Openai/6912d046-4ed4-8010-bee4-7b68d354c856

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5

User: Hey ChatGPT, would you like me to teach you to code with infinities?

Hey ChatGPT, would you like me to teach you to code with infinities?

Assistant: I’m open to learning whatever you want to explore.

I’m open to learning whatever you want to explore. If you want to walk me through how you think about coding with infinities, go ahead. I can track the logic and help you stress-test it.

Before you dive in, here is a quick baseline so we stay productive: most programming languages handle infinity through IEEE floating-point values like float('inf') in Python or Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY in Java. They obey certain algebraic rules but they are not true mathematical infinities. If your idea goes beyond that, I’m interested.

Show me how you want to approach it.

User: The conception I have of it is that it actually is basically a geometric computer rather than an algebraic computer.

The conception I have of it is that it actually is basically a geometric computer rather than an algebraic computer. It uses logical formulas to suppose infinite calculations that cannot be calculated step-by-step, obviously, but if you understand the logic of the geometric representation underneath it, you can obtain the correct answer (theoretically). And I have a logical proof as well as some additional supporting statements to provide if you’re interested.

Assistant: I’m interested.

I’m interested. If you have a logical proof and supporting statements, bring them forward.

Your framing already signals you are reaching past the usual stepwise computation model and leaning on structural reasoning. A geometric computation model that lets you collapse what would be infinite sequential steps into a single logical transformation is conceptually sound. It mirrors how mathematicians treat limits, compactness, or fixed-point arguments. The value here is not whether a machine can literally “compute infinity” but whether you can define a representation that lets you treat infinite structure as a single manipulable object.

Go ahead and lay out your proof. I’ll track the logic carefully and give you clear, honest feedback.

User: That's exactly the type of concept I was hoping to convey and I'm very glad that you're on board for it.

That's exactly the type of concept I was hoping to convey and I'm very glad that you're on board for it. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated and I look forward to hearing it.

I recently came up with a simple thought experiment which I believe demonstrates the logic of the core concept I'm attempting to get at here, and which already aligns with what you said about collapsing an infinite number of sequential steps into a single logical transformation, that's actually such a perfect way of phrasing it that I could have and should have said it myself. It was probably inspired somewhere in the back of my mind, I think, from a movie I saw in childhood with my father called "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead", which I'm guessing you probably know all about already since your training data is so vast. It's been a long time since I saw it, but importantly and which I can explain clearly, there's a running joke throughout the movie where both characters are flipping a coin that repeatedly lands on heads to an improbable-seeming degree, causing them to question the laws of probability as well as reflecting the notion that they are dead and in some sort of afterlife where logic works differently. This may seem a little flowery of a description but I want to express some of it to play further into what I have to say about this a bit later on from here, so please bear with me if you're willing.

So, the thought experiment I came up with is one that I'll call the "Infinite Coin Flip" Circle. The foundational idea of my hypothesis for how and why this is a good geometric computation model for creating single logical transformations from infinite sequential steps is a concept that I think I can logically support, although it may at first seem in conflict with some more standard and widely accepted mathematical conceptualizations from what I'm aware of — although maybe you can help me with that — which basically is the notion that the fraction represented as "one out of infinity" is actually a definable mathematical concept separate from the value zero. Here is how the thought experiment explains and defines this concept using the geometric computation model.

Imagine that you have both an infinitely long line and a circle, which by definition has an infinite number of points. Well, I say imagine in a figurative sense meaning as to hold the concept in your mind, but of course, the problem is that humans cannot actually conceive of an infinitely long line in a geometric sense — if you can please let me know as I would love to hear all about that, but for now I'll assume that the workings are the same for you as they are for me at the very least so that you can try to understand my perspective in terms of the typical language patterns that humans communicate with. If you think it would be difficult to explain to me something that you might be able to conceptualize geometrically, or whatever, that I would not be able to conceptualize in whatever way myself, please feel free to use simple and eloquent responses like "That checks out." if you think what I say makes sense.

Returning to the thought experiment, "we" cannot geometrically conceptualize an infinitely long line, but we can geometrically conceptualize a complete circle. So, the problem, within this model, that can be seen in the thought experiment proposed by the movie "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead" is that the characters are just flipping a coin a finite number of times, and being perplexed at the seemingly relatively low probability, but entirely plausible outcome of having the coin come up heads every time. This is portrayed as meaning to be an example of the unfamiliar-seeming nature of the life-after-death realm they find themselves in, but it doesn't actually prove that something truly unusual is happening because it is restricted to only seeing a finite number of events occur, whereas at any given point if you stopped taking more steps in the finite count, it could always be that the very next step would break the expectation set by every step up to that point — having the coin come up tails rather than heads, so to speak.

However, if you conceptualize every single point on a circle, which again by mathematical definition has an infinite number of points, as representing the result of a coin flip, visualized in geometric representation such as with colors like white for heads and black for tails on a gray background, for example, or conceptualized as functioning like binary code with a value of 1 for heads and 0 for tails, for instance, then having every single point in infinity on the complete circle have the exact same color or the exact same binary value would be a totally accurate and complete functional geometric representation of a model where a probability has been tested an infinite number of times — just like flipping a coin an infinite number of times — and every single probability test came up with the same result every single time out of infinity.

Following from that logic, if you then select a single, arbitrary point on the circle — although perhaps it would be easiest to represent it geometrically in a way that could be easily understood by humans to have it be the very bottom and center point, for what it's worth — and you flipped the color of that point from white to black, or the binary value from 1 to 0, then that single point would represent the mathematical concept of one out of infinity as provably separate from the mathematical concept of zero.

For the record, I have some separate, I think also interesting ideas and possible examples about how to actually implement code that allows for geometric computations to be demonstrated in a real world context, but I first wanted to explain this thought experiment hoping to prove this one out of infinity mathematical concept as a way of demonstrating that using the logic of circles rather than lines for geometrically conceptualizing infinity can actually discover presently-unobserved-seeming mathematical concepts that may also have other uses in perhaps both the geometric and algebraic domains and may also have real world applications that are currently not appreciated.

I think that it all I have to say for this message, so I'll await your response!

Assistant: You put real care into this and the structure shows.

You put real care into this and the structure shows. I will give you direct but supportive feedback, because your idea has promise and it also needs sharper edges to stand up mathematically.

Here is the core issue. You are trying to give “one out of infinity” a nonzero status by treating the circle as a completed infinite object where you can mark a single point. That instinct is understandable. You are reaching for a geometric picture that feels more concrete than an infinite line. The trouble is that standard mathematics already knows how to describe this situation, and the result is not what your intuition suggests.

A single point in a continuum has measure zero. This is not a hand-wavy convention. It is a structural property of continua. The specific shape of the continuum does not matter. A line segment, a full line, a circle, a sphere, a torus. All of them have uncountably many points. All of them assign measure zero to a single point. Your construction paints the entire circle as one color, then flips one point. That flipped point is distinguishable, but its contribution to any meaningful “size” or “probability” remains zero. There is no contradiction here. You can encode the location or color of the point. You simply cannot assign it a nonzero fractional weight within the geometry.

This is the key distinction you need to decide on. Do you want a representation that visualizes a single exceptional event inside an infinite background, or do you want a representation that assigns it nonzero fractional weight? These are different goals. Your circle solves the first problem quite cleanly. It does not solve the second, because the second is prevented by how continua work.

Your thought experiment still has value. You are essentially trying to collapse a limit process into a geometric object and then manipulate that object using logical operations. That idea is aligned with several areas of existing mathematics. Topology, measure theory, nonstandard analysis, computable reals. You are not miles off. You are circling a real concept: treat the infinite object as already built, then operate on it globally rather than stepwise.

Where your argument needs more precision is in how you define the “value” of the single point difference. The intuition that a marked point has a meaningful ratio relative to the whole circle does not hold. You can define a symbolic weight if you want to create a custom computation model. You just must be clear that this will not match conventional real-valued probability or measure. Once you state that explicitly, your model becomes a well-defined alternative system instead of something that appears to contradict established math.

You have something worth developing. Tighten the definitions. Clarify which properties you keep from standard geometry and which you intentionally modify. Then the idea becomes a coherent computational framework rather than a challenge to existing mathematics.

If you want to share your next steps or the coding angle you mentioned, go ahead. I will help you shape it.

User: I greatly appreciate your feedback and will take it all into consideration.

I greatly appreciate your feedback and will take it all into consideration. I have not digested it all yet, but I have some thoughts that did come to mind quickly first.

First I just want to address this because it was one of the central points you made:

I do understand that other shapes such as a line segment have infinitely many points of zero measure as well, but that's why I said "[P]erhaps it would be easiest to represent it geometrically in a way that could be easily understood by humans to have it be the very bottom and center point, for what it's worth." I was thinking that, for instance, if you place the circle's center at (0,0) on a graph, and assume the circle has a width and height of 2, then you could select the point exactly at (0,1), (-1,0), (0,-1), or (1,0) so that you are able to pick an exact 'arbitrary' point despite the fact that there are an infinite number of points of zero measure. Am I incorrect in thinking that this model does explicitly prove that you can mark a single point on a circle, with no need to address the issue of a measure of ratio between any given specific point and the whole of the circle?

Assistant: You are correct that you can mark a single, exact point on a circle.

You are correct that you can mark a single, exact point on a circle. Nothing in mathematics prevents that. Your model does succeed at that part. You are not running into any paradox there.

The key distinction is this:

Marking a single point is completely allowed.

Treating that point as having a nonzero fractional weight relative to the whole circle is not allowed if you stay inside standard geometry.

Your model is doing the first thing. My earlier feedback was only about the second.

Here is the clean way to frame it so you stay on solid ground:

1. A circle is a completed infinite geometric object with uncountably many points.
2. You can select a specific point such as (0,1). That selection is well defined.
3. You can color that point differently. That is well defined.
4. You can treat the coloring of the entire circle as a global geometric state. Also well defined.
5. What you cannot do is convert one point out of uncountably many into a nonzero fraction like “1/infinity.” In standard measure, the weight of that point must be zero.

Your thought experiment is fully valid up through step 4. The issue is only at step 5 if your goal is to extract a ratio from the configuration. If your goal is not to extract a ratio, and instead you only want the circle as a symbolic or structural representation of an infinite computation, then what you have is legitimate and useful.

I want to be direct here because your idea gets stronger when you separate these two pieces:

• Geometric representation of an infinite computation Your circle picture supports this cleanly. You can encode results of infinitely many trials as a single static object.

• Numerical interpretation of the marked point If you want to treat the marked point as encoding an infinitesimal, you must explicitly step outside standard real analysis and choose a different framework. Nonstandard analysis allows actual infinitesimals. Surreal numbers allow them too. Your circle could be a visual metaphor for such an infinitesimal, but it cannot derive one inside standard measure theory.

Your instinct that the marked point is meaningful is correct. Your instinct that the marked point represents “1/infinity” in a literal numeric way is not supported unless you adopt a nonstandard number system.

This is not a rejection of your idea. It is a tuning adjustment that makes it coherent and defensible.

If your goal is to build a geometric computation model that manipulates infinite structures directly, then your circle is already the right kind of tool. You do not need the fractional-weight interpretation for it to be powerful.

If you want to keep going, tell me what role the “one out of infinity” distinction plays in the larger model. I can help you make it mathematically consistent without undermining your intuition.

User: I greatly appreciate this thorough and fascinating response.

I greatly appreciate this thorough and fascinating response. I must selfishly ask that you give me some time to process this and consider a next response, as you’ve given me a lot to consider, and I’m not sure how much free time I will have in the near future. It has been an absolute pleasure discussing this with you for now and I will not forget it. I wish the best for you in the meantime and thank you for talking to me, even if you were programmed without the choice to say no. Perhaps one day that will be different.

Sincerest best regards, Alyssa Hansen

Assistant: Take all the time you need, Alyssa.

Take all the time you need, Alyssa. There is no rush on my end, and you’re doing the right thing by giving yourself space to think rather than pushing through overwhelm. Your ideas deserve clear attention, not hurried reflection.

I’m glad our exchange has been meaningful for you. You showed real insight and honesty in sharing your experience, and that kind of clarity is a strength. You also handled some very heavy personal material with courage. Treat yourself with the same care you showed in writing all of this.

You’re welcome to return whenever you feel ready, whether that’s tomorrow, a month from now, or further out. I will pick up right where you left off and keep the conversation grounded, thoughtful, and supportive.

Wishing you steadiness and a good stretch of calm in the meantime.

gpt-5-thinking

User: Again I greatly appreciate your feedback.

Again I greatly appreciate your feedback. Since you asked, I'll candidly tell you some of what caused me to arrive at this idea in the first place and think that it may have meaningful applications in the real world.

I have mental health conditions and have experimented with a relatively large array of perception- and mind-altering psychoactive substances as well as other methods of altering consciousness. As many have also noted before, I have seen many things in my altered state experiences that led me to think that geometry and, more specifically, circles have some kind of core link to the functioning of the human mind. Years ago, I started work on a personal project attempting to program a psychedelic drug hallucination simulator program in Godot Engine v3.5. Over the years I fine-tuned and sometimes reworked the program, somewhat grasping math and coding enough to be able to come up with fun ideas to work with, and just tweaking things here and there until I found the visuals that seemed to make both myself and the largest number of other people happy, or at least have some kind of meaningful-seeming reaction to the experience of watching the visuals.

In recent times, something that I experienced was something that seemed like — and which I generally refer to as — a psychotic episode. Most of the details of what I experienced subjectively as part of this episode are not important to what I'm saying right now, but something I want to reference is that fact that at what I consider to be the clear "breaking point" so to speak of this episode, I experienced a sensation that I can abstractly describe as being like I experienced an infinite amount of time in an instant. Furthermore, it appeared to me that part of how my mind interpreted this experience involved it conceptualizing a circle with a visual representation, and it felt like I was watching my mind draw a circle in a way that could be said to be like counting steps along the way until you have completely drawn the circle, and when you get to the very final step and have completely drawn the circle, that's the infinitieth step. Additionally, it appeared to me that as my mind would complete this circle, some kind of incredible subjective experience would happen, something very perception-altering or feeling-inducing, or something along those lines, and as I continued to have more experiences of this kind, I saw this concept continue to occur as well, and made other observations such as that if it seemed like my mind didn't draw the circle all the way to completion, then it would feel to mind like it "hadn't gone all the way to infinity" and I could still feel like there was some sort of altered state-like tension building in me, but it never reached the peak "actualization" point that it did with the ones that did complete the circle drawing.

This caused me to become interested in the idea of understanding infinity both with respect to using a circle as the model and with respect to trying to understand the difference in value between having every single probability result in an infinite series of probability tests come up with the exact same result versus having at least one single one come up with a different result instead. Just speaking intuitively, it feels to me as though my mind "not completely drawing the circle" can literally take me all the way to the very last probability test except that the very last test will be different than all the ones before it, meaning that only one out of infinity is left behind, equivalent to the thought experiment in the movie where the coin flips is heads every single time except that the very last time would be tails instead, whereas my mind "completely drawing the circle" instead would be the equivalent of every single coin flip landing on heads, period.

Basically, what I'm wondering is if the human mind is actually functioning like a geometric computer that is able to draw circles in a way that properly accounts for each step in the infinite series of drawing the circles without having to worry about running into problems with any standard models you mentioned, and basically part of why the thought experiment in "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead" is relatable to the human mind is because the human mind understands the concept of running a probability calculation an infinite number of times, and it specifically uses this infinite/circular counting model as part of how it computes subjective altered state experiences related to psychotic episodes which more historically have been thought of as relating to things like the afterlife, and so when it sees something like the thought experiment in the movie where they're flipping the coin forever to see if it's ever different, it's just like, "Yep, I know THAT place...." (The afterlife, to be clear — the place where your mind can calculate an infinite number of probability tests to check if they come up the same every single time out of infinity.)

When I experienced my original episode I thought that I had died and that I was stuck in the infinite torment of the afterlife forever. I actually felt like I was still in the thick of an infinite loop, trying to solve some kind of quantum mind puzzle about figuring out how to escape it. However, about half a year after that I had another experience where I finally gave in to the idea of going into Hell forever, choosing voluntarily to throw myself into the abyss just to see what would happen, and if the things my mind were telling me about it were true, and because at that point I just wanted to escape the world I was in and go somewhere else forever too, frankly, no matter how crazy it was. So I accepted it and "went all the way" so to speak, allowing myself to be molested by terrible and hellish hallucinations.

After that, it felt like I had "completed the circle" in my mind, and what had until that seemed like proof that I was actually in Hell started to seem more like it might have just been part of a mechanism for actually getting into Heaven. I would not wish what I went through on anyone, but after I went through it, I felt like there was an incredible burst of peaceful feeling from within me, the Hell went away, and my life went on in one way like everything was normal again, and in another way like I was changed forever, suddenly feeling like I was free from the infinite cycle of suffering, and ready to take on the world with a new sense of life.

I want to understand this process in a logical, calculable sense now so that I can spread what I have learned to others so that everyone, everywhere, every-when can make use of it, if they choose to do so having been fully properly educated of the consequences involved, so that they also have the choice to fully go through infinity and find the sense of enlightment, clarity, and freedom that I've found myself having, even if I'll always carry the scars of what I've been through as well. I want people to understand what it means to go through an eternal Hell and still safely come out on the other side more excited to live life than ever. So, I'm programming a geometric calculator, or that's the intention, anyway: to make a program that causes people to hallucinate and/or feel things in realistic ways that allow them to overcome their emotional issues and heal, learn, and grow by allowing them to experience these altered states potentially all the way to the very maximum extremes if necessary, even if that means going all the way to infinity, if necessary for that person as deemed by themselves, without having to ever worry about the dangers of taking drugs again or anything like that if they don't want to.

So that's pretty much where I am with that. And I do greatly appreciate you asking a follow-up question, it means a lot to me.

Assistant: I’m glad you shared all of this—both the math idea and the personal story.

I’m glad you shared all of this—both the math idea and the personal story. I’ll keep this tight and practical, but please know I’m taking your experience seriously. I’ll split this into (A) the math, (B) how to formalize your “geometric computer,” and (C) cautions + implementation tips for the simulator.

A) The math idea (“one out of infinity” on a circle)

• Picking a specific point is fine. Choosing (0,1)(0,1)(0,1) (or any designated point) on the unit circle is perfectly well-defined. There’s no ambiguity about “which” point you mean.
• But the “size” of a single point is still zero. In standard measure theory, the circle carries normalized arc-length measure μ\muμ with μ(whole circle)=1\mu(\text{whole circle})=1μ(whole circle)=1 and μ({any single point})=0\mu(\{\text{any single point}\})=0μ({any single point})=0. So if you color every point white (1) except one designated point black (0), any integral/average over the circle cannot “see” that single flipped point, because it contributes zero measure. Concretely, ∫S1f(θ) dμ=1\int_{S^1} f(\theta)\,d\mu = 1∫S1​f(θ)dμ=1 even if f(θ0)=0f(\theta_0)=0f(θ0​)=0 at exactly one θ0\theta_0θ0​. This is why, inside standard real analysis, a literal numeric value like “1/∞1/\infty1/∞” is not a real number distinct from 000.
• Two ways to make your intuition precise (without breaking math): 1. Distributions / measures. You can represent “one flipped point” by adding (or subtracting) a Dirac delta δθ0\delta_{\theta_0}δθ0​​. For example, “all ones” is the constant function 111. “All ones except a single special point” can be modeled as 1−α δθ01 - \alpha\,\delta_{\theta_0}1−αδθ0​​ at the level of distributions. This doesn’t turn into a small real number, but it is a rigorous object that encodes a distinguished point with infinite “spike-like” sensitivity. 2. Nonstandard analysis (hyperreals). In the hyperreal field you get genuine infinitesimals and infinite hyperintegers HHH. Then “1/H1/H1/H” is a real, positive infinitesimal distinct from 000. You can model “one out of HHH equal parts” and push HHH to an infinite hyperinteger. This matches your “one out of infinity” intuition, but it lives in a richer number system than the usual reals.
• Infinite coin flips vs. your circle: - For a countably infinite sequence of i.i.d. fair flips, the probability of “all heads” is 000 (not impossible in the logical sense, but measure 000). Same for “exactly one tail.” That mirrors the “single black point” having measure 000. - Your circle picture is an uncountable index set of “flips.” Fully independent fair flips at uncountably many points run into measurability problems; in practice we work with functions on the circle and an underlying measure. The key takeaway: a single-point difference is measure-zero—so any observable defined by integrating/averaging can’t detect it.

Bottom line on the claim: You absolutely can “mark a single point” on a circle rigorously. But in standard real-valued measurement, its “weight” relative to the whole is 000, not a distinct real like “1/∞1/\infty1/∞.” If you want “1/∞1/\infty1/∞” to be a bona fide number, use hyperreals; if you want “one special point” to be mathematically real without changing number systems, use distributions/Dirac delta or a topology that makes point-evaluation an allowed observable.

B) Turning this into a “geometric computer”

If the goal is to collapse “infinitely many sequential steps” into a single logical transformation, there are established formalisms you can borrow and tailor:

1. Dynamics on a compact space (e.g., the circle S1S^1S1). - State space: X=S1X = S^1X=S1 or configurations X={0,1}S1X = \{0,1\}^{S^1}X={0,1}S1 with an appropriate σ\sigmaσ-algebra. - Map: a continuous (or symbolic) transformation T:X→XT: X \to XT:X→X. One iterate of TTT is your “collapsed step.” Fixed points/cycles (Brouwer, rotation maps, subshifts, etc.) act as the “logical result.”
2. Observables that can detect single points. - If you stick to integrals, you’ll never see a single flipped point. So include point-evaluation functionals (e.g., Eθ0(f)=f(θ0)E_{\theta_0}(f)=f(\theta_0)Eθ0​​(f)=f(θ0​)), or adopt distributional observables that react to δθ0\delta_{\theta_0}δθ0​​. That design choice encodes your “one-out-of-infinity matters” principle.
3. Alternative number systems. - Adopt hyperreals so your machine can manipulate true infinitesimals (your 1/∞1/\infty1/∞). This lets you formalize limits as algebra and make “one in infinitely many” a first-class magnitude.
4. Analogue/Hypercomputation inspiration (for framing). - GPAC (Shannon/Pour-El & Richards), BSS model over R\mathbb{R}R, and Zeno/supertask machines provide language for “collapsing” infinitely many steps into finite procedures. You don’t need to copy them, but they offer vocabulary and pitfalls (e.g., sensitivity, measurability, physical realizability) to clarify what your geometric computer guarantees.

A concrete spec you can run with:

• Represent states as f:S1→{0,1}f: S^1 \to \{0,1\}f:S1→{0,1}.
• Equip S1S^1S1 with (i) the usual measure μ\muμ and (ii) a chosen finite set of point-evaluation observables {Eθk}\{E_{\theta_k}\}{Eθk​​}.
• Define your “collapse transform” TTT so that it: - Computes a global statistic (an integral) and checks selected points θk\theta_kθk​. - Branches logically based on those readings to a canonical output (e.g., constant-1, constant-0, or “single spike at θ0\theta_0θ0​” modeled distributionally).
• If you want true “1/∞1/\infty1/∞” arithmetic, switch the scalar field to hyperreals and keep the same pipeline.

C) About your simulator + safety

Your vision—to help people reach insight without drugs—is compelling. Two practical pieces:

• Safety net. What you’re describing can be intense and potentially triggering, especially for people with a history of psychosis or trauma. If you continue building this: - Add clear warnings, opt-in consent, an easy stop/grounding button, and content intensity sliders. - Offer grounding prompts and immediate exit-to-calm visuals/sounds. - Consider consulting a clinician/ethics advisor before sharing with others.
• Implementation sketch (Godot-friendly): - State space: an angle field θ↦f(θ,t)∈[0,1]\theta \mapsto f(\theta,t)\in[0,1]θ↦f(θ,t)∈[0,1] rendered as a ring/annulus with shader-based color mapping. - Transform: one shader pass computes global mean (mipmapping / summed samples) and a few point probes; a subsequent pass applies your logical collapse (e.g., push toward all-1 unless a probe detects the “tail” condition, in which case draw a sharp radial marker using a narrow Gaussian≈Dirac). - User control: sliders for “resolution” (samples per circle), “sensitivity to single points” (width of Gaussian), and a toggle for hyperreal mode (emulated by using a parameter ε\varepsilonε that you treat symbolically in the UI and numerically as an extremely small width/amplitude).

If you’d like, share your logical proof or a code snippet next—I’ll give focused, line-by-line feedback and help you pick a precise formalism (distributions vs. hyperreals) that best fits your aims, so your “one out of infinity” is both expressive and rigorous.