# First undergrad math/philosophical research project (working proposal)

1. Aug 7, 2013

### CubicFlunky77

The aim of my research is to show that some set (#) axiomatically perceived as deviating from the non-'0' entity will subscribe to a non-'0' collection (#) of perspectives (interpretations) on said finite characters from the finite interpretations (predicated on only 1 of 5 senses a.k.a. vision, which will be a control) of perceivably animate elements. From different yet ultimately finite perspectives based on visual senses (1 of the 5, hereafter called the vital sense) will dictate both the physical and neuropsychological reaction to these characters. '9' designates termination of deviation before the '0' entity is reinstated and the process adopts a saliently cyclical property where two things are apparent:

(1) The '0'-entity

The above is trivial gibber with dapples of jargon. It will be refined before I am done. I ultimately intend to show that all (#) visual interpretations are as relevant as any one animate (human for example) individual chooses to make it.

This is like 'metaphyiscal-math', which many may see as quack science, but which I am genuinely trying to substantiate objectively (empirical or otherwise) with math tools.

# = either single or multiple-consecutive characters (I'm assuming anachronisms are extraneous)

Does this topic sound 'doable'?
---

On a side-note, I'm on the verge of getting expelled from my state-college for having a g.p.a. less than 2.0 as a prior Biology Major. Studying based on passion rather than painted A-F letters is either a novel or nonexistent idea to the faculty at my school. I'm starting to realize that a degree simply grants access to resources, tools, and 'respect' (whatever on Earth that's supposed to mean) to make research more manageable. Is research manageable without the possession of a glorious sheet of paper with my name, three little letters, and some school next to it? (Sorry for the condescension, I'm simply a little upset)

2. Aug 7, 2013

### verty

We don't do philosophy here. It's one of the rules. What can I say, this is not the place to ask whether this is valid philosophy. But you did ask it, and I suspect it isn't. My earnest advice is to drop this idea.

3. Aug 7, 2013

### micromass

Staff Emeritus
I couldn't have said it better myself.