What if it's August 3?

 

One possibility is, that my math proof regarding the Hodge Conjecture was correct.  Maybe it's August 3.  I can't be sure if my Hodge Conjecture proof was right.  Dr. Helmstutler claimed it was wrong, but didn't say why.  I am suspicious.  It might have been correct, I thought I looked up and used all the definitions correctly.  I don't know the applications of the Hodge Conjecture to real life.


It could be that the meaning of Dr. Glasser's code is that the "mad designer," i.e., me, the mentally ill proof designer, is feeling very frustrated and upset, and will continue to feel that way up through July 30, because July 30 is not the date.  Maybe the idea is, given the clues, things will improve shortly after that.  I suspect Dr. Glasser wants me to keep working on mentalizing this way, because it is good for my brain health.


It could be that the Sandra Hesse code was correct.  HOLA.  Maybe it's just supposed to be a clue.  It might be a "checking helper," like Joshua Zelinsky's code.


Maybe Dr. Glasser's point is, it is *after* July 30.  Maybe she baited the John Steg imposter guy into doing the "look anniversary" thing.  I bet it's August 3, 1 day before Ludwig Otto Hesse's birthday.


That comes out to EU from the JZ code.  It's fine to say U = -5, because JZ is a number theorist.


How many days after July 30 is it?  4.  So that's, ZZD.  004?  Some sort of James Bond reference?  I don't get it.  Maybe, because she put the code up in January or so of 2022, it's, DD.  Defense Department.


So I have:  Eliza Unit, Defense Department, and Dr. Caroline Coster (CC, from the arrest date).  Maybe:  All three of these entities tried to get the date to happen as fast as they could.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more