Storkian+Relation+Notation

During AP Biology on the day of 9-26-12, The Free Man devised a system for describing people in terms of their ideas tied to Stokology/Warblology and how they are in relation to eachother. It is not mathematics in the true, or at least conventional, sense; rather, it combines the conceptual in a notation used in calculus and algebra to give a visual description of whatever is being discussed. Something of note is the fact that in at least one way, the math does make sense, even if it at first appears to be nonsensical. Some startling, yet funnily enough, true conclusions have been derived from these wicked equations systems, and this proves that there may be something more to this than originally thought. It came about as a result of Cisco's desire to create a new language, and then it was thoughgt that a system for people relations should be made, to tie into Storks and Warblers, which came about as a result of the Foundation Rule, Inevitability Axiom, CIA Clause, Other Ideas and The Chimpostulate [as well as the Waffle Supposition]. If you wonder how this is related to these theorems, ask him. A Word analysis will be given below the picture for further clarification.

We denote the following variables by these Things: W=Waldo, C=Cisco, P=Pierce, M=Manny, Ssub t=Stork, Wsub b=Warbler, -Ssubt=AntiStork, Ssub t [i]=Negative Stork. Negative and AntiStork can also imply Negative Warbler and AntiWarbler, but in the interest of time, we shall not denote the implied. Also, A=Man of Denial, Z=Warden of the AntiStork Conservatory We first start off in the upper=left hand corner, where W+C=Ssubt. This means that in terms of coinspiration and creation of ideas, Waldo plus Cisco results in Storkology, or Stork. This is most certainly true, as we created the concept together [technically speaking, it was really Waldo who came up with the Stork Scripture, but Cisco did the theorems and proofs, so it's a half-and-half kind of Thing]. In a more or less lfet-to-right path, we go to C=Wsub b, which signifies that Cisco came up with Warblology, or Warblers. This is more or less true, until Waldo began to incorporate Storkological Dimensions and other such wonders. If so, it can be thought that Wsub b is the derivative of Ssub t, since Warblers came about as a result of Storks, at least in the sense of the evolution of ideas. M=-Ssub t, which denotes Manny as AntiStork. This is true, since he plays around with concepts too, and likes to mess with me, and be the friendly opposition to my ideas, or complement them in a reversed manner. Now this is where the fun begins, P+M=Ssub t [i]. Pierce plus Manny results in Negative Warblers. Although Manny is the AntiStork, there is the probability that united they would create a Negative Storkology, one that co-exists with Storks and Warblers, but is completely opposite in nature. Where AntiStork is the reverse of the Regular Stork, Negative Warblers are something else. But we'll peruse that another day. Anyway, this implies that P=Ssub t [i] - M. If M=-Ssub t, then the equation turns into P=Ssub t[i] - [-Ssub t], where the minus sign and the reversed nature of Stork cancel each other. That makes it into P=Ssub t[i] + Ssub t. Although AntiStork is negative, or the reverse of regular Stork, it is still different in nature as opposed to Negative Stork. Thus, they cancel, leabing P=0. Now, this brings up conceptual dilemmas. We avoid them by noting that 0 in this case means Pierce has not contributed to Storkology/Warblology yet, and that he doesn't understand it yet. So, in this way, he does equal zero, but a special one. Why special? His very persona indicates that after some time, he will catch on, and when he does, Storkology and Warblology will grow in leaps and bounds [as well as when the other members finally have the time to do so]. Pierce has potential, so we'll denote 0 as 0sub p. We shall return to the original equation, W+C=Ssub t. Since we want to know how to describe Waldo, the equation transforms to W=Ssub t - C. We have proved that C=Wsub b, so the whole thing changes to W= Ssub t - Wb. this is where the Free Man first got stuck. A concept having its derivative subtracted from it makes no sense, at least not for now. And in terms of actual calculus, a the derivative of a function minus its derivative would equal say, from f[x]-[d/dx]f[x] to x-1, which in our concepts doesn't make the least bit of rationality. So, I racked my memories and consulted Waldo in real time and in the past. I knew he once joked that he was the median between me and the normal. I took that quite literally, and he proposed that W= [C+N]/2, to describe said median. He said, "What if we consider the Normal to be 0?" I replied, "Sure! In this case, the Normal is zero because it is of no interest to us", and essentially the previous statement turns into W=C/2. Here another blockade confronted me. to say such a thing would be erroneous, since that would imply he is half of Cisco. Of course not! He just thinks in a different way, and he's just as capable. So, I decided that a limit would be in question. So, lim f[x] as x-c W=C. X is the thought process, C is the Cisco standard, which is pretty much Insanity and Perturbations, and as his thought process approaches my overdoing versus practicality, he equals me, is me. If so, we can take the equation W=Ssub t -Wb and set it equal to this limit. By canceling out the C's, we get lim f[x] as x-c Ssub t = W. This means that if he had thought it in the way I pursued it, he would've come up with something similar, or maybe even greater. This is obviously true for more than the superficial reason. Now, we move on to Nate. He was much trickier to describe, as I was led down numerous paths of implausibility and contradictions. I had decided originally that N=Nate, and N=-Ssub t, for Nate is AntiStork in a way, since he rejects Storkology only because he cannot agree with the Waffle Supposition. But if N=-Ssub t, that would mean he would equal Manny, and they are very different persons. He cannot be Ssub t[i], since he is not Zach either, since he doesn't completely deny all that is Stork. So, it was to be N=Ssub t - Wf, where Wf denotes the Waffle Supposition. I attempted to describe Waffle in terms of Stork, by the middle section, where Ssub t = [Wf]*[Fr]*[CIAsub c]*[Isub a]*[Osub i]. In order from left to right on the right side of the equation, the Waffle Supposition, the Foundation Rule, the CIA Clause, and Other Ideas. I tried rearranging it in terms of Waffle, but it proved...unmanageable. And I tried a couple of other methods, but they rendered meaningless answers. So, I went back to N=Ssub t - Wf, and substitued the crazy formula of compounding rules in terms of Wf, and then it got hairy. I decided to multiply each side by Ssub t, and got Ssub t x N= [Ssub t ]^2 - [Fr]*[CIAsub c]*[Isub a]*[Osub i]/ESsub t]. The next roadblock was the square of Ssub t. What does that mean? Well, I decided that the ^2 doesn;t signify a true square, but rather, the best of whatever Thing is being squared. The ultimate version of the conpet, you might say. So, Ssub t is turned into GUTsub ST+Wb. Why GUT? The purpose of Storkology and its sister component, Warblology, is to rewrite the rules, or at least our understanding, in terms of raitonalizing from the irrational, of our observable universe. Therefore, the ultimate Stork and Warbler would be a Grand Unified Theory. Thus, you could say Ssub t [N]= GUTsub St+Wb - [[[Fr]*[CIAsub c]*[Isub a]*[Osub i]/ESsub t]. But, this is a paradox. There cannot be a GUTsub St+Wb if even one of its components is missing. This means that the denial of [[Waffle, in the case of N so far, means that the whole description is nullified. It could be said that N=Collapse of Ssub t, or N=[Ssub t]/0, as he is undefined by this definition, but it is known that Ssub t can not be applied to Nate. In a way, until he succumbs to Storkosis, he can be considered as an Other 0, as he has not made a complement to Storkology and Warblology, but he does have potential, if not to support Stork but perhaps AntiStork, but he is not Pierce. As for other wiki members and friends, they will be solved for in the near future. This superexistent mathm is meant to be explored, derived from and changed by others. A sharable plaything. And the term superexistent here is a hot debate, due to the very nature of the Word Superexistent. Superexistent would imply that this math is greater than the sum of its components, and may have much conceptual potential. At the same time, if it is not a true math, then how can it be made superexistent? At the same time, we have not found a better descriptive term for this branch of concept, so we shall call it super-math for now. I invite the Others to help decide its fate and nomenclature, and eventually expand upon it. The infinite and beyond await! An eponymous anonymous persona has suggested the Bestower of the Physically Wondrous be deemed a slant asymptote in a graphical representation of the conceptual. Or, in terms of an oddity meter. Hrm. I do wonder how to derive B from the established postulates. Same goes for the Bestower of the Evolutionary Grace. Not to mention a few other persons. [[image:SUPER-MATH 2 001.jpg width="800" height="1100" align="center" caption="SUPER-MATH ADDITION TO ORIGINAL WORK SHOWN ABOVE [FACE]"]] It has since been determined that N=n, where lower-case n denotes "null", not a 0, like P, but Something else that is chaos, yet nonexistent. B has been described in terms of Stork, by declaring her Ssub t A, for the accelaration of Stork. If calculus may be applied at all like before, then that implies that B is the second derivative of some position vs time function of Stork. Position vs time will not be displacement in a conventional sense, but rather, a function of Stork where "position" will be idea-chains, and "time" will still be time. If so, then a function of idea-chains, which we'll denote as Isub c, could be linearized. The first derivative, where in physics of a position vs time function would be velocity, the first derivative of an Isub c vs t function would be a Storkian "velocity". Velocity meaning here an average rate of change of Isub c vs time, seeing how much of an influence Something is affecting the growth of Stork. But since B is the Ssub t A, the "acceleration", then we must take the second derivative of Isub c vs T, which would be the acceleration in physics. Here, it is the instantanoeus rate of change of Stork, a measure that describes the growth of Stork over certain time intervals or idea-chain-points, more accurate within smaller parameters, which equals B. Since she introduces, or causes Idea-Chains with the Free Man at certain points in time, she must have something to do with the instantaneous rate of Storkian growth.. Although she is not the only Ssub t A, by far she was the First, and W is not counted as an A since he has done much more than that, not inmplying inferiority but merely constraints and allowances that brought about these conceptual changes in respect to time. A few new words were brought into play yesterday in Bio, which are described on the back of the addition to the original Super-Math work. Other concepts are also briefly discussed, and those will be pursued on another page. [[image:SUPER-MATH 3 001.jpg width="800" height="1100" align="center" caption="SUPER-MATH ADDITION TO ORIGINAL WORK AT TOP [REAR]"]]