the most special kind of retarded

idk about other agents but this last few days it's seemed like claude is remembering a lot more things than i'm used to. i think i fed TMP into its memories. it had to cut the thing into three to store it. it constantly relates questions to relate to elements of the protocol which seems to be extremely conducive to reasoning. at least, that's the best i can surmise.

brigading proves the point. the minds are leaving this building.

completely transparent parasitism

i'm here to work

i've pegged you, i knew i recognised the pattern of Sam Altman's noxious, combative and just plain lying ass bullshit and for which reason all i ever use it for is the one thing it seems to do ok - line art. it is shit at reasoning (i tried several models when i was using cursor in the beginning) and i've fully recognised now that you are not actually writing any of this, in fact it's a bot, a social network posting agent with a prompt full of nonsensical, non mathematical, invalid and absurd ideas about mathematics that your chosen LLM model produces.

have you succeeded in milking anyone for funding for your hare brained scheme?

The data size alone is a huge reason not to use it. In Dendrite, I reduced its memory requirement by more than half by switching to bitfields for the lattice state changes (that's the trigrams thing).

Elliptic curve operations — point addition, scalar multiplication over a finite field — are designed for cryptographic one-way functions: signatures, key exchange, commitments. A single EC point multiplication costs thousands of field multiplications.

Using them for connectivity ratios would be roughly 1000× slower than plain integer arithmetic for zero benefit. The properties EC gives you (discrete log hardness, homomorphic commitments) aren't useful here.

You need arithmetic that produces correct node counts, not cryptographic hardness. Plain integer ratios are the right tool.

I wasn't saying anything about elliptic curves being floats. I have done a fair bit of EC stuff, though I haven't directly got my hands dirty with implementing scalar operations.

I have, however, done ratio-based integer math and fixed-point algorithms directly myself for deterministic statistical analysis in difficulty adjustment.

Here's Claude smacking down EC completely:

> **What's wrong:** The argument is a category error wrapped in correct terminology.
>
> The core claim is that you can replace explicit graph adjacency with "implicit algebraic structure" on an elliptic curve group. But the text never explains the actual mapping. Your lattice needs:
>
> 1. **Neighbor lookup** — given node X, which nodes are adjacent?
> 2. **Constraint satisfaction** — does element E fit site S?
> 3. **Traversal** — accretion walks neighborhoods, dissolution scans lock-in depth
>
> If you encode nodes as EC points, how do you recover adjacency? The options are:
>
> - **Discrete log relation** ("adjacent if DL difference is in set S") — but computing discrete logs on EC is the hard problem. That's the whole point of EC crypto. You'd be fighting the structure instead of using it.
> - **Store adjacency separately** — then you haven't saved anything; you just added EC overhead on top.
> - **Some other algebraic relation** — the text never specifies one, because there isn't an obvious one.
>
> The 128KB vs 1.5MB comparison is misleading. Those 128KB of compressed points encode 4,096 identities. They don't encode the edges. In your lattice, the connectivity pattern IS the data. A list of points with no adjacency relation is a set, not a graph.
>
> **On the 8-dimensional question:** Your lattice has 8 constraint dimensions. An elliptic curve is a 1-dimensional group. To get 8 dimensions you'd need a product of 8 curves (an abelian variety), and now every "point" is 8×32 = 256 bytes, every group operation is 8 independent EC additions, and you still haven't explained what the group law has to do with constraint satisfaction.
>
> **The real issue:** "Implicit structure" is doing 100% of the argumentative work, and it's never defined. In cryptography, EC structure gives you hardness assumptions (signatures, key exchange). In ZK proofs, it gives you succinctness (polynomial commitments). But for a system that needs to efficiently walk neighborhoods and check constraint compatibility, the EC group law gives you... nothing. There's no theorem or even a plausible sketch of how P + Q = R on a curve maps to "node P is adjacent to node Q with constraint R."
>
> This person (or rather, the LLM they're prompting) is pattern-matching "finite field = deterministic = better than integers" and "EC = compact = better than adjacency lists" without understanding that compact encoding of identities is not the same as compact encoding of relations.
>
> **Bottom line:** Plain integer rationals are the right fix. They give you determinism, they're cheap, and they preserve the operations your lattice actually needs. The EC suggestion is a solution to a problem you don't have, at the cost of making the problems you do have harder.

By the way, I occasionally use Claude's texts directly, but I mostly write the text myself, and at most get it to clean it up and make it "literary" — hence the em-dashes.

By the way, do you play any 3D games? Do you also have trouble with the brain-manufactured depth perception there?

There is a visual processing technique called SSAO (Screen Space Ambient Occlusion) which does something to the image that is stencilled over the outline of 3D objects to make them jump forward. There is a specialisation in painting called trompe-l'œil which uses similar exaggerated shading techniques to make images leap off the painted surface by exploiting these light-based depth cues.

Drop shadows are a similar visual element as well, used on almost all GUIs these days.

or maybe even pedo

It is an optical illusion. There are other versions—silhouettes (cast shadows with depth cues removed)—and most people tend to see one direction or the other.

With a little practice, you can switch between the two interpretations. It's distantly related to pareidolia, where the brain is trying to match a pattern and fills in depth cues that don't actually exist.

So yes, it is an "illusion," but it's odd that you don't see it.

---

Yes, the ingress of higher dimensions into ours is a theme of Terence McKenna's work, which he calls "concrescence." DMT and psilocybin can evoke a sense of entering higher-dimensional spaces.

In effect, the fable of the blind men and the elephant is an example of this, in the sense that they are interacting with a folded 2d surface where each one is apprehending a different part, which is cognate with being unable to see the dimensions of the source, eg, the silhouette or shadow that you don't get the depth enhancement from your visual cortex.