a^2*x=b^2

Why does a 157IQ have to change the world? Couldn’t they just do their work, and be happy? Like, write poetry, or find easy ways to explain basic math concepts?

The world doesn’t need changed. And when we tried to change it, it didn’t get any better.

People in the fifties hated Cowboy Shows, and said the same thing. It’s not the glorification of stupidity, but the technology that amplifies it, and gives it a bullhorn… and then wicked people who know how to manipulate the masses through symbols, images and black and white ideas.

People are not very brilliant. And never were. You read something like the Ulster Cycle, it’s hilarious the kind of politics they did, such as presenting bare chested women to invading armies and getting offended at pig roasts.

Like, Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great—both having about 140iqs—were just those rare sorts who came in an advanced society, and those advanced societies were cultured by traditions. That’s where we went wrong, was attacking the traditions. As that’s the education of the lowest common denominator, is religion, myths, history and tall tales. Which, for the most intelligent, they must also grapple with the genius of someone like Jesus in order to shepherd the people right.

Christianity is just true. The simple need it. The intelligent need it. Everyone needs it. But, they need tradition, too. George Washington and the Cherry Tree they need, they need to know about the World Wars, the Revolution, Slavery, Abolitionism, the Civil Rights Movement, The Civil War, they need the old Nursery Rhymes… the old movies preserved a historical tradition and connected us to an authentic history. That was destroyed around 2010, and also the language got reinvented and simplified.

We’re dealing with a malicious actor, but it’s no person or bodily entity. It is indeed the devil working through many seared consciences wanting to sincerely improve the world.

Algebra would not work without geometry. Neither would Group Theory. And if you can't figure out why Double Primes would be useful in finding a pattern in primes (useful, not saying they could, because it could still be completely random, but then maybe that randomness could be used to establish a pattern for understanding randomocity, and would be a geometry we could use to understand that), then I can't explain to you why all that other stuff is true.

But if I try, think deeply about [what I'm saying]. Algebra works on the consistency of number and operation. Which has its root in geometry. We can only know algebra and operation works, because we observe it in geometry. Without geometry, there would be no algebra, or any use for it. As all things explained by algebra, relate to geometry. Everything in math, relates to a physical representation, and if it can't, it's not usable. That's why there are not negative cubed roots, but there are quartic.

And double primes are important for finding a pattern in prime numbers, because it's the only pattern we have to go by, in primes, is that there are double primes.

{}

 "Algebra can work without geometry". [but] if it could, apples could grow without seeds. It's just nonsense [to say that]. And everything else, in Group Theory, in order to solve it--which I don't know what Group Theory is--you'd need a geometric representation, to get to the abstract answer for other uses.

That's why Riemann's hypothesis is finding a pattern in Primes. Which, if the Zeros were the whole of it, we'd find all the primes. Which we cannot do, so it's quite arbitrary. Whereas, the only pattern we have, that's real, is the twin primes. I'd think anyway... It's just simple to process for me.

Riemann's hypothesis is probably working toward a constant, or equation that can give you a basic geometric design to solve other abstract solutions. Kind of like how quadratic equations get you to a bunch of uses, but ultimately it works on the basis of a square's area.

[So], when you do equations- {} balancing them, you're basically taking two shapes, and then molding them into equal shapes, until you balance the equation. That's the right way to look at it. As, you can relate two shapes together, if they're equal, and come to a true solution. That's just the principle of an equality. Or really, you're just deriving two shapes that are equal to the same number.

[T]he Quadratic Equation, {} is a simple analogy. It's basic stuff, but very complicated in the theory. And people who are solving Riemann's Hypothesis, are trying to find a system of logic, that describes Prime Numbers, that's like a quadratic equation in that it has many uses, and trying to create a shape that describes it. And by having that shape, and that system, you can then reach to higher concepts, that need the logic to be completed. Or like Pi, there's a constant that is defined by a circle's shape, and that's something we measure, and use all the time, to get the correct solution. Because it's the real number that defines a circle.