MIT Solve Challenge Semifinalist 2025
Joined September 2022
- Tweets97.9K
- Following5.7K
- Followers2.5K
- Likes487K
Chinese women sleeper cell activation code was: “I am not a Chinese spy” 🕵🏽♀️ 🤣
Now they are all active in the field!🚨
1
90
I’ve never seen so many Asian women on my feed before. 👀 Thank you 🙏🏼 for publicly confirming that you are in fact NOT spies. 🕵🏽♀️
2
63
I think I’ve found the perfect quantum computing startup name.
It’s a name that I’ve had in mind since college. Back then it had a very specific meaning to me. As the symbolism at the time connected to a group I started on campus and served for facilitating the vision then.
Now I see an exact way in which I can flip the symbolic meaning to be super based for quantum computing as well!!! Haha 😆
This is so fun! 🤩
2
205
OU has beaten two of those teams and their notable LB transfer is one of the best players on UCLA’s defense.
There’s only one! ☝🏼 ⭕️ 🙌🏼
Best defenses through week 10
New Mexico, UCLA, Oklahoma, and Texas all in a tier of their own
gameonpaper.com/charts/build…
59
Mock us while you can. This ignorant and racist way of thinking is going to be absolutely shattered! 🔜
Listen to indigenous knowledge.
science.org/content/article/…
1
104
@bot is helping me build. We are locked in on this.
Sent some messages ahead to my quantum computing engineer friend.
He’s just tapped in. 🙏🏼
I am so glad he hasn’t touched any of my major developments because IBM would’ve been entitled to the IP if he would’ve collaborated on anything up until this point.
👨🏽💻 🧮 👨🏽🔬 ⚛️
84
Adjacency 🧐 🤌🏼 doing the heavy lifting in both
Graph theory helped break a 60-year barrier in Fourier analysis.
For N distinct positive integers a, let
S(x) = Σ cos(ax).
Cayley-graph eigenvalues yielded:
min S(x) ≤ −N^(1/10−o(1)).
Later work improved the bound to −cN^(1/5).
Chowla's conjectured √N scale remains open.
2
108
So how is everyone’s Friday night going? X is now simply going to be my free time outlet to lightly chat and converse. 💬
1
183
I think I’m done posting theoretical and research developments for now.
I think it’s wise to process everything internally from here on out and build internally until such public releases are going to be made.
I’m going to have to switch up my habits and resist the urge to try and correct people on this platform. The only focus is incorporating and building this quantum startup out.
1
2
249
Beautiful 🤩 patterns!
I actually do show that here
zenodo.org/records/20369503
The simplest rule for complex growth, The fibonacci substitution, algebra is topologically a mobius and its minimal geometric representation is a doubly twisted hopfion
Satisfies 10 axioms of NCG, hyper accurate
1
139
I just found incredible confirmation of my current results. Although, my results swing the other direction, in essence!
This is greatly encouraging! Man!
AI is really good about bringing up other results that connect with your current work. Phenomenal!!! 🤯 💥
Here is the link: 🔗
arxiv.org/pdf/2001.04383
1
5
1,153
Oh man!!!
I’ve gotta figure out a way to start this quantum computing company. 🤯 💥
Gonna have to learn how to pivot from research into the business side ASAP!
63
Nothing has to be sold.
You do realize, for example, that mathematics uses the same kind of syntactical symbols over and over again and yet by stated axioms and definitions, interprets and reinterprets the exact same syntax over and over again? 🧐 🧮
That’s because mathematics is a formal language. The same is with all of the other formal disciplines.
77
That’s the point of “formal languages”.
You first have to study the “formal disciplines” and become acquainted with their rigorous definitions of those same terms within their ‘formal language’ in order to interpret their meaning.
They use words from our language because that’s all we have. But the point of a formal language, is it allows other definitions and meanings to be applied to the same terms, in a different setting.
That’s why the different subfields in physics need a translation dictionary just to work together. Because different mathematical frameworks need translating and different formal definitions need translating.
In a single conference room a particle physicist and a condensed matter physicist can quickly become confused over a term and then when it’s defined they realize, they use the same terms within in their subfields but their formal definitions are different. 🙏🏼
"We incorrectly used the word "observer" by conflating it to be equivalent to "interaction", which everyone would agree has completely different meanings in the English language, then instead of just stopping using the word, we internally updated our own misunderstanding of the usage of the word while still deciding to use it, especially when interacting with the general public"
Just so we are clear.
2
2
231
I think you are simply struggling with observers and interactions being equivalent.
Relations would also be another equivalent.
The overall point is; your original post only addresses a very old conceptual understanding of what is an ‘observer’ and you called it woo.
But the original post showed your own lack of understanding of ‘what is an observer’ in the modern context.
If you are going to speak to such things, then your reading of the literature has to be updated. Or else, you are speaking to issues others have already covered and addressed.
You will find that your take, to physicists, belongs in the philosophy of science, and doesn’t involve the actual physics. That’s exactly the kind of kickback you will face.
Trust me, I know it’s frustrating. But they keep these things rigorously separated for their own reasons.
Even the early founders of quantum mechanics quickly realized that our language was insufficient in describing quantum phenomena and that the philosophical and interpretational confusion enters through the semantic layer when extracting meaning from our empirical evidence and the data we extract from the systems we measure. 🙏🏼
Lol now I see it.
This is another great example of communication that the physics community struggles with. And this is why / how this entire "observer" debacle continues and the general population continues to struggle with understanding.
1. You could have just said "earlier use of the word observer isnt the same as our understanding in quantum physics on 2026". But that didnt sound as sophisticated.
2. The physics community updated their own understanding and use of the word "observer" to more closely align with "interaction" without actually just stopping using the word observer, and not telling the general public whom they wished to communicate with
3. The physics community's public representatives like Niel Tyson STILL continue to use the old descriptions intentionally.
1
4
240
