Mental maths

[Moon Kyu Seong]

Hi all, just curious, does anyone know if practicing mental maths is an effective way to become smarter(better memory, ability to visualize and maintain awareness of more details in my mind, etc)? I've been practicing, and it seems to be within the scope of mental maths to a certain extent, since I've been able to progress from 3 by 2 multiplication to 3 by 3s and 4 by 2s, but I'm not sure about the transfer effects. I also don't see much discussion about mental maths here, which is weird because if one makes sure to prevent oneself from going back to the same numbers to repeat them, in order to practice recall of digits at the limit of their memory, the recall aspect doesn't seem to be too different from n-back, and it certainly seems to be more applicable to real life thinking since it requires one to switch between recall of digits, reasoning of digits' relative locations, and mathematical manipulation in a quick and organized manner..... maybe worth investing a bit of time and research into? Idk just wondering.

[Moon Kyu Seong]

I've also been thinking about habitualizing this sort of thinking/mind mapping/practice of detailed visualization: https://www.quora.com/How-do-math-geniuses-understand-extremely-hard-math-concepts-so-quickly... curious about what you all think about this

[aaa]

you might want to try the exercises in the following book

Psychological Exercises and Essays by Alfred R. Orage

[Fredo Corleone]

I've practiced mental math and it just made me faster doing calculation, at most it increased my numeric sense and confidence.
Learning tirelessly is the only thing that can significantly increase your IQ, beside that nootropics may work.

[Moon Kyu Seong]

Could you give a(few) examples on the mathematical abstraction of patterns part of "math streaming"? I want to know in more detail what exactly you mean and the kind of stimuli you mean for us to be considering while thinking/"streaming" in this manner.

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:34:32 PM UTC+9, Hi wrote:

Just for the heads up, I highly doubt anyone will need anymore explanation after they've thought and thought and thought about it until it sinks in so I will refrain from doing so regardless as to the questions given the benefit of any challenge pertaining to understanding what I've said here. That is all I have to say on the matter, unfortunately time is sparse. In as much as someone has thought through what I've said and wishes to discuss it further, others feel free to do so amongst yourselves.

All the best and Godspeed!

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 6:39:04 PM UTC+10, Hi wrote:

Yes I briefly mentioned it ages ago. Here is a further addition to it.

I have to be bluntly honest yal are way, way behind the 8 ball especially these image streaming folk, and those n-back folk, well.. I won't even go there. Let's just say a few cognitive biases are at work keeping people from actualising themselves beyond the illusions of the placebo effect here. This is just to push you along, remember that the map is not the territory, if you want to have real success you have to detach yourself from the known world, open your mind and try something new like the technique I'm proposing in this comment. Good luck and I have relative respect for anyone making sincere efforts to improving their cognition, its obviously not the easiest thing to do and nor should it be!

I call it math streaming, the difference between this and image streaming is that:

(1) You're streaming patterns not mindlessly describing details like a moron with no imagination (which is what you do in image streaming - I'm not calling people morons, I'm saying its a moronic activity. Very big difference :-) ) .

(2) You symbolically represent the patterns you've discerned as interactions between symbolically represented variables in a math equation which may also have patterns as subsets to them.

(3) You make sure you symbolically represent as many quality patterns between and within objects.

(4) Ensure that there is logical connections between all of the variables.

(5) Ensure the symbolic representations are different every time. The symbols can be anything you want, I just recommend that they stay novel, this will keep the task less automatic and more challenging while simultaneously facilitating imagination along with the other efforts.

This task is not for the faint-hearted, so if anyone has questions in relation to it please address my ideas here with thoughtfulness. Simple questions and or statements will not be responded to, only those responses that are at least a decent paragraph long expressing strong interest in the activity. This is because I only want to invest my time in describing the technique further to those extremely interested and sincere in properly improving their cognition. This technique is simultaneously the most pure I've ever created and come across. It taxes working memory hugely, especially your focus, and more so than any other task I've attempted. It goes without saying that it's highly g loaded with respect to it pertaining to the perception and organisation of patterns.

[fruitsnackattack]

Fuck you, if this shit really does make you smarter then you'll find find a way to earn cash through merit. That's why I've already copied this and have sent this to many people across the internet.

You piss me off, you are very arrogant like me and you have stumbled upon something that you havefaith in to the point were artistically promote and endorse with providing any proof. Yes, you are very similar to me.

You will get no credit for this. No one will. If it works then it belongs to everyone.

[fruitsnackattack]

No fuck you, my friend. You're not a genius and this technique isnt even creative. Literally reading a wide variety of mathematical, scientific, and natural literature would achieve the same effect except I'd at least develop the skill intuitively.

[Hi]

Only Moon Kyu Seong shall receive the benefit now, he has been emailed accordingly. Ungrateful snots should really reconsider the terms upon which they live their life. I have no interest in communicating and engaging with them. 

And yes, anyone who merely compares it to reading literature is not worthy obviously to see its value given they can't differentiate between perception and knowledge, this is of course why they need to do such training but I'm slightly less foolish than the foolish act of pressing on it.

All the best.

[Hi]

And fruitsnakattack, if I'm very similar to you that by definition makes me a moron relative to the rest of the population. Yippee! No thank you. You're projecting, look it up on wikipedia buddy.

[Moon Kyu Seong]

I'm willing to repost the second(the more detailed ; the only one I copied on my stickies) part of Hi's "math streaming" if anyone wants me to. We all want to benefit off from each other's ideas, and if anyone's willing to be satisfied with just being able to come up with one amazing idea and be done with it, without further investigation, discussion with others about it, and more potential ways of improving the idea or developing the ability to come up with even more ingenious ones, then that's unfortunate.

About "math streaming":

Tbh, I think it's another cool method of thinking, especially useful if we have enough data and general knowledge about how the pieces of any complex system works, with the goal of optimization for any variable within the given complex system. It does tax working memory because it's hard to keep track of all the different relationships and patterns that could be integrated in order to create more comprehensive formulas that determine(or at least hint at) the relationships between a group of interconnected variables, but more so short term memory because some of the potential relationships and patterns that are recognized are stored at the back of our minds until something we can link them to in a relatively useful/significant way pops up. Also, I think that with enough practice, one should really start to get an intuitive feel for where the more important or generalizable patterns and relationships can be derived from, which I think is a great meta skill that could be applied to any field. At the very least, it can teach us where to find potential relationships between variables that we may otherwise ignore, for example, the relationships between the total volume of any successful group of bottled products, the volume used per week, and how well each bottled product being analyzed for the previous two variables sell. Downside is, not many have the willpower nor time to make a habit of this, enough so that they really see dramatic results, and to be more critical, we don't know if it works the way we think it does, to the degree we want it to. It could definitely help improve a generalizable skill, but I wouldn't be too sure about generalizable ability(working memory, short term memory, relative to other exercises that could be pursued). If someone could come up with a computer program/game that combines the most relatively useful elements of "math streaming"(especially those focused on pattern recognition) with N-back(automatic feedback+stimuli & memory & attention), mental maths(visualization & attention), while making it both fun and challenging to the right degree, it could be damn cool.

Also, lets not be arrogant to a degree to which we disgust others. If that limit is unclear, why not play it safe. And if this is an extension of another argument, no one wants a piece of that. Most of us are ungrateful snots at some of the most inopportune moments, and no one has yet to come up with a simple, universal, timeless(couldn't help but notice what seemed to be implied) definition of creativity(why should it be creative in the first place?). If not for your sake, then for other's.

But I want to think more about how it should(or any other method that hasn't been thoroughly discussed about but seem very interesting) work and its effects, theoretically, which I'll leave up to not just myself. I'm really interested what both of you have to say given the tone of your replies lol.

On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 12:08:27 PM UTC+9, Moon Kyu Seong wrote:

[Hi]

Yes I honestly don't care what you do with it Moon I just don't like wasting my time with most people about it, its good to see though that you've been able to grasp it that means there's some hope you'll be able to bear its fruit with enough training. 

I believe not following my wishes is a demonstration of a lack of respect for the efforts I've taken but that is your own destiny you've chosen to carve out which is of course none of my business. So given you've decided what my own choices should be relative to my own ideas, I have no interest in sharing more of what I've come up with but I do wish you the best.

I've created it in such a way that yes it indeed does tap all important mechanisms that are tested on say a standard to high level Raven's Progressive Matrices test. 

Intelligence as I've defined it is the ability to perceive, differentiate (i.e. between), hold and manipulate relationships. Math streaming achieves this to the level that one wishes to go. 

Although I sincerely wish others the best on the endeavour I highly doubt anyone on this forum will be able to come up with something better, perhaps one or two persons but they very, very rarely comment. I'm mostly a lone wolf in this respect and have been for a while enough for me to conclude that the likelihood that someone here is going to propose a better method is extremely remote.

Good luck and all the best to all, that'll be all from me now! :)

[Carlos]

Hi, I would like also to received an example of how to start practicing. Just when I was preparing to do the Ontological streaming by memorizing the Categories you came with this new Math Streaming that have sparkled my interested. I have working on developing a similar way of improving cognition but involving the help of what is called "subconscious" mind, Of course each one have its own definition of that part of the mind. Basically my theory if that the subconscious already is inmmersed in that field of math information and I need  to form the bridge from the conscious mind .

[Fredo Corleone]

"all the different relationships and patterns that could be integrated in order to create more comprehensive formulas that determine the relationships between a group of interconnected variables" that's to me a mental model of something. Not to bother you but forming mental models about things is normal, and that's what most of us do everyday. I think it helps developing deep understand around things, but how would it help spark creativity/new insights? I mean how would it help increase fluid intelligence? I don't believe in the WM-bottleneck theory. :P

[DAL]

I concur with this point. All Relationships in discovered Patterns are subjected to the Uncertainty principle . Any discovery of patterns or relationships should be fluid , it is only when the conscious side of the mind tries to freeze it  that becomes a taxing task .

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:17 AM Fredo Corleone <stopchemt...@gmail.com> wrote:

"all the different relationships and patterns that could be integrated in order to create more comprehensive formulas that determine the relationships between a group of interconnected variables" that's to me a mental model of something. Not to bother you but forming mental models about things is normal, and that's what most of us do everyday. I think it helps developing deep understand around things, but how would it help spark creativity/new insights? I mean how would it help increase fluid intelligence? I don't believe in the WM-bottleneck theory. :P

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/10c2df9d-0339-456a-8be2-29536ade673d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[DAL]

I am interested, would you email me the detailed instructions ?

[Hi]

By the way I think Brandon Woodson and Jonathan Toomim deserve credit, I most likely wouldn’t have come up with it if Jonathan never facilitated this place and I have no doubt that learning Brandon’s abstraction of the ontological categories from the menu website had a considerable positive impact on the likelihood that I’d come up with it. It’s a pity they and say someone like argumzio (as believe it or not he actually influenced me as well) isn’t available to make creative expansions on what I’ve shared. Again, good luck!

[Hi]

And yes, I’m quite happy for others to email it to one another my preference as disclosed is for it to not be publicly disclosed, hence my disagreement up to that point. My advice is to share it with those that either sincerely deserve it or haven’t shown themselves to not deserve it. That is all, again all the best.

[Moon Kyu Seong]

@Fredo Corleone and maybe Carlos

I think this is connected to questioning why N-back should really be so effective in increasing wm or fluid intelligence. I think we're assuming it is because it seems to tax wm and attention rather intensely. So why can't anything else that heavily taxes wm and attention help increase fluid intelligence? Actually, given that fluid intelligence is more a measure of pattern recognition than just memory, shouldn't any exercise that forces us to operate at our wm limit for prolonged periods of time, coupled with pattern recognition be more useful for improving fluid intelligence? If we really want to, we could break down every single step involved in any memory-intensive cognitive task, like forcing yourself to create a tree of possibilities in order to set up your opponent in chess, absorbing a list of mathematic formulas and concepts and using those newly learned concepts right away to solve a problem, etc, and we can see that most of them, if done at a certain level of difficulty, definitely require us to operate at the limit of our wm and short term memory. Maybe just not as often over a given period of training time than N-back.

I don't think we just go around operating at the limit of our working and short term memory without much effort, or at least often enough so that it makes a significant difference across an appropriate period of time. You asked "helps developing deep understand around things, but how would it help spark creativity/new insights?". Imo, digging deeper past what is easily visible in order to find patterns and relationships between variables we haven't seriously considered before is just another way to "spark creativity/new insights." I think the subconscious is what limits our conscious awareness of potential mental models to be found past what is easily visible, because most of the time we don't want to think hard and we want to just absorb information at the surface level. Maybe linked to why so many people love mindlessly scrolling through sns feeds and watching tv. Maybe making a habit of seeing past our routine surface level perceptions to an extent where we become comfortable developing deeper understandings of the systems we come across(at a certain, feasible level) is one way to continuously generate new insights and gain more useful mental models over a given period of time(more effective than gaining new insights through relatively surface level perception). And ofc, this would require operating at a level that taxes wm and short term memory to a higher degree than how we usually function. I think math streaming is one framework of thinking that does this, especially because it forces conscious thinking about how exactly(mathematically) different quantifiable variables relate to each other in a predictive fashion, but it's hard for most(certainly me) to make a habit of, the way it is right now, and in terms of training just working memory, it's not as effective as N-back over the same period of time(less number of times we attempt to recall something at the back of our minds over a period of say, one minute). But for this second point, we need to think more about how the type of recall exercised in N-back transfers into everyday life(I'm thinking pretty different conditions and goals of engaging wm compared to typical cognitively challenging tasks)

So I guess a framework or method of perceiving every day life/thinking that stresses our working memory, short term memory, and pattern recognition effectively(more often/intensely compared to time invested) while making the process easier to follow/genuinely fun(good application of how motivation and reward systems work would be useful here) would be effective because it's available to us at all times, and because we tend to be, subconsciously, more directed towards/less directed away from things we find easier(in terms of willpower). We go on autopilot, or let our subconscious take control, 90-95% of our day(i think i read this somewhere), so how much the subconscious wants us/doesn't want us to do something is very, very important imo, when talking about habits. 

[Hi]

Very happy for others to believe what they wish and I am not at all motivated to change strongly held beliefs however in saying that I can assure you intelligence isn’t complicated there’s just a lot of confusion around the topic. All you’ll need to do is start with practicing relational/streaming and then slowly build to mathematical streaming (which obviously has a much greater working memory load). Unless you already have a great working memory it’s important to try and reach at least some competency in mathematical streaming streaming if you want to be able to solve harder questions on IQ (those relating to Raven’s) tests because they generally always have a much higher working memory load.

[Hi]

So I've had a few people message me now about the streaming process, I promise to get back to you. 

Otherwise that's how you know someone deserves it, when they go to the effort of stating their intentions, thoughts and queries in relation to the activity, of which all people who have messaged me have done. It allows me to get a relatively good sense of the person before I decide to help or not (of which I will for all people that have messaged).

I have ZERO desire to help people that do not deserve it, there's many people in the world that you simply wouldn't want to have them knowing how to improve their intelligence. This is of course the wisdom of not revealing everything to the public about various subjects, improving intelligence to me is one of them.

This is an important wise point that needs to be recognised by people who have not thought long and deeply enough on the subject of disclosure versus non-disclosure with respect to the revealing of various kinds of information.

All the best.

[Fredo Corleone]

You are too touchy. I don't get why you act this way. It's childish, you invest your time writing things, that may end up being useful, erasing them shortly afterwards in an angry outburst. Bah...

[DAL]

that's all fine and dandy but just so you know the saiyans are coming.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hi <film.the.ri...@gmail.com> wrote:

So I've had a few people message me now about the streaming process, I promise to get back to you. 

Otherwise that's how you know someone deserves it, when they go to the effort of stating their intentions, thoughts and queries in relation to the activity, of which all people who have messaged me have done. It allows me to get a relatively good sense of the person before I decide to help or not (of which I will for all people that have messaged).

I have ZERO desire helping people that do not deserve it, there's many people in the world that you simply wouldn't want to have them knowing how to improve their intelligence. This is of course the wisdom of not revealing everything to the public about various subjects, improving intelligence to me is one of them.

[Noah I. Ydreskog]

Yeah.  I think Hi made his/her point clear quite a few replies ago.  No need to keep on elaborating on how unworthy we all are.

/n

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/brain-training/CADszJxXOx3hf9GuuZDp9LeGKZc63JLC-GcPauKGCxLaJ5TPzuw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hi]

Exactly where is the angry outburst? Fredo you’re projecting your own value system along with what that value system looks like onto me. I deleted my comments for aforementioned reasons, it’s not an angry outburst, it’s a simple withdrawal of respect after respect isn’t shown. That’s standard tit for tat game theory, if I don’t act accordingly there’s a higher likelihood the results won’t improve.

I’m not here to discuss behaviour and I hope no one here is either, I suggest that you remember your intentions for being a part of this forum as opposed to reducing it to subjective and culturally biased evaluations.

I have my values and others have there’s, the way I’ve learned trade works is when people trade according to their value sets. When people have differing values, then it is up for the other person to meet those values if they want something the other person has. If there is no desire to have that, let’s say it’s a car, then there is of course no need to meet the other persons values. My values are based around integrity on release, that’s literally it. This means that I believe I have a personal responsibility to share it with those that have integrity, a realisation that’s only recently surfaced in my mind.

Now that I’ve cleared that up I hope we can go back to the actual purpose of the group here as opposed to encouraging others to get caught up in their own projections about me, this subject or otherwise. Peace.

[Fredo Corleone]

"Exactly where is the angry outburst?" That's a good questions. I guess the answer lies in all your deleted messages.

"it’s a simple withdrawal of respect after respect isn’t shown." it was your intention to delete your message since the very beginning, don't you remember?

I know that those messages by fruitsnackattack were disgraceful, I hope he understands that. But is one person out of many, come on... :)

I don't think there's any point in continuing this "debate". You delete your messages because you either don't really want to disclose things or you don't want to debate on them (I opt for the latter).

That's not fair.

It's a one way conversation.

If you really believed this community worthy of conversation, you wouldn't act that way.

All the best.

Again all the best.

Peace and good luck!

[Hi]

"That's a good questions. I guess the answer lies in all your deleted messages. "

You should have received them as an email given you responded earlier than I, the same with many other members here. In so saying as much, feel free to cite said evidence otherwise it becomes all too convenient to say "they're deleted messages", 

at least one earlier person should be able to perform the redundant activity I've trying to "prove a point" that has nothing to do with the focus of discussion here.

I do not at all perceive this as a community for healthy discussion as per what I've observed to date including in my interactions with yourself, you don't get to be sarcastic and assume the other person is going to take you seriously Fredo. Mature interactions in my experience simply don't work that way. 

I shared shortsightedly, in hindsight I should have simply said "send me an email to discuss", of which people have done anyway and of which I've shared many more of my own insights privately with them simply because they were humble enough to ask.

I've been on this forum for long enough to realise its limitations with respect to healthy discussion. If one is taking an honest look at things it really doesn't take too long to workout that there are smarter means of discussing these things at higher levels than to do so on an open forum where anyone can come in to derail conversation.

And Fredo, I haven't seen you act towards me with much sincerity enough for me to entertain the idea that I could take your own attempts to communicate with me seriously, so in all honesty if you do choose to send me an email, not that I expect you to beyond a low likelihood, I'm probably not going to be as graceful towards you compared to others but you will get sincerity and in as much as I've discerned it from yourself, things will move in a better direction with each interaction.

[Fredo Corleone]

I've disabled notification long time ago, therefore I don't receive any email and I check the forum every now and then. By the way I've took a screenshot in which you've said the technique would have remained for at least a week, but you deleted nonetheless.

"I should have simply said "send me an email to discuss", of which people have done anyway and of which I've shared many more of my own insights privately" don't you think that broadcasting the message once for all is a smarter way to convey your idea? Apart from the useless comments, the forum is not only a broadcasting option but it acts, in a way, as a versioning tool of arguments.

"Only Moon Kyu Seong shall receive the benefit now [...] Ungrateful snots should really reconsider the terms upon which they live their life." was this necessary? Why should you even care about not informing the "Ungrateful snots" in the first place? I must admit your argument is outside the scope of my intelligence.

I don't want to debate over this and pollute this topic any further. You are unfair and biased toward the community.

[Hi]

"You are unfair and biased on so many levels."

You are entitled to your opinion but I do not need to respect those opinions that are neither based in reality nor attempt to be based in reality. The comment was addressed to fruitsnackattack, a comment which I believe was well deserved in the context of tit for tat. Two contexts of which you either did not notice but nonetheless have not encapsulated in your observations.

I don't know who you are, your age or your experiences, so I want go as far as yourself into assuming much about you or your intentions but in saying that, epistemically, if you want to be closer to truth on this subject you'll have to really evaluate the presuppositions for your reasoning. Evaluation will reveal a completely new world, one that is far more beautiful.

This is not really for debate given the vast scientific literature that exists with respect to the gap between personal opinion and reality, effective self questioning thus then can only enlighten.

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:49:29 PM UTC+10, Fredo Corleone wrote:

I've disabled notification long time ago, therefore I don't receive any email and I check the forum every now and then. By the way I've took a screenshot in which you've said the technique would have remained for at least a week, but you deleted nonetheless.

"I should have simply said "send me an email to discuss", of which people have done anyway and of which I've shared many more of my own insights privately" don't you think that broadcasting the message once for all is a smarter way to convey your idea? Apart from the useless comments, the forum is not only a broadcasting option but it acts, in a way, as a versioning tool of arguments.

"Only Moon Kyu Seong shall receive the benefit now [...] Ungrateful snots should really reconsider the terms upon which they live their life." was this necessary? Why should you even care about not informing the "Ungrateful snots" in the first place? I must admit your argument is outside the scope of my intelligence.

I'm don't want to debate over this and pollute this topic any further. You are unfair and biased toward the community.

[Hi]

I have no interest in publicly sharing ideas here anymore, I find people tend to be far more sincere in private conversation and because that is the pattern I've noticed that is the pattern I should follow. 

And Fredo this is not a community, unfortunately this is just another projection. 

This internet space is merely composed of random people commenting on a forum that'll probably never meet each other in real life. This is why I predict one on one conversation provides much more reliable positive results in terms of offering more mutual respect and understanding. Even if it was a community, what are its values? Without a proper ethical structure and adherence therein the integrity of ideas and their exchange cannot be ensured. 

I don't wish to continue communicating with you if all you have to offer is disagreement with my own approach, you're either (1) sincerely interested in my idea and would like to learn more about it by contacting me directly (2) would like to offer other people here ideas (3) discuss other ideas here unrelated to me and more related to the subject of intelligence (4) if none of these three or something sensible my recommendation is to simply not comment as you're merely, purposefully it seems to me, putting myself in a position wherein you make a claim about myself and I have to refute its baselessness. This isn't a childish victim vs perpetrator game I wish to play anymore.

[Hi]

For those more advanced users here that are up to date on what I’ve been referring to, an idea that I’m happy to share (not the details of course to avoid needless open comments from others) is to work towards developing what I’d refer to as a supertautological reasoning structure (SRS). The SRS referentially (between ideas) informs the structure of perceived information through a function who’s output is designed to move one closer to the absolute possible truth relative to the information being sorted, albeit, relative to one’s capacities.

This idea came about as an inference to Christopher Langan’s idea of a supertautology, so its a very natural consequence. An example is the integration of say the ontological categories as relayed by Brandon Woodson with math streaming. To me it seems like the very essence of math itself, however I haven’t ever come across something that generated on the basis predefined proof criteria that can aid one to find a single output of truth or sets therein.

Feel free to share ideas and if you’d like to discuss in greater depth, as stated I’d prefer to be emailed for aforementioned reasons as opposed to entertaining public discussion.

[Fredo Corleone]

"[...]to work towards developing what I’d refer to as a supertautological reasoning structure (SRS). The SRS referentially (between ideas) informs the structure of perceived information through a function who’s output is designed to move one closer to the absolute possible truth relative to the information being sorted, albeit, relative to one’s capacities."

You seem to have the same problem Langan has: unnecessarily complicated jargon. From my point of view your posts contain little concrete argument, if anything.

[Hi]

Fredo you're a waste of time. I've already stated I'm only conversing privately hence the lack fo elaboration. There's something wrong with you if you can't respect people's preferred mode of contact. Its a little creepy to be honest.

[Hi]

And that just shows you the kind of person you are or at least being, insulting someones work of which you probably know little to nothing about. You've probably done a few internet searches, seen negative comments and then jumped on the bandwagon like a mindless sheep. 

You deserve an award for being a wall of ignorance. You probably want my arguments so that you can use them in your research and ideas, well you an't getting them, that's something you don't deserve. I have nothing to prove to a person like you. How on Earth do you expect me to provide you with any kind of respect equivalent to sharing everything I have publicly, let alone privately now? As stated I've shared much more with others privately regarding those that have contacted me directly. You're an idiot.

[Noah I.]

Hey c’mon guys, you’re both being childish.  There’s a point where you gotta stop arguing.  If the other party does not understand, then so be it.  Don’t waste your time (and my inbox storage!) on this crap.

-Noah

[Hi]

These people just want attention that's all, they're reaction seekers - you gotta call a spade a spade sometimes Noah. I've already made myself perfectly clear so unless they have an IQ of around 80, this is really the only reliable conclusion.

I'll do the thread a favour and just ignore them from now on. In light of that this will officially be my last message on this discussion board, its absolutely abhorrent some of the people we have commenting here. For those that wish to contact me, as noted, please just contact me directly. You will be vetted first just so I can get to know your interests relevant to discussion is all.

Kind regards.

[Fredo Corleone]

That's cool. You snap for very little things. I see you are unable to de-abstract your arguments, you keep the registry "high" either because you wanna look smart or you don't really give a shit about others. By the way you don't impress me with your jargon!

[Hi]

I make snappy comments because I can say whatever I want to whomever I want relative to my standards (of which are generally quite good). You don't like it, just buzz off. It's pretty simple. Your own intolerance of my standards is merely a reflection upon yourself. I recommend looking up ad hominen's. You're in a hole from where I can see, no ideational platform to stand on other than things you already know don't work and knowledge which you don't adequately have to support your ventures. Instead of being just normal towards me you've decided to bring down someone that wishes to share answers, well that only reflects weakly regarding (1) your character (2) your self esteem (3) your humility. All you had to do was act normally, not judge and simply observe what someones way of going about things was then act accordingly as opposed to trying to change the world to fit your look on things. 

Life simply doesn't work like that. Accept reality and move on, this interaction is going no where.

[fruitsnackattack]

Hi

Fuck off you cocky bastard, stop trying to get other people to prove technique because you're too lazy and undisciplined to do it yourself. If I had a technique like that, and wasnt bogged down by existential problems. I do it myself and shut the naysayers up myself.

If you're so damn smart you should be able to see the long term results of you proving your technique and changing lives.

[Hi]

Where am I trying?

It's called merely to try and be of use.

If you were so smart you'd be able to properly read and infer comments but hey, I guess you're not but don't worry I have empathy for you there as that part isn't necessarily really your fault.

All the best and don't be too hard on yourself, however simply try to avoid making assumptions, it'll work in your favour.

[Xander Mc Innis]

It'd be delightful if someone could provide me with further details vis-a-vis Math Streaming (MS). Additionally, if you ('Hi') still browse this thread and end up stumbling upon my following query, I'd appreciate a response. (Contacting you directly is out of the question, as I can't seem to locate your email address.)

Would the following accurately depict a basic MS session:
1. Discern raw patterns: I.e., say we perceive a relationship between the height of a person (in inches) and their weight (in pounds). We can formulate this relational structure as a pattern that the taller a person is, the more they weigh on average.
2. Symbolize patterns as interactions between variables in a math equation: We can represent this pattern via the variables "h" for height and "w" for weight, and create an equation that describes the relationship between the two variables. For example, we might use the equation w = k * h, where k is a constant that represents the rate at which weight increases with height.
3. Symbolize as many patterns and logical connections: Let's say we also detect the pattern that a person's age, symbolically represented by the variable "a", can influence the weight (e.g., 5 y.o. vs 20 y.o.), thus adding another pattern to the equation via variable "a" and a new constant, "b", symbolically representing the rate at which weight increases with age: w = k * h + b * a.
4. Symbolize in a novel manner: Instead of using the variables "h" and "w" to represent height and weight, we can use "x" and "y", respectively. We can also express the equation in terms of the natural logarithm, which can help us simplify the equation and make it easier to analyze. The equation then becomes y = k * ln(x) + b * ln(a).

Although it's only a basic example, it demonstrates how symbolic cognitive development through MS accustomization can facilitate a higher-order threshold for analytical thinking, information processing, and pattern recognition via the emphasis on training the actual "perception and organization of patterns", which can then be combined to create more complex representations that reveal deeper insights into the relationships between variables, which can be generically utilized in daily situations, but goes even deeper by developing one's ingenuity as well as logical intuition, and developing working memory via the internalization and continual advancement of a coherent, intensive, and extensive structure of the primary core elements of cognition. Do correct me if I'm wrong, and apologies for any potential typos or extraneous phrases; time is severely limited (at the time of this posting) for me to edit. Thanks.