Interactive Online Tutoring Services

Are there concepts, beyond mathematical concepts, which we can apply concept sharing to? For some people who do not enjoy or feel their is an importance to math this could then have some interest.

It seems these concepts would have to be exact, like math concepts are exact.

Death:

Right away then I thought, what about death? Certainly this should interest us all, as we seem to be finite beings. But what if we thought of death as a concept?

Then it can be thought of as a nothingness. But using math I have shown there to be a type of life in nothingness!

So then I have some good news for those who think that death may be the end.

If two “points” can be hidden as one, (uncovering a new level as seen in math concept sharing-this then is the death of death) then we may have more than one death which implies more than one life.

Then the goal would seem to be aware of this cycle.

So now there is proof of life after death to go along with the faith.

Life:

Since life is the opposite to death, then we can define life as consisting of a fullness, as we consider death to be an emptiness.

But with the understanding that one may live many lives-from the emptiness of death giving more than one death-we may have a type of fullness existing over many lifetimes. Thus it is not necessary to experience as much as possible in only one life! With many lives available to us, there are many more possibilities.

God:

Since there is more than one life, there needs to be a management. Hence a higher being.

Accidents, Illness…

Some might say what then about accidents and illnesses. But it can be thought that these are all a part of God’s plan. That these all have a purpose to help man to avoid future accidents with more safety and help people to live longer, fuller lives if we can overcome our illnesses.

The right way to live:

To do good in the world. To help mankind, would seem the right way to live.

I place the trefoil, partially back together then move the four joinings through the reformed 2 and 3 sharings until they can possibly form a new diagram. I show it is not possible to form this diagram in positive space so that the trefoil is knotted.

From Knotscape I have found this diagram of Perko A. Crossings 1 through 10 shown (the orientation of the crossings written below the number, all are negative except number 9). Also I found a diagram of Perko B which is shown later. I proceed to move these diagrams into negative space, this is the space with e’s instead of points, as explained in other articles and “undo” them sometimes adding Q-type sharings adding in s and r point(2)’s. This proceeds until I reach a diagram which has the Trefoil as a base for both diagrams. Then I rearrange the joinings to complete the congruency. This is all shown in detail below.

Sharing 9 is actually not reduced to (b9(a9) but can be moved to the outside of the trefoil base. There I can put it into congruence with the loop formed from (a17(b17) expressed as (b17(a17).

Here is Perko B, taken from Knotscape. Starting with crossings 11 through 20 (orientations all -ve, shown below crossing numbers). I add Q-sharings and take the diagram apart after moving to negative space as shown in detail below. Then after that I look for a congruency with Perko A, also reduced.

So sharing 17 is reduced to (a17(b17). In the other reduced diagram sharing 9 is reduced, but we can make it congruent to sharing 17 by expressing (a17(b17) as (b17(a17) and changing the orientation of that crossing. This is where the writhe changes.