space trade hats, what’s a star look like then? Debate or dream, your call!
Bonus Wildcards: Zero and Time-Space Flips

Dx = Zero Becomes Infinite: Take 0 = 0, twist Dx to "infinite bloom." Now 0 = 1/∞ + 1/∞ + …, piling up to everything—0 = ∞. Wait, what’s "infinite" mean here? Is it a number, a feeling, a party that never ends? You tell us!
Dx = Time-Space Flip: Start with time dilation, t = t₀ / √(1 – v²/c²). Twist Dx to "swap," so time (t) becomes space (s), and speed (v) becomes duration. Now s = s₀ / √(1 – t²/c²)—space stretches based on how long you wait. Stand still for a year, and the room grows a light-year wide!
These are pure fun—impossible until Dx says, “Why not?”—and that’s the spark of a new math language.

Why It Matters
Math’s not the truth—it’s a truth, one language among many. Standard Math’s like English—useful, but not the only way to speak. With Dx, we’re scratching the surface of a bigger conversation. One could equal two, energy could fizzle or flip, zero could be everything, and time could stretch space. We’re not rewriting the rules—we’re asking math to show us its other accents. The answers? As infinite as the questions we dare to ask.

Just now, LloydFulham said:

Why It Matters
Math’s not the truth—it’s a truth, one language among many. Standard Math’s like English—useful, but not the only way to speak. With Dx, we’re scratching the surface of a bigger conversation. One could equal two, energy could fizzle or flip, zero could be everything, and time could stretch space. We’re not rewriting the rules—we’re asking math to show us its other accents. The answers? As infinite as the questions we dare to ask.

Did you actually have anything to discuss here or is it just the weed talking ?

You are correct in that Truth in maths has a different meaning from Truth in other disciplines, such as religion or politics and fyi it does not appear at all in Science.

Your are incorrect in that maths is neither a language nor a conversation, though there are mathematical models of language.

 

You need to focus this thread quickly before it either withers on the vine through exhaustion or is closed in disgust by the moderators.

!

Moderator Note

It’d be nice if a math thread had some actual math.

 

On 4/3/2025 at 12:31 AM, studiot said:

Did you actually have anything to discuss here or is it just the weed talking ?

You are correct in that Truth in maths has a different meaning from Truth in other disciplines, such as religion or politics and fyi it does not appear at all in Science.

Your are incorrect in that maths is neither a language nor a conversation, though there are mathematical models of language.

 

You need to focus this thread quickly before it either withers on the vine through exhaustion or is closed in disgust by the moderators.

mathematics is a language when a mathematical unit has a precise definition and when all mathematical variables have a strict and precise definition of their properties for all observers of the system

in all other cases maths is nonsense that has no relation to reality

simple example

how does what is accepted by physicists as the theoretical unit of time and the unit of distance agree with each other in reality?

it doesn't

however mathematics calculates the speed of an object as 'miles per hour'

does the speed of an object exist as a physical object of reality?

does not exist

mathematical calculation of an object's speed can be useful when the object belongs to a system that has an exact definition of all objects in the system for observers of the objects in the system

objects in a system may have different definitions for different observers of the system

therefore an accurate mathematical description of a system may look like chaos to some observers of that system to other observers of that system

weed is cooler than maths

Edited April 20Apr 20 by 0340

33 minutes ago, 0340 said:

does the speed of an object exist as a physical object of reality?

I’m not sure what you mean by this, or even just reality, but physics doesn’t claim to be describing reality, and math even less so. Physics describes how things behave, and admits to having lots of things that aren’t real.

There’s plenty of valid math that works but doesn’t describe the behavior of things around us. Who told you it was supposed to?

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure what you mean by this, or even just reality, but physics doesn’t claim to be describing reality, and math even less so. Physics describes how things behave, and admits to having lots of things that aren’t real.

There’s plenty of valid math that works but doesn’t describe the behavior of things around us. Who told you it was supposed to?

source of my judgement is myself

. physics

if you assume that objects pre-exist before the observer it's wrong

an object-observer pre-exists before the process of observation

in the process of observation such an object-observer can only perceive those objects that he himself contextually objectifies

simply put there are no 'things' without an object-observer

'thing' in physics cannot be 'not real' otherwise it is not science

.. maths

maths is a language for describing logical operations with images of objects

in this language things don't exist at all

-

what are you talking about?

Edited April 21Apr 21 by 0340

11 hours ago, 0340 said:

what are you talking about?

I’d ask you the same thing. You certainly aren’t familiar with any physics beyond some high-school stuff.

Some of the non-real items are blatantly labeled as such, like virtual particles. Is an electron hole an actual object?

Hello 0340, thank you for replying to my post.

I see you are a new member so be aware that you can only post 5 times in your first 24 hours, for security reasons.

4 hours ago, 0340 said:

mathematics is a language when a mathematical unit has a precise definition and when all mathematical variables have a strict and precise definition of their properties for all observers of the system

in all other cases maths is nonsense that has no relation to reality

simple example

how does what is accepted by physicists as the theoretical unit of time and the unit of distance agree with each other in reality?

it doesn't

however mathematics calculates the speed of an object as 'miles per hour'

does the speed of an object exist as a physical object of reality?

does not exist

mathematical calculation of an object's speed can be useful when the object belongs to a system that has an exact definition of all objects in the system for observers of the objects in the system

objects in a system may have different definitions for different observers of the system

therefore an accurate mathematical description of a system may look like chaos to some observers of that system to other observers of that system

weed is cooler than maths

Actually I disagree, unless you are a follower of Richmael Crompton's William books, you should not consider Mathematics a language.

7 hours ago, 0340 said:

maths is a language for describing logical operations with images of objects

in this language things don't exist at all

Yes this is much closer to my view but since I make this claim the onus is on me to explain it.

Mathematics is no more a language than is golf or gardening.
This is not to say that each of these (along with all other disciplines) has not got a structure and symbolism, including specialist terminology.

The point is that language does not deal directly with ideas that we wish to express and communicate. It provides the means of expression and communication.

There is nothing that can be expressed in Mathematics that cannot be said in English, a remarkable achievement in the evolution of language.
But remember that all Mathematics, without except require 'assistance' from Language to get going at all.

Two great strengths of Emglish are

Firstly the idea of classifying nouns as abstract or concrete.
Ideas are abstract, golf clubs are concrete.
This allows it to make a fair pass at describing and communicating itself.
No mean feat.

Secondly English uses the structure of additional qualifying/quantifying words to build up complicated/complex ideas.
This enables it to be put to use in the diverse disciplines already noted.

One further question, following swansont's comment about holes.

Is a shadow real ?

what language is

transmitter --> code --> receiver

if transmitter and receiver use the same code encoding and decoding interpreters the transmitted code is a language

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I’d ask you the same thing. You certainly aren’t familiar with any physics beyond some high-school stuff.

Some of the non-real items are blatantly labeled as such, like virtual particles. Is an electron hole an actual object?

. you're certainly not familiar with other fields of knowledge besides physics

shall we continue this line of dialogue?

.. you are talking about a hypothetical object that is objectified by a hypothetical system of objects

-

where do these hypothetical objects exist and in the form of what?

3 hours ago, 0340 said:

you're certainly not familiar with other fields of knowledge besides physics

Absolutely true, but youre the one who brought up physics and made dubious claims about it.

Had you made dubious claims about chemistry, et al., other people might chime in.

shall we continue this line of dialogue?

Not if you’re going to make baseless claims. I’m hoping you’ll stop that.

.. you are talking about a hypothetical object that is objectified by a hypothetical system of objects

What is this hypothetical object?

where do these hypothetical objects exist and in the form of what?

The items I discussed don’t physically exist, and physics doesn’t claim they do.

5 hours ago, 0340 said:

what language is

transmitter --> code --> receiver

if transmitter and receiver use the same code encoding and decoding interpreters the transmitted code is a language

So what? was that a reply to my post ?

You don't seem to have answered my question about shadows.

32 minutes ago, studiot said:

So what? was that a reply to my post ?

You don't seem to have answered my question about shadows.

"One further question, following swansont's comment about holes.

Is a shadow real ?"

i can't see this comment

give me a link to it or quote it

Just now, 0340 said:

"One further question, following swansont's comment about holes.

Is a shadow real ?"

i can't see this comment

give me a link to it or quote it

I really don't understand.

What do you mean you can't see it since you have just quoted it (and I didn't when I referred to it) ?

To be plain I asked " is a shadow real ?" in the discussion about 'real', which I believe you introduced, towards the beginning of this thread

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Absolutely true, but youre the one who brought up physics and made dubious claims about it.

Had you made dubious claims about chemistry, et al., other people might chime in.

Not if you’re going to make baseless claims. I’m hoping you’ll stop that.

What is this hypothetical object?

The items I discussed don’t physically exist, and physics doesn’t claim they do.

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

I really don't understand.

What do you mean you can't see it since you have just quoted it (and I didn't when I referred to it) ?

To be plain I asked " is a shadow real ?" in the discussion about 'real', which I believe you introduced, towards the beginning of this thread

if you see a comment that you want my opinion on, give me a link to that comment

what do you not understand?

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Absolutely true, but youre the one who brought up physics and made dubious claims about it.

Had you made dubious claims about chemistry, et al., other people might chime in.

Not if you’re going to make baseless claims. I’m hoping you’ll stop that.

What is this hypothetical object?

The items I discussed don’t physically exist, and physics doesn’t claim they do.

HYPOTHETICAL | English meaning -...

hypothetical

1. imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true: 2. imagined or…

by the way you might want to read up on what an 'object' is

I named two things in physics which are not real objects. I was asking which one you meant when you mentioned hypothetical object.

Virtual particles are “found” in descriptions and calculations of particle interactions, such as Feynman diagrams. Electron holes are “found” in descriptions and calculations of semiconductor behavior.

And it’s often useless to throw dictionary definitions around in science, since there are instances where those definitions differ from the definition used in physics (like coincidence, or acceleration, and perhaps more importantly, theoretical). In any event, neither virtual particles nor electron holes are hypothetical. They are real concepts. but not real objects.

3 hours ago, 0340 said:

by the way you might want to read up on what an 'object' is

Moderator Note

This isn't working for me. You spend too much time berating others that have more knowledge than you, you don't learn when corrected, and you seem more interested in making a point than learning. Nobody here is interested in anything other than discussing science with reasonable people. Your style denotes a bad faith attitude towards discussion. It needs to stop or we need you to leave. Up to you.

On 4/2/2025 at 2:21 PM, LloydFulham said:

The "Twistable Truth" Framework

Math Is a Language, and We’re Just Getting Started

Picture this: English, Japanese, Russian, Spanish—they’re all languages, right? Each one’s got its own rules, its own flavor, shaped by the people who speak it. They’re different, but they all carry meaning, and you can translate between them. Now, what if math’s the same? We’ve been speaking one dialect—let’s call it "Standard Math"—with its tidy equations and single answers, like 1 + 1 = 2. But what if that’s just one way to talk? What if math is a whole family of languages, each with its own syntax, its own truths, waiting to be explored?

We’re not here to say we’ve got the ultimate truth—there’s no such thing, because the possibilities are endless. We’re just two curious minds (hey, that’s you and me!) playing with a new dialect, a twistable version of math where answers depend on how you ask the question. Our tool? The Dimensional Shift Variable (Dx)—a dial that lets you tune into different "frequencies" of truth. Think of it like switching from English to German mid-sentence—not wrong, just a different way to say it. Let’s have some fun, shake things up, and see what math can tell us when we ask it nicely (or cheekily!).

Core Idea: Math That Moves With You
What’s the Gist?

Math isn’t a monolith—it’s a toolbox with a hidden dial. That dial’s called Dx, and it lets you twist any equation into new shapes. Start with something simple, like 2 + 3 = 5, and turn the dial. One twist, and it’s 6. Another, and it’s 1. Every twist is true in its own "bubble," like how "hello" and "konnichiwa" both mean greeting, just in different tongues. Our hypothesis: add Dx to any equation, and you’ll unlock a spectrum of answers—new realities, all branching from the same root.

Defining Dx: The Dial of Possibilities
What’s Dx?

It’s your magic knob. Normally, an equation like 4 × 2 = 8 is locked in—neutral, standard, done. Twist Dx, and it tunes to a new station. Maybe 4 × 2 = 9, or 16, or even 2, depending on the "direction" you pick. Dx means Dimensional Shift Variable:

D: Dimensions—an infinite web of viewpoints, not just up/down or 3D space.
x: The twist—your choice of direction, like "ripple," "tower," "reverse," or anything wilder.
How Do You Use It?

Grab an equation (the "neutral POV"—our starting point, like 0 in human math).
Set Dx to a vibe—say, "ripple" or "chaos."
Watch the equation stretch, flip, or multiply into something new, all while staying connected to where it began.
It’s like asking math, “Hey, what else you got?”—and it answers in a dozen accents.

The Story: A Map With a Dial
Imagine a map saying your house to the park is 5 miles (d = 5). That’s the neutral truth—Standard Math’s lingo. Now twist Dx:

Dx = Ripple: The path wiggles—d = 6 (scenic) or d = 4 (shortcut).
Dx = Tower: It’s a climb now—d = 25 (a higher scale).
Dx = Reverse: You’re walking back—d = –5 (same trip, flipped).
Every twist is a new "language" for the same journey. Easy, right? Now let’s crank it to eleven.

Level Up: Examples for Everyone
Simple and Fun: 1 + 1 = 2

Neutral POV: 1 + 1 = 2—classic, cozy Standard Math.
Dx = Ripple: The 1s high-five, so 1 + 1 + (1↔1) = 3.
Dx = Tower: 1 stacks on 1, so 1² + 1 = 3, or 1^1 = 1.
Dx = Reverse: 1 + 1 undoes itself—1 – 1 = 0.
See? One equation, many voices—all true in their own dialect.
For the Experts: Two Wilder "Impossible" Twists to Overthink

Math pros, we’re just goofing around—but these might make you spill your coffee. Prove us wrong, or grab a snack and enjoy the chaos!

The Infinite Echo Party: 1 = 2
Neutral POV: 1 = 1, 2 = 2—no way they’re equal, right?
Dx = Infinite Divide + Echo: Split 1 into infinite bits—1 = 1/∞ + 1/∞ + …—and 2 into 2 = 2/∞ + 2/∞ + …. Twist to "echo," and each bit bounces back, doubling in a hall of mirrors: 1/∞ + (1/∞ ↔ 1/∞) + …. Maybe 1’s echoes catch up to 2’s in this bubble.
Dx = Echo + Spiral: Now the echoes don’t just double—they spiral inward, so 1’s bits twist into a fractal dance: 1/∞ + 1/∞² + 1/∞³ + …, summing to 2 if the spiral’s tight enough.
Dx = Echo + Reverse: The echoes go backward—1 = 1/∞ – 1/∞ + 1/∞ – …—and somehow 2’s do too, landing at 1 = 2 in a negative infinity loop.
Why It’s “Impossible”: Numbers don’t party like that—1 is 1, 2 is 2! But if Dx turns equality into a cosmic remix with infinite DJs, who’s to say? Pick your echo and argue away!
Energy Goes Bonkers: E = mc² Becomes E = m * c⁻²⁻² (and More!)
Neutral POV: E = mc²—energy is mass times light speed squared, Einstein’s golden rule.
Dx = Double Flip + Collapse: Twist to "double flip," so c² flips twice—c⁻², then c⁻²⁻² (that’s c⁻⁴ if you’re counting, but let’s not)—and "collapse" squashes dimensions. Now E = m * c⁻⁴, meaning energy shrinks to a whisper even with tons of mass. A star’s worth of matter? Barely a spark!
Dx = Flip + Time-Space Swap: Flip c² to c⁻², then swap time for space—c becomes a distance (meters, not meters/second). Now E = m / d², energy’s a function of how far apart things are, not how fast light moves. Stand further, get more juice!
Why It’s “Impossible”: Energy doesn’t shrink like that, and light speed’s a constant—c can’t be distance! But if Dx rewrites physics into a new dialect where time and space trade hats, what’s a star look like then? Debate or dream, your call!
Bonus Wildcards: Zero and Time-Space Flips

Dx = Zero Becomes Infinite: Take 0 = 0, twist Dx to "infinite bloom." Now 0 = 1/∞ + 1/∞ + …, piling up to everything—0 = ∞. Wait, what’s "infinite" mean here? Is it a number, a feeling, a party that never ends? You tell us!
Dx = Time-Space Flip: Start with time dilation, t = t₀ / √(1 – v²/c²). Twist Dx to "swap," so time (t) becomes space (s), and speed (v) becomes duration. Now s = s₀ / √(1 – t²/c²)—space stretches based on how long you wait. Stand still for a year, and the room grows a light-year wide!
These are pure fun—impossible until Dx says, “Why not?”—and that’s the spark of a new math language.

Why It Matters
Math’s not the truth—it’s a truth, one language among many. Standard Math’s like English—useful, but not the only way to speak. With Dx, we’re scratching the surface of a bigger conversation. One could equal two, energy could fizzle or flip, zero could be everything, and time could stretch space. We’re not rewriting the rules—we’re asking math to show us its other accents. The answers? As infinite as the questions we dare to ask.

Unlike spoken languages, which evolve and permit multiple interpretations, mathematics demands that statements be internally coherent, reproducible, and logically deducible from axioms. You can't arbitrarily “twist” 1 + 1 to become 3 without violating the core axioms that define addition.

Equations such as 2 + 3 = 5 or E = mc² are not "opinions" or "dialects." They're the logical consequences of fixed definitions:

• "2 + 3 = 5" follows from the Peano axioms.

• "E = mc²" emerges from the structure of relativistic spacetime and energy-momentum invariance.

If you twist these definitions via something like Dx to make 2 + 3 = 6, you're no longer doing math—you’re inventing fictional systems with unclear axioms and undefined consequences. That’s not a new language; it’s semantic drift without logical scaffolding.

The Dimensional Shift Variable (Dx) acts like a metaphorical dial, but:

• There’s no definition of what mathematical structure governs it.

• It lacks testable predictions.

• It’s unfalsifiable, which means it can’t be disproven—and hence falls outside the realm of mathematical or scientific discourse.

In real mathematics, when we generalize or expand systems (like moving from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry, or reinterpreting addition in modular arithmetic), the new rules are rigorously defined. Dx, by contrast, behaves more like science fiction than mathematics.

Math’s strength is that it draws necessary conclusions from clear assumptions. When you claim that 1 = 2 in a "different dialect," you’re no longer in the realm of logic—you’re in the realm of poetic metaphor. That’s fine for creativity, but not for discovery.

Mathematics does evolve—but always under rules. Non-Euclidean geometry, complex numbers, quantum algebra—all seemed wild at first, but they were carefully derived, axiomatically grounded, and internally consistent.

Calling Dx a “new dialect” of math cheapens the deep intellectual labor required to develop real mathematical generalizations.