[purveyor of knowledge]

Dear Dleviwing,

I appreciate your comments and please won't you help me to better myself as you say. It is your contention that I cannot just go about giving the undivided value in math a definition and thus try to change everything we have ever thought or believed because I have not fully demonstrated my mastery or understanding of the current knowledges and conventions of science and mathematics.

It is for this reason only, that you say I am not well versed in the current understandings, that I shall informatively point out again that I scored a %99 for math on the ACT, and I am studying physics, and everything. It is not for bragging rights that I do this, merely to show people that I seem to be already going the route that you are suggesting I go and believe you me it is no trouble for me and I already understand it quite well. There is nothing that I cannot understand and the same goes for you, even though you may not have scored as highly as me on this arbitrary test known as the ACT. And even though you are not published in a major peer review and I am, I know these are meaningless accolades.

If you would truly like to get down to the nitty gritty and discuss why or why not a magnanimous, complete, and undivided value can or cannot be defined I think you have only to try me. You may find I am every bit as competent to have such a discussion/argument as you could dream, but have not yet dared to. You will find that whether or not there is a definition to the undivided value is tantamount to asking whether or not there is meaning for reason, and for life itself.

For example, one such as you, and such as myself, who knows that to a certain perspective there can be no "undivided value" because it would imply that negative infinity and positive infinity would have to meet at a point, should also be able to understand that maybe this is not impossible after all. In fact, the amazing and world-view changing possibility of just such a thing is what will lead one readily to the final conclusion, of what will happen after the "Big Rip," as Robert Caldwell of Darmouth University calls it. And this is that conclusion dleviwing: the universe will reverse when the two points in space separated by a planck distance begin expanding away from eachother at greater than TSOL. Now how can that prediction be made without an understanding of both quantum mechanics, general relativity, and 1/0?

I entreat good sir, please, ask me anything about Math or Physics and you can test my knowledge about how much I really do or do not know. Perhaps you can teach me more. But you have not volunteered to test this yet, so how do you know I am not fully ready and indeed accurate for stepping out and defining the heretofor undefined, absolute greatest value, which is none other than that amount which is the total amount of living energy that continually provides for and sustains the unified field through it's expansion process. Imagine it.

Is there nothing about the number 1/0 that is known to others that is not known to me? Tell me dleviwing, what is it about 1/0 that I do not know? Also tell me dleviwing, why must the absolute greatest value in mathematics and in morality be undefined? Is it because it shows us that everything is possible, for we are not yet ready to understand or believe this? Think about it for real dear sir knight.

I am glad that you get a kick out of my posts, and indeed I try to write them in sufficient style so as to be entertaining, as well as enlightening. I am hear to teach you all what I have learned, and to learn from you, but also in the hopes that it will be fun as well. So don't worry about lightning strikes dear friend. Why don't you go out and build one yourself and you'll see that I'm not lying. Huh?

Or, why don't you explain to me what 1/0 is. Let us test your knowledge why don't we?

all in good fun and in the hopes we will all come to a greater understanding of eachother and of this thing we call everything,

is that not the power of a theory?
pok