The World and Mind of Computation and Complexity

Using the Schafftarian hypothesis to recreate the Turings Machine in a more complex, but efficient way.
Copyright 20 2 !reg Schaffter

Published by Smashwords Introduction "t is har# to imagine the $irtual worl# as the worl# of reality, where ob%ects are tangible an# one can these ob%ects with the existence of sight without using mathematical terms an# using symbols to #escribe the worl# %ust to see what it loo&s li&e. 'owe$er, the $irtual worl# is a worl# where nothing exists in obser$ation, but only in the mathematical perception where there are hypothetical i#entities an# analogies which are nee#e# to #escribe them. (t any state, one coul# loo& at the $irtual worl# as if it is our worl# of reality) there are limitations, howe$er with those limitations, i#eas an# concepts can be use# to create won#rous things. "magine that the $irtual worl#, as you all of the su##en appear in a #ar& space with nothingness. *ou can see that e$erything is #ar&ness, howe$er you can thin& to create whate$er can be create#, howe$er you must, with a certain language of mathematics, spea& what you want to create.

Schafftarian 'ypothesis

( specific language is nee#e# to create something for if there is no language in existence, how can one #etermine what to create in the first place+ The cyber worl#, as it is referre# to in common #ay society, wor&s the same way where it relies off a common mathematical language to carry out its #aily tas&s. ,n of the languages use# is calle# -inary. -inary, consisting of only ones an# .eros, is a mathematical computeri.e# language that is use# to calculate $alues an# carry out other tas&s, li&e how machines carry out the processes that they are programme# to #o for human society. Mathematics itself, which the cyber worl# relies on, is a worl# that #oes not consist of concrete ob%ects, but of hypothetical ob%ects that represent the ob%ects that exist in reality.

"n this way, we can represent language as a concrete ob%ect, the #imensions more specifically, which arent really concrete concepts, but yet are things that exist in reality. There are one #imensional languages, two #imensional languages, three #imensional languages, an# so forth with the other languages existing in other #imensions yet not un#erstan#able by our current human &nowle#ge. /or example, binary is a one #imensional language, where it only wor&s with one layer consi#ering the Schafftarian hypothesis.

,ne example of existent hypothetical machines that use this one #imensional language is the Turings Machine. The Turings Machine relies on only wor&ing on one #imension, which means that it can only carry out only one process per exponential process that is carrie# out. Computers use this type of metho#, only carrying out one process per exponential step. "n our current times, the impro$ement of computers only lea#s to computing faster these exponential steps by spee#ing up how fast it ta&es to carry out these steps. 'owe$er, it isnt really the focus

of #iscussion when carrying out multiple steps per process. This means ha$ing a language that wor&s on multiple #imensions. 'ere is an example of a multiple #imensional language using only ones an# .eros.

0ow, if one were to use the Schafftarian matrix algorithm to ma&e it appear on a one layere# scale, here is what the result woul# be.

1ith the applie# algorithm to the se2uence, the se2uences becomes more complex in its structure, howe$er there is a way to re$erse the #oings of the algorithm by using the in$erse of the Schafftarian matrix algorithm, which essentially is ta&ing each se2uence element an# carrying out the algorithm to bring it bac& to its original state. This, e$en though with its simplicity, coul# re$erse a problem that was earlier sol$e#. /or example, if one was to ta&e two numbers, n an# k, an# these numbers were multiplie# together to get a specific $alue you coul# also ta&e that specific $alue to get the in$erse. Therefore, you woul# be able to complete the in$erse in the same amount of time it too& to sol$e the problem in the first place.

(s seen here, n an# k are the representations of the factors of the solution. 'owe$er, it is not as simple as this. Since n an# k can represent multiple numbers, that means there can be multiple solutions to the in$erse of the problem. 'owe$er, with the matrix algorithm each solution, though $ery similar, is uni2ue to its two factors. The factors, in this case, #o not refer to the $alues that are represente#, but by the matrix factor that represent the $alues. /or applying the Schafftarian algorithm to the problem, the $ariables n an# k are to represent the matrix representations of the factors. Though, these two $ariables will not multiply together as matrices woul# be.

1hen multiplying the two matrices, in this case, the Schafftarian algorithm must be applie# where instea# of multiplying the elements of n an# k, the correspon#ing elements actually are combine# as two elements. ,nce that is complete#, the Schafftarian matrix algorithm will be applie# again with the new sets, to get the solution. To retrie$e the factors of the solution, one merely carries out the in$erse of the algorithm an# applies it to the solution get the two factors

that were in$ol$e# in the solution. Therefore, fin#ing the solution an# fin#ing the factors of the solution can be #one in the same amount of time. 'owe$er, a problem with this metho# is fin#ing multiple ways to get the same solution.

1ith the #ifficulty of fin#ing the multiple implications of #ifferent elemental #ifferentiations, this metho# faces a problem. Since one solution shoul# ha$e multiple factors, especially for problems, such as multiplications, this metho# may not wor& #ue to the strictness to its boun#s. 1ith this i#eal in min#, there coul# be a way to sol$e this issue. This woul# be to allow solutions to ha$e multiple outputs, or expan#ing the boun#s of which a solution can be foun#. This woul# mean allowing certain solutions to ha$e multiple interpretations. 'owe$er, this woul# ma&e the problem more complex, therefore ruining the point of a simple solution to an issue, which is to fin# the factors of a multiplication solution. ,ne way to sol$e this complexity solution is to increase the amount of le$els, or layers, that the problem is sol$e# on. 1ith the Schafftarian hypothesis, there is the Schafftarian matrix, which is represente# with , where the $ariable

n symboli.es the number of layers of le$els an# the $ariable k symboli.es the length or complexity of the problem. To #etermine the complexity of the problem, this formula woul# be use#.

This formula states that the complexity of the Schafftarian matrix S, with its #imensions being n by k, is e2ual to the pro#uct of the exponential time nee#e# to sol$e the problem an# the amount of elements within the problem #i$i#e# by the amount of le$els or layers use# to sol$e the problem to reach the solution. "f complexity is linear, this formula woul# pre#ict complexity because with complexity being linear, that means there is a pattern within complexity, which

means there shoul# be a pattern within pattern within probability as well. 'owe$er, if complexity is non3linear this woul# also mean that probability is non3linear. This means that complexity an# probability is unpre#ictable, although it seems that both are linear at the time. The graph below represents the linear growth of complexity if there is one layer or le$el within the Schafftarian matrix.

(s seen in the graph, with the increase of elements within a six le$ele# or layere# problem, there is an increase of complexity within the problem. "n or#er to lower complexity, the amount of elements has to be lower than the amount of layers of the problem, which is represente# by . This has correlation with 4 an# 04 problems.

"n or#er to #etermine whether the $alue of

is either classifie# as being a P problem, a problem

that can be $erifie# an# sol$e# within exponential time, is e2ual to an NP problem, a problem that can be only $erifie# in polynomial time, a scale is use#. "n this scale for complexity, there is a range from .ero to infinity. "f the Schaffter Complexity, also abbre$iate# as sc, is less than 00,

then it is to be classifie# as a P problem. 'owe$er, if sc is either e2ual to or larger than 00, it is to be classifie# as an 04 problem.

Therefore, this means that P cannot always e2ual NP. This is #ue to the fact that with the increase of elements or le$els, exponential time will also increase no matter the case. 'owe$er, there is always the possibility that the Schafftarian complexity $alue is e2ual for both the 4 an# 04 problem e$en with the increase of elements an# le$els. 'owe$er this type of circumstance is un&nown currently or may not exist at all. The reason is explaine# mathematically, where the exponential time has to be proportional to the amount of le$els an# elements an# being proportional to the machine that is carrying out the process. There is also a formula to inclu#e the factor of spee# that the machine carrying out the process, which woul# be the following5

1ith the prior #efinition of the $ariables within this formula, the $ariable m symboli.es the a$erage spee# that the machine carrying out the process has. The original formula ignores the i#ea of machine spee#, therefore generali.es complexity, assuming that all machines carry out the process at the same exact spee#. 'owe$er, this formula assumes that all machines run at #ifferent spee#s, therefore ma&ing a more accurate pre#iction base# on the machine itself. 'owe$er, if one were to try to calculate the general complexity of a problem, using the general formula woul# be more accurate #ue to how e$en fast machines ha$e to carry out the same amount of steps in or#er to complete the process the user wants complete#. Therefore, it is more accurate to use the first formula because it ma&es a #epiction of complexity from the

perspecti$es of all spee#s rather than the spee# of one specific machine. Complexity, if to be useful in analysis, nee#s to be loo&e# at without the spee# of the machine, but with what problem is being sol$e# by the machine an# the exponential time nee#e# to complete the process that is nee#e# to sol$e a problem.

"n or#er to be able to use the Schaffter Complexity formula, there has to be a way to calculate the exponential time nee#e# to sol$e or e$aluate the problem. "n or#er to #o this, the exponential time formula woul# be nee#e#, if applie# to the Schafftarian matrix.

This formula, howe$er, implies that each le$el or layer of the Schafftarian matrix is e2ual amounts of elements. Therefore, if the amount of elements in each le$el or layer is une2ual, that means this formula retrie$es the approximate exponential time nee#e# to carry out the full process in or#er to sol$e or e$aluate the problem to fin# the solution. "n this case, if the $ariable is replace# with its formula) here is what the mathematical formula for Schaffter Complexity woul# be.

This $ersion of the formula, howe$er, assumes that the exponential time nee#e# to sol$e or e$aluate a problem is pre#ictable by the exponential time formula. "n any case, not all things are pre#ictable, for there are unexplaine# phenomena, such as being able to sol$e a problem in #ifferent ways. "f this is the case, this means that pre#ictability is non3linear in complexity. 1ith non3linear complexity, it is implausible to ma&e an accurate mathematical formula or e2uation to pre#ict complexity or be able to pre#ict probability because probability follows similar principles as complexity. Therefore, this woul# mean that P can, but not always e2ual NP. This woul# bring about unpre#ictability within complexity because if it cannot be pre#icte# whether a problem is a P or NP problem, there is no way to pro$e whether P e2uals NP or not. "n such a case, this means that there is no mathematical way to pre#ict complexity or probability, therefore it only can be represente# by formulas an# e2uations that can ma&e far approximations of a problem with a $alue of complexity or probability. 'owe$er, there are ways to ma&e e2uations or formulas that in some ways ma&e close approximations to real $alues. "n any case, with the unpre#ictability of complexity an# probability, it ren#ers almost all e2uations or formulas that exist to be only accurate to a certain extent #etermine# by the complexity of the problem. 6$en with e2uations for the mass of ob%ects an# the gra$itational pull of planets an# celestial bo#ies, there is a great #eal of accuracy an# a great #eal of approximation. This &in# of unpre#ictability can be seen within 2uantum mechanics, especially with 'eisenbergs uncertainty principle. The more complex the problem becomes, the less accurate a formula or e2uation becomes. 1ithin the boun#s of a problem, the formula nee#e# to fin# the solution becomes more complex as the si.e of the problem increases. 1ith this i#ea of complexity, two sections of complexity can be ma#e

to classify certain problems, which are &nown as the P an# NP classification, as explaine# before.

1ith this scale, beta represents sc. 'a$ing .ero beta woul# not normally be use# in a problem because in or#er to sol$e a problem it re2uires some form of wor& in or#er to process the sol$e or e$aluate the problem in the first place. 'owe$er, since this scale applies to all instances, .ero beta is inclu#e# on the scale. "n or#er for this scale to wor& with complexity an# probability, there has to be the assumption that complexity an# probability are both linear. The reason for this is #ue to the way complexity $alues wor&, where proportionality is an important factor of complexity $alues. 1ith a non3linear complexity system, pre#ictability upon a complexity scale woul# be almost useless #ue to the non3linear nature of complexity $alues, thus ren#ering complexity measurement useless. 7ue to the lac& of e$i#ence or proofs lea#ing to the conclusion of a non3linear system, it must be assume# at the time that complexity an# probability are linear an# proportional to their factors.

'owe$er, if it is true that complexity an# probability are non3linear, then the pre#ictability of e$ents an# $alues is mainly #ue to coinci#ence an# sensiti$ity of a specific item to be sol$e#. 8uantum mechanics is one area in which sensiti$ity is a ma%or issue with the e2uations an# formulas that are use# in that particular fiel#. 1ith complexity an# probability being ren#ere# non3linear, e2uations an# formulas of all scientific fiel#s woul# be ren#ere# only ha$ing the ability to pre#ict the unpre#ictable with only such accuracy that the 9nee#e#: $alues are reache#,

howe$er the accuracy is only lea#ing to an approximate solution. Though this woul# be the #ownfall of non3linear complexity, the goo# thing with non3linear complexity an# probability is P can, in certain circumstances, e2ual NP if the right factors are met, where the complexity $alue is low enough to be consi#ere# a P problem.

The 00 beta is what separates each si#e of the complexity scale, with each si#e of the scale being off balance# because abo$e 00 beta complexity can reach infinity. ,ne 2uestion, howe$er, is whether a problem with infinite complexity can be e$aluate# or sol$e#. "f a problem ha# infinite complexity, this woul# mean that it ha# either infinite exponential time, ren#ering the problem improbable so sol$e, ha$ing infinite elements, or e$en infinite le$els or layers.

The one extraor#inary thing about this type of situation is how the formula wor&s with infinite le$els or layers. "f there are infinite le$els or layers within a problem, meaning that the $ariable n is e2ual to infinity, if the exponential time or element count is not e2ual to infinity, this means that the complexity $alue woul# be 0, which means that a problem being wor&e# on has no complexity at all. These following con#itions, howe$er, are not always possible because all $ariables ha$e to be proportional to the problem.

1ith the gi$en wor&, this means that a problem #one with six elements on a six layere# Schafftarian matrix, the complexity woul# be ;<<< beta. Therefore, the example problem woul# be an NP problem, since the complexity $alue is larger than 00 beta. 1ith these formulas, #ifferent instances can be pre#icte#, such as the amount elements that were in the initial problem or how many layers or le$els were use# to complete the problem an# e$aluate or sol$e it. This example, howe$er, #oes not inclu#e the factor of sol$ing spee#. The following formula woul# be use# to get exponential time that inclu#es the factor of machine spee#.

Therefore, if one were to want to inclu#e machine spee# into the complexity formula, the following woul# be the result.

"n this case, the complexity $alue using this formula cannot be the exact $alue, but only the approximate because machine spee# is not part of exponential time. 0ow, the 2uestion is what is the spee# of a machine+ The spee# of a machine is the a$erage time it ta&es to sol$e a set of problems with certain amount of elements. The spee# of a machine is as follows5

"n this formula, machine spee#, represente# by m, is e2ual to the amount of elements in the set of similar si.e# problems, which is represente# by e, #i$i#e# by the a$erage time it ta&es to carry out these problems, which is represente# by . This formula, howe$er, can only approximate the

machine spee# #ue to unpre#ictable factors, but can gi$e enough accuracy to gi$e a goo# complexity $alue. 1hen combining the formula for machine spee# an# formula for complexity, here is the following result.

1ith these sets of formulas, many #ifferent things can be pre#icte#. /or example, the following formulas represent their correspon#ing #escriptions.

This formula represents the n $ariable, which is the wi#th of the Schafftarian matrix.

This formula represents the k $ariable, which is the height of the Schafftarian matrix.

This formula is a proof formula, which allows one to pro$e that any gi$en solution is accurate for that specific situation.

This is one formula to obtain the area of a Schafftarian matrix problem.

Most of the formulas presente# here are ways to obtain $alues an# pre#ict complexity $alues. These can be useful if one is gi$en the complexity $alue an# one of the #imensions. /or example, if the goal is to obtain the $alue of k, which represents the amount of elements within a gi$en problem. ( sample of using these formulas is if the gi$en complexity $alue is 00<, where the amount of layers or le$els of the problem is =, the following woul# be #one.

Since k is ;.0>>, this means that there are approximately three to four elements within each layer or le$el of the problem. "n or#er to obtain the whole amount of elements within the problem, multiply the approximate k $alue by n. This means that there are approximately < elements within this problem. This is base# on exponential time because exponential time is a #etermining factor of the problem an# how fast it is sol$e# in general. (gain, these formulas assume that complexity an# probability are linear.

The only thing to fin# from here is #etermining whether complexity an# probability are linear or non3linear. "f complexity is linear, woul# be pro$en to be correct, where if complexity

is non3linear, this woul# mean that P #oes, in fact, e2ual NP in certain circumstances.

Non-linear graph of complexity

Linear graph of complexity

1ith the linear $ersion of complexity, the complexity $alue increases on a slope that #oesnt change, therefore the limitation of complexity lies un#er a certain boun#s. 'owe$er, with non3 linear complexity, there are infinite arrays of problems that are P problems. 1ith non3linear complexity, pre#ictability is unpre#ictable, especially since there are an infinite amount of e2uations an# formulas that fit within the P an# NP problem spectrum. 1ithin that spectrum, there are, howe$er, areas of negati$e complexity. This #oesnt seem possible because negati$e complexity woul# mean that there are problems that can 9sol$e# themsel$es:. This seems impossible because in or#er to sol$e a problem there nee#s to be an intelligence that sol$es the problem in the first place. This is why it seems least li&ely that complexity is non3linear #ue to its improbable nature of complexity. 1ith linear complexity, there is an existence of proportionality, which means that the complexity $alue will correspon# with only one set of $alues for n an# k.

,ne ma%or #ifference between linear an# non3linear complexity is the existence of cause an# effect. ?inear complexity states that cause an# effect must exist #ue to proportionality in its

nature an# the way it wor&s through systems of probability. ,n the other han# non3linear complexity states that cause an# effect are not nee#e# to complete a specific set of problems. 1ith lac& of term, these problems can be loo&e# as 9imaginary: problems because they lie within the spectrum of 9non3existent: problems. "n any case, there also can be a specific system where both linear an# non3linear complexity exists. This woul# mean that there are problems that nee# an intelligence to sol$e while there are problems that #o not nee# an intelligence to sol$e. 'owe$er, the reason that 9imaginary: problems #ont seem to exist is #ue to how existent problems cancel out these 9imaginary: problems. This woul# the same as how there is anti3 matter an# matter. Since matter exists, anti3matter is har# to fin# because of its existence with matter. "f it is non3linear complexity that exists, this means that in e$ery#ay life there are 9imaginary: problems. This assumes, howe$er, that there are infinite P problems within complexity. "n or#er for infinite P problems to exist, non3linear complexity woul# ha$e to be symmetrical. 'owe$er, currently there is no proof that non3linear complexity is not symmetrical, since there is a seemingly infinite array of problems that fall within the P spectrum of problems. Therefore, if complexity is non3linear, this woul# mean that there are infinite amounts of P problems within the spectrum of problems within complexity an# probability. The only real &nown way to pro$e that non3linear complexity #oes not ha$e an infinite array of P problems is to form a function that represents more accurately the form of non3linear complexity.

,ne other issue with non3linear complexity is the i#ea that with legitimate information to a recei$er must always ha$e a sen#er. 1ith non3linear complexity, for some problems there is no nee# for a sen#er, but only a recei$er, which is a representation of the solution. ?inear complexity supports the existence of a sen#er in or#er for there to be a recei$er. 1ith this in min#, if non3linear complexity is pro$en to be the correct form of complexity, this woul# also

pro$e the existence of one3way functions. 1ith one way functions, there is a way to retrie$e the solution, but then not be able to retrie$e the problem itself. 0on3linear complexity woul# be the same concept, where there is no sen#er of the recei$e# information, therefore there is no way to re$erse the process of fin#ing the problem using the solution of the problem.

/or linear complexity, the sen#er can be foun# easily with using the recei$e# problem. 'owe$er, for non3linear complexity, it can only be pre#icte# whether there is a sen#er of the problem or none at all. 1ith this in min#, it woul# be improbable to #etermine whether there was a sen#er of the problem or not. "f non3linear complexity is the correct form of complexity, that woul# ren#er all solutions unable to lin& themsel$es to a sen#er at all because there woul# be no &nown way to #etermine if there is a sen#er of the solution at all. This woul# mean that e$erything #ealing with mathematics is a concept in or#er to un#erstan# a truth that is unable to be foun# because there is no real way to pro$e that the mathematical solution come from the formulas or e2uations that are &nown to#ay in mathematics an# science. This woul# also mean there woul# be no way to pro$e that current mathematical formulas or e2uations are correct in the first place, but these e2uations an# formulas only will gi$e an approximation close enough to the true solution of a problem. This is one of the many connections between non3linear complexity an# 2uantum mechanics. 3 Many of the e2uations an# formulas seen within the fiel# 2uantum mechanics #eal with mainly

pre#icting $alues an# fin#ing probabilistic locations of particles. 8uantum mechanics mainly #eals with pre#ictions an# probability, using pre#ictions to fin# the locations of specific particles within an area. 0on3linear Complexity can be $iewe# the same way as 2uantum mechanics, where e2uations an# formulas can only pre#ict the outcome of specific problems, an# being unable to retrie$e #ata from the original problem.

"t is also #ifficulty to #etermine whether a $alue is a solution to a problem if complexity is non3 linear, since it woul# re2uire pre#ictability or probability to fin# an approximate solution. 1ith there being one3way functions within non3linear complexity, there woul# be no apparent way to pro$e that a solution came from a specific problem unless it is &nown alrea#y that the solution belongs to that problem. 'owe$er, if non3linear complexity is the true form of complexity, this woul# not mean that chaos exists within complexity an# probability. Chaos assumes that there is no or#er within information an# within problems an# solutions. 1ith non3linear complexity, there is an or#er that exists, but is not as apparent as it woul# seem for linear complexity.

Non-linear complexity

Linear complexity

1ith non3linear complexity, there is no apparent form of or#er. 1ith the chaotic $iew of non3 linear complexity, there is no simple way to form a function that represents the positioning an# properties of ob%ects in that position. 0on3linear complexity woul# ha$e to follow pre#ictability rather than accurate solutions to a problem. ?inear complexity follows a #ifferent mathematical function of fin#ing solutions to a problem an# goes against non3linear complexity. 1ith linear complexity, a function woul# be possible to form that #escribes complexity, being able to form formulas an# e2uations that can accurately gi$e a solution to a problem or set of problems. /in#ing the function for linear complexity coul# e$en help pre#ict e2uations for science an# mathematics, which is being able to pre#ict an# pro$e whether an e2uation is correct or not by #etermining if it follows along with the function of linear complexity. The issue with linear complexity, howe$er, is how it contra#icts what is &nown about the Uni$erse, especially with the fiel# of 2uantum mechanics. Since mathematics is all base# off of the patterns an# or#er of nature, there must be a connection between complexity an# reality. Therefore, non3linear complexity woul# seem more li&ely in this case because of its connection to 2uantum mechanics. Many of 2uantum mechanics formulas an# e2uations rely on pre#ictability an# follows along with the philosophy that e$erything can only be #etermine# through pre#ictability. This woul# also mean that complexity an# probability are either i#entical or e$en the same thing. This woul# combine the concepts of probability an# complexity, therefore i#entifying solutions as only pre#ictions of what exists in reality. "t woul# also mean that P #oes an# #oes not e2ual NP. "n certain cases, #etermine# by the graph of non3linear complexity, there are certain cases where P #oes e2ual NP while in other instances P #oes not e2ual NP. This is a similar concept in 2uantum mechanics, where it can be sai# that a particle is in a certain location while it is also not in that same location. ( similar concept applies to complexity, where P can e2ual NP while it also

cannot e2ual NP at the same time. 1ith this i#ea, it will be #ifficult to pro$e that complexity is non3linear because there is no specific point where non3linear complexity can be pro$en with. (lso, with non3linear complexity, proportionality woul# be ren#ere# only coinci#ence because of its unpre#ictable nature. "n nature, it is pro$en that proportionality is $ery common with natural entities, especially on cosmic scales. 1ith linear complexity, proportionality is a $ali# because with linear complexity the complexity $alue is proportional to the amount of elements in the problem an# the le$els or layers within the problem.

Information tree for complexity, both of linear and non-linear complexity

(n information tree can be #e$elope# to show the main #ifferences between linear an# non3 linear complexity. The information tree can be forme# the same way as the sen#er an# recei$er chart can be forme#. ?in&ing solutions to their specific problems is part of linear complexity an# being able to fin# what the original problem was using the solution. 0on3linear complexity states that the original problem must be &nown in or#er to #etermine the source of the solution.

Mo#ern #ay thin&ing of the worl#, howe$er, seems to agree that linear complexity is the true form of complexity because e$erything can be bro&en #own into other forms or substances that

exist. /or example, protons of atoms can be bro&en #own into other elementary particles that exist. Solutions to problems, P or an NP problem, can be also bro&en #own into smaller pieces. This, howe$er, is not the point that is #eri$e# from the argument of whether complexity is linear or non3linear. The real point of arguing the existence of a linear or non3linear complexity is whether P an# NP can be e2ual. 1ith the complexity formula being in$ol$e#, here is how P e2ualing NP woul# loo& li&e.

1ith the linear complexity mo#el, this e2uation woul# show that P an# NP cannot be e2ual because the $alues must be proportional to their specific problem. Therefore, linear complexity argues against the i#ea of P being e2ual to NP. "n or#er for these two to be e2ual, complexity woul# ha$e to be non3linear, being that the $alues are not proportional.

1ith the existence of non3linear complexity, the formulas woul# ha$e to inclu#e $ariables of unpre#ictable $alues. This woul# mean the formula woul# ha$e to be mo#ifie# in a way that inclu#es all factors in$ol$e# within the non3linear complexity.

"n this non3linear complexity formula, C represents the unpre#ictable factor within non3linear complexity. 6$en with an unpre#ictability $ariable C, both P an# NP woul# not be e2ual in certain circumstances because the unpre#ictability $ariable woul# ha$e to be e2ual on both si#es, which woul# cause the gap of #ifference between P an# NP no bigger or smaller.

Therefore, the unpre#ictability $ariable coul# e2uali.e these two types of problems. 'owe$er, the 2uestion woul# be what this unpre#ictability $ariable represents. 1ith non3linear complexity, there exists infinite ways to sol$e a problem. This means being able to use #ifferent metho#s to fin# the solution to a problem, which then ultimately #efies the i#ea of se2uential complexity, meaning linear complexity. The only problem with this i#ea is how each metho# of sol$ing a problem must ha$e similar buil# up as the other. /or example, there may be multiple ways to calculate the $alue of , yet each way to calculate the $alue follows along the same path as the

other metho#s, such as using infinite series or using integrals. Though infinite series an# the use of integrals are particularly #ifferent metho#s, they still fall along the lines of se2uences that can be use# to calculate more accurately the $alue of . This system applies to non3linear complexity. 0on3linear complexity pro$i#es insight into an infinite realm of ways to sol$e problems that lie within the spectrum of P an# NP problems. ?inear complexity, on the other han#, goes along with the philosophy that there are problems that only can be sol$e# with certain metho#s, formulas, an# e2uations. Many fiel#s also follow along with this i#ea of exact formulas an# e2uations of linear complexity such as general physics. "n general physics, most e2uations an# formulas suppose#ly gi$e accurate #epictions of mathematical concepts of nature an# the many forces that exist within reality. 'owe$er, the problem with this notion of accuracy is how inaccurate the $alues are compare# to exact $alues. /or example, the e2uation for gra$ity, pro$i#e# by "saac 0ewton, is the following5

'is e2uation is approximately accurate) howe$er it is not an accurate e2uation as other physicists ha$e pro$en by forming other e2uations, such as (lbert 6insteins fiel# e2uations #ealing with gra$ity. 1ith the a#$ancement of science, more accurate e2uations are foun# an# form better ways of pre#icting natural $alues. 'owe$er, all these e2uations ha$e one thing in common) they are all approximations. Some may argue that e$en though they are approximations to real $alues they are still within the lines of being correct $alues #ue to the precision nee#e# to ma&e an accurate $alue consi#ere# a $ali# $alue. 'owe$er, the reason for their accuracy is #ue to the other $alues that help ma&e approximations to exact $alues. (n example of this woul# be imagining a circle of a particular si.e on a graph, where on the graph this circle mo$es on a slope of m on the graph. ,ne can ma&e a formula that pre#icts the slope of m by #etermining the

positions of the circle with certain $alues of x or y, howe$er the accuracy of that formula or function may be $ery slim. 8uestions about the problem coul# arise where the circles slope may be changing $ery n changes in the x $alue.

1ith particular functions with this specific problem, it woul# be har# to pre#ict the location accurately for this circle #ue to the lac& of information that is gi$en to sol$e such a problem. Since the problem has the gi$en that the circle is increasing by m, with the increase of x. 1ith an increase in &nowle#ge of the path of this circle, more accurate formulas or e2uations that pre#ict the path of this circle may be #e$elope#, but yet the formula or e2uation that exists for this type of problem is still an approximation of the path of this circle because of other factors becoming in$ol$e# that may not be &nown to the one who is sol$ing the problem to come upon a solution

an# e$aluation of the path of the circle. 6xample formulas that coul# be forme# from are the following5

1ith this formula that follows the y = mx

b formula, there is a somewhat accurate

approximation of the path of the circle within the problem. 'owe$er, a better an# more accurate approximation can be forme# from the following formula5

This is a more accurate approximation of the path that the circle is following, but there is an e$en more accurate approximation using infinite series.

1ith the continuation of being able to fin# more an# more formulas an# e2uations that can pro$i#e more accurate approximations of the path of this circle, the problem becomes more complex. ,ne coul# ma&e the case that since there are more formulas an# e2uations that become more accurate than the pre$ious formula or e2uation, which then lea#s to the conclusion that there must be an infinite array of formulas an# e2uations that more accurately pre#ict the solution to the problem. Therefore, this woul# gi$e the assumption that complexity is non3linear.

"n or#er to #etermine the accuracy of a formula or e2uation through complexity, there is a formula to #etermine the accuracy $alue, which is an approximation of accuracy. ,f course, this assumes that the true path of the circle is actually &nown to the one who is sol$ing the problem.

The accuracy $alue, represente# by accurate, represente# by

, is e2ual to the 2uotient of the #ecimal places that are

, an# the complexity $alue that is calculate# when calculating the . To apply this, an is to

complexity of the calculations to get the #ecimal $alue, represente# by

example woul# be an e2uation or formula for calculating . ,ne e2uation to calculate use the following e2uation that uses the infinite series, but with k e2ualing ten5

"n or#er to calculate accuracy, the amount of #ecimals accurate to

woul# ha$e to be counte#.

"n this case, the amount of accurate #ecimals within this e2uation is one.

"n this problem, the accuracy of this e2uation is !"!#. This, howe$er, only applies to this series because the amounts of steps ta&en were only ten. /or an infinite series, howe$er, the accuracy woul# also be infinite because of the amount of steps ta&en is, in fact, infinite. "t may be confusing to some because accuracy may be #epicte# as a measurement of complexity. "t is in some cases, but the $alue of accuracy #oes not show specifically how complex a problem is, but how accurate the solution is compare# to the problem. 1ith calculating accuracy, it also can be measure# on a scale, an# with that there are two specific spectrums of accuracy. These two &in#s of accuracy are $P an# $$P, where $P stan#s for approximation, while $$P stan#s for accurate approximation. The #etermining factor between whether a solution is (4 or ((4 is whether the accuracy $alue is greater than ten.

1ith the calculation of , the e2uation, in the specific case it was put in, woul# belong in the $P spectrum of accuracy because it is below the $alue of ten. 0ow, it may be weir# for .ero to exist on an accuracy spectrum because .ero accuracy woul# seem irrele$ant because the assumption is if it ha# .ero accuracy it coul#nt be consi#ere# an approximation. 'owe$er, this is a false assumption because e$en with a $alue of .ero accuracy there are some #istinct similarities with the .ero accuracy approximation an# an accuracy $alue that may be higher. /or example, with ,

since the number is irrational an# goes on infinitely, there is no way for the accuracy $alue to reach the $$P spectrum because the number is infinitely large in #ecimal length. (ccuracy $alues an# the spectrum of $P an# $$P ha$e a close connection to the P an# NP spectrum. This connection #eals with how there is to be a proportion between accuracy an# complexity, especially with linear complexity. (s weir# as it soun#s, there coul# also be the same connection within non3linear complexity. The uni2ueness #oes not come from within non3linear complexity, but with the connection between non3linear complexity an# proportionality. 0on3linear complexity seems to #eny the existence of a proportion between the P an# NP problems, howe$er it #oes, in many cases, ha$e a proportion with accuracy an# approximation. This, in itself, is counter3intuiti$e #ue to the nature of non3linear complexity. 0on3linear complexity follows along the lines of being able, in certain cases, to ha$e both P an# NP problems e2ual, pro$i#ing insight to the realities of complexity where accuracy cannot be #etermine# because of complexity is non3linear that means there is no way to #efine accuracy. "n non3linear complexity, howe$er, accuracy is a big stan#ing point within this type of complexity because it relies on ha$ing accuracy as #etermining whether P is e2ual to NP or not. 1ith non3linear complexity, it can ne$er be &nown whether P is exactly e2ual to NP because accuracy cannot be #etermine# within non3linear complexity. Therefore, the accuracy $alue is a big part of non3linear complexity. 0on3linear complexity pro$i#es the i#ea that there are infinite areas whether P can e2ual NP, which then lea#s to the concept that P e2ualing NP is not an accurate, but approximate statement about the two spectrums of complexity. This is #ue to how sometimes P an# e2ual NP, while at other times they cannot be e2ual. This is specifically shown by the non3linear complexity graph. (t times, P can e2ual to NP with precision, howe$er at other times P cannot e2ual NP. This i#ea of non3linear complexity an# its correlation with accuracy also follows along

the lines of 2uantum mechanics. (ccuracy is not seen much in 2uantum mechanics because one #oes not thin& of the accuracy as a way to #etermine the approximation of a $alue, or in the case of 2uantum mechanics the location of a particle. 'owe$er, accuracy $alues are a big concept in 2uantum mechanics because 2uantum mechanics follows along the lines of non3linear complexity an# yet there are times when pre#ictions lea# to accuracy that is higher than other $alues of accuracy. This means that 2uantum mechanics is a big part of non3linear complexity, where accuracy #eals with the fact that P can sometimes e2ual NP, but in other cases it cannot e2ual NP.

Non-linear complexity graph comparison to accuracy

Linear complexity graph comparison to accuracy

1ith non3linear complexity, there are infinite times where the complexity $alue passes the complexity an# accuracy point, while with linear complexity passes both the complexity an# accuracy point are passe# by the complexity $alue only once. This shows that with non3linear complexity there are more problems that fall within both the P an# $P spectrum than within linear complexity.

This woul# mean that non3linear complexity seems to be more probable type of complexity that exists because linear complexity is such a strict form of complexity, which is not what is obser$e# within many fiel#s of science, such as 2uantum mechanics. 1ith these classifications of complexity, there is e$en the probability that complexity can both linear an# non3linear. This #oes not mean that complexity is both at the same time, but can ta&e forms of being linear an# non3linear. This follows along the point where with non3linear complexity P can at times e2ual

NP while in other circumstances P cannot e2ual NP. This is weir# concept because of the way this concept follows along the lines of how non3linear complexity treats both P an# NP problems. "f complexity can ta&e two #ifferent forms with P an# NP problems also ta&ing two #ifferent forms this woul# mean that an infinite loop of logic comes out of complexity. Since P can at times e2ual NP but in other cases it cannot e2ual NP within non3linear complexity, but yet if complexity can ta&e on the form of both linear an# non3linear complexity this woul# mean that complexity coul# still wor& with the i#ea of P sometimes e2ualing NP while at other times P #oes not e2ual NP.

Chart displaying different concepts of complexity

There is also another way that complexity can be loo&e# at. "nstea# of loo&ing at complexity as only being able to be linear, non3linear, or both, complexity can be loo&e# at as being all three #epen#ing on the type of problem. 'owe$er, it woul# not matter if complexity too& all three

forms because the only #ifference woul# be that linear complexity relies on strict or#er an# se2uence. 1ith strict or#er an# se2uence, patterns must emerge from ran#omness because ran#omness relies on probability to reach a ran#om set of $alues or instances. Therefore, within linear complexity true an# uni2ue ran#omness of sets cannot occur. 'owe$er, within non3linear complexity, complete an# uni2ue ran#omness is possible #ue to how P can e2ual NP an# at other times not e2ual to NP. 4ro$ing that complexity is non3linear woul# also pro$e that there is an algorithm that coul# gi$e outputs with $alues that are specifically uni2ue an# #o not appear to form the patterns that regular &nown algorithms #o themsel$es.

@an#omi.ation is one particular area of complexity that can get #ifficult, e$en with such a simple i#ea of ran#omness. The #ifficult part with ran#omness is the i#ea of fin#ing an algorithm that, with se2uential processes, can gi$e outputs are totally uni2ue to pre$ious an# future $alues that occur within that algorithm.

'owe$er, the problem with these type of algorithms is their inability to gi$e uni2ue $alues as outputs. "n or#er to ha$e uni2ueness, there woul# ha$e to be a uniform non3linear probability in$ol$e#, which woul# lea# to the i#ea of non3linear complexity. 1ith algorithms mostly &nown to following se2uential proportionality, linear complexity woul# be most probable with these &in#s of algorithms because of the nature of algorithms. 1ith algorithms, there has to be a step process carrie# out in or#er to consi#er it an algorithm, which woul# mean that se2uential $alues woul# follow as the output. The problem with se2uential outputs is there wont be uni2ue $alues

that procee# from the outputs that are ma#e from the algorithm itself. Therefore, if linear complexity there is no particular way to ma&e an algorithm that woul# pro#uce uni2ue outputs. "n or#er to be able to form an algorithm that completes the tas& of outputting uni2ue $alues, complexity woul# ha$e to be non3linear. 1ith non3linear complexity, the ran#omi.ation algorithm woul# ha$e to tra$el across the spectrum of complexity, forming a wa$e li&e pattern on the complexity spectrum. The big challenge, if complexity is non3linear, is being able to form an algorithm that can tra$el across the spectrum with only se2uential #e$elopment.

%andomi&ation 'ith non-linear complexity

%andomi&ation 'ith linear complexity

1ith non3linear complexity, the complexity $alue an# accuracy $alue can tra$el across the spectrum without strict limitation, howe$er with some limitations that non3linear complexity has. 'owe$er, with linear complexity, there is a stricter limitation to ran#omi.ation because the complexity $alue an# accuracy follows a linear course of the spectrum. 6$en with non3linear complexity, howe$er, there is still limitation to ran#omi.ation because it still has the limitations, an#, with limitation, there is no way to fin# a complete an# uni2ue algorithm that pro#uces outputs that are uni2uely ran#omi.e#. Therefore, e$en with non3linear complexity, complete ran#omi.ation is improbable using an algorithmic se2uence. "n any case, non3linear complexity can form a better algorithm that carries out ran#omi.ation because linear complexity has a stricter form of ran#omi.ation #ue to the limitation of its spectrum. 1ith the non3linear form of complexity, the ran#omi.ation point exists on multiple wa$elengths of complexity, while, with linear complexity, an or#er or se2uence of the ran#omi.ation point is foun#. This means that

with ran#omi.ation, there is a following se2uential or#er that is forme# from a ran#omi.ation algorithm. Therefore, one must assume that complete ran#omi.ation with the use of an algorithm is improbable because of the nature of complexity.

There are ways, with any form of complexity, that ran#omi.ation is possible if one uses multiple algorithms to achie$e uni2ue ran#omi.e# $alues. Using multiple algorithms to complete the goal is possible because with multiple algorithms the complexity $alue is #epen#ent on n amount of algorithms rather than only one particular algorithm. To measure ran#omi.ation, the following formula coul# be use# to #etermine whether the $alue, compare# to the algorithm, is uni2ue or not.

The formula, &nown as the @elati$e @an#omi.ation /ormula, states that the first $alue pro#uce# by the algorithm minus the secon# $alue pro#uce# by the algorithm #i$i#e# by the pro#uct of the amount of elements within the algorithm an# the amount of steps it ta&es to carry out the algorithm if an# only if the first $alue is larger than the secon# $alue. To apply this to an algorithm that pro#uces $alues where the secon# $alue is larger than the first $alue, the following formula woul# be use#.

"n or#er to be able to pre#ict the ran#omi.ation formula to ran#omi.ation $alues, a graph can be shown to pre#ict ran#omi.ation $alues for linear complexity.

%andomi&ation of linear complexity

"n or#er to apply ran#omi.ation to non3linear complexity, the following formula woul# ha$e to be ma#e.

To be able to pre#ict non3linear ran#omi.ation of complexity, the graph woul# loo& li&e the following.

%andomi&ation of non-linear complexity

The non3linear $ersion of complexity brings about the i#ea that ran#omi.ation has more accuracy within non3linear complexity than in linear complexity. This accuracy brings about the i#ea that ran#omi.ation is more intuiti$e in non3linear complexity than in linear complexity. 1ith ran#omi.ation, it ta&es more algorithmic se2uence an# si.e in or#er to complete a ran#omi.ation se2uence with linear complexity, as seen by the graphs shown. 'owe$er, with non3linear complexity, it ta&es less se2uence an# si.e for an algorithm to complete a ran#omi.ation that is uni2ue to each of the $alues pro#uce# by it. 'owe$er, e$en with this accuracy, there is no way with either linear or non3linear complexity that a simple algorithm can be pro#uce# to ha$e outputs of uni2ue $alues compare# to the other outputs pro#uce# by the algorithm. 'owe$er, this #oes not mean that it is not possible to #e$elop an algorithm that pro#uces outputs similar to uni2ue ran#omi.ation $alues.

There are two classifications of ran#omi.ation spectrums, which are $%, which stan#s for approximate ran#omi.ation, an# $$%, which stan#s for accurate approximate ran#omi.ation.

The rele$ance of accuracy to ran#omi.ation is #ue to how accuracy is measure# within complexity. (ccuracy #eals with how much of the goal was complete# with the problem in the first place. Therefore, there is a spectrum of accuracy for ran#omi.ation. The following is a scale to show how to #etermine whether the ran#omi.ation algorithm is $% or $$%.

"n or#er to classify a ran#omi.ation algorithm, using the ran#omi.ation #etermination formula, one has to #etermine whether the ran#omi.ation $alue is either less than 00 or if it is greater than or e2ual to 00. "f a ran#omi.ation $alue is smaller than 00, the ran#omi.ation algorithm is to be classifie# as $%. 'owe$er, if the ran#omi.ation $alue of an algorithm is greater than or e2ual to 00 the algorithm is to be classifie# as $$%. @an#omi.ation algorithms, howe$er, ha$e a proportionality to them, which is shown by the ran#omi.ation algorithm. This, again, is against the i#ea of no proportionality with non3linear complexity because, as state# before, non3linear complexity is against the i#ea of proportionality #ue to how it acts with problems being classifie# as either P or NP. Since the output $alues of a ran#omi.ation algorithm are the results of an algorithm, there has to be a connection, or proportionality, with the algorithm that ha# pro#uce# it. Therefore, ran#omi.ation algorithms ha$e to fall within the lines of linear complexity.

The issue with ha$ing uni2ue ran#omi.ation within linear complexity is the way that ran#omi.ation has been #efine#. @an#omi.ation is #efine# as the pro#uction of $alues of which

are uni2ue to other $alues that were pro#uce# within the e$ent of ran#omi.ation, but ha$ing connection with the e$en or algorithm that ha# pro#uce# that output $alue in the first place. Since non3linear complexity #eals with ha$ing no sen#er of information from which a recei$er ha# recei$e# the information, a ran#omi.e# set of $alues woul# ha$e connection with each other because they ha# come from an algorithm, no matter how complex the #ifference is between the $alues. This #efies the i#ea of non3linear complexity because of the i#ea of a sen#er an# recei$er. Therefore, ran#omi.ation an# non3linear complexity coul# not fit together to ma&e an un#erstan#able unity between the two concepts. This, in some sense, woul# not ma&e any particular un#erstan#ing of the two because both non3linear complexity an# ran#omi.ation follow along with the same concepts, which is the pro#uction of the two, will result in non3linear $alues.

Mathematically, there is no particular way to unite the two concepts, howe$er, philosophically, they shoul# be able to be unite# as one concept or at least be able to correspon# to one another. -oth ran#omi.ation an# non3linear complexity are both ma#e of similar, but #ifferent substance of i#eology. "n or#er for ran#omi.ation to fit in with non3linear complexity, it woul# ha$e to be pro#uce# from multiple algorithms, which #isputes the point of ran#omi.ation. The #ispute with multiple algorithms use# for ran#omi.ation is where ran#omi.ation is suppose# to be #one with only one specific algorithm, where the ran#omi.ation comes from one specific source. 'owe$er, when multiple sources are nee#e# to complete ran#omi.ation, it #efeats the purpose of ran#omi.ation where the set of output $alues is ran#omi.e# relati$e to a specific algorithm or set of se2uences an# steps.

'owe$er, this #oes not mean that using more than one algorithm is not a way to pro#uce ran#omi.ation, but simply states that the efficiency is less, especially when calculating the complexity $alue of the steps re2uire# pro#ucing the output $alues from those specific algorithms. The point, howe$er, is to be able to pro#uce a single algorithm that can pro#uce output $alues that are uni2ue to themsel$es without any connection between the $alues. This means that algorithms for ran#omi.ation are not completely ran#omi.e#, but pro#uce a larger #ifference between the output $alues. 'owe$er, it also can be conclusi$e that, e$en with no implication to #o so, all algorithms ha$e a ran#omi.ation $alue. 'owe$er, another form of the ran#omi.ation formula woul# ha$e to be use# because proportionality must exist with the algorithms, especially with linear complexity.

1ith this formula, an extra factor inclu#es the $alues of the elements within the algorithm. This factor is &nown as the exponential $ariable $alue. This $alue ta&es into perspecti$e the $alues that are outputte# from an algorithm. To calculate the exponential $ariable $alue, the first n amount of $alues must be foun#, which n must be e2ual to (, which represents the amount of elements outputte# from an algorithm. This formula ta&es into account the si.e of the elements within a specific algorithm, which becomes more accurate because all factors are important to calculating ran#omi.ation. The other form of the formula only brings into account the amount of elements an# the output $alues of the algorithm, but #oesnt bring into account the specific $alues of the elements of that specific algorithm. 1ith the existence of other algorithms that ha$e

#ifferent implications, there is still a ran#omi.ation that occurs within the algorithm. (ll algorithms ha$e a specific ran#omi.ation $alue) howe$er the point of the algorithm may not be to output ran#omi.e# $alues. Therefore, all algorithms fit within the spectrum of ran#omi.ation, which shows the relation between complexity an# ran#omi.ation. This relation between complexity an# ran#omi.ation brings into perspecti$e the i#ea that ran#omi.ation may actually be complexity. This ma%or similarity between ran#omi.ation an# complexity also brings up the issue of whether complexity is linear or non3linear. 1ith this in min#, it woul# also be an issue to #etermine whether ran#omi.ation is linear or non3linear.

1ith an existence of both linear an# non3linear ran#omi.ation, there woul# also be the 2uestion of whether non3linear ran#omi.ation belongs to non3linear complexity or whether non3linear ran#omi.ation belongs to linear complexity, or whether the types of ran#omi.ation belong with the correspon#ing form of complexity. "ssues with combining these types of ran#omi.ation an# complexity are the contra#ictions that occur, especially with non3linear complexity. 1ith non3 linear ran#omi.ation, e$ery output $alue is base# on multiple algorithms rather than %ust one particular algorithm. 0on3linear complexity relies on the i#ea that one simple algorithm woul# be able to carry out ran#omi.ation, which is why these two i#eas contra#ict. The i#eologies, howe$er, bring about new concepts of ran#omi.ation, where ran#omi.ation is not actually ran#omi.ation, but a complex se2uence that pro#uces huge #ifferences within the output $alues. This woul# mean that complete ran#omi.ation, by #efinition, is not possible because by the #efinition of complexity, especially linear complexity, there must be a sen#er of information an# a sen#er of information. 1ith the existence of a sen#er, all the output $alues pro#uce# by the

sen#er are $isible an# e$en the output $alues show similarities between each other, li&e a hint that can appear that shows the existence of a sen#er an# the sen#ers buil# up or processes.

This i#ea of sen#er an# recei$er information connection is repetiti$e within the types of complexity because the topic #eals with being able to #etermine accuracy, complexity, an# ran#omi.ation. 1ith the existence of linear an# non3linear forms of these three concepts, only the linear forms of the concepts support the i#ea of a sen#er an# recei$er. ,n the other han#, non3linear forms of these three concepts either #eny the existence of a sen#er or state that a sen#er is not nee#e# in or#er for information to exist. 'owe$er, with the lac& of e$i#ence, non3 linear complexity only hangs upon obser$ations that are ma#e. ?inear complexity has more e$i#ence to its structure because of the structure of algorithms, which #epen# upon se2uential #e$elopment rather than ran#omi.e# systems. The problem also, with the combination of complexity being linear at some instances, while being non3linear in other instances, is the fact that current single algorithms cannot output such ran#omi.e# an# non3proportional $alues. 1ithin the obser$able Uni$erse, there are many lin&s between linear complexity an# the way that the worl# is forme#, with the only exception being 2uantum mechanics. 8uantum mechanics is the only wea& lin& of complexity being non3linear. This coul# change) howe$er, as there is more &nowle#ge gaine# by the research in the 2uantum mechanical fiel#s. 1ith this in min#, it woul# li&ely be assume# that complexity is linear, howe$er this #oes not mean that non3linear complexity is not possible. "f, in any case, there is proof that an algorithm with such a large ran#omi.ation $alue #oes exist, this woul# mean that non3linear complexity is the true form of complexity. This woul# also mean that P problems can also e2ual NP problems. This woul# mean that a lot of something can come from a small amount of something. This #efies the i#ea of e2uality, where if you ha$e a certain amount of something the same amount is recei$e# from it.

4hysics follows the same types of philosophy where the e2uality of substance must be &ept. 1ith non3linear complexity, this woul# mean that e2uality happens within spectrum moments, where only a spectrum of $alues will wor& within the gi$en problem. 1hile non3linear complexity #eals with uncertainty within accuracy an# ran#omi.ation, linear complexity #eals with certainty within ran#omi.ation an# accuracy. 1ith non3linear concepts, it woul# be a brea&#own of certainty because with non3linear complexity there are spectrums of areas where ran#omi.ation an# accuracy are not proportional to complexity. 4roportionality is a popular obser$ation within nature, where the $alues an# properties of ob%ects ha$e similarities. /or example, within physics, mass an# gra$ity are proportional pro$en by the e2uations that scientists ha$e formulate# o$er the years.

4roportionality is a big concept with complexity an# the other concepts #iscusse#. 'owe$er, the formulas presente# for these concepts only #escribe those specific concepts. 4roportionality has its own formula as well, but in or#er to measure proportionality both complexity an# ran#omi.ation ha$e to be ta&en as factors. "n or#er to form a formula that is specifically meant for proportionality, both the complexity an# ran#omi.ation formula ha$e to be combine# as one particular formula.

4roportionality is represente# by the !ree& letter rho. The reason why proportionality is the pro#uct of complexity an# ran#omi.ation is #ue to how proportionality #eals with the #ifferences between $alues an# to their parent algorithm. 1ith the increase of complexity an# ran#omi.ation, there is an increase in thee proportionality because with the #ifference between two $alues pro#uce# by a specific algorithm, there is the connection also with the amount of elements within the algorithm an# the pro#uct of all the factors of the algorithm, which the inclu#es the factor of how many le$els or layers this algorithm is carrie# out on. "f the graph for proportionality for linear complexity, it woul# loo& li&e the following.

1ith the graph, this $ersion of the formula for proportionality has many similarities with the linear form of complexity. ,f course, this formula only applies to the linear concepts. 0on3linear properties of each concept woul# cause the formula to form an uncertainty #ue to how the formulas wor& for each concept.

0on3linear proportionality pro$i#es a more accurate stance on complexity, but still lac&s ability to pre#ict output $alues of algorithms. 0on3linear concepts are also more complex an# complicate# #ue to the lac& of proportionality that exists for non3linear concepts. This complexity ma&es non3linear complexity woul# cause the i#ea of e2uality to become a complicate# i#eology because if proportionality is the factor between e2uality, this woul# mean

that with many e2uations an# formulas e2uality #oes not always exist between two or more factors within both P an# NP problems. This i#ea of something not always being e2ual follows along with non3linear complexity because within certain spectrums of non3linear complexity, P can at times be e2ual to NP while at other times P cannot e2ual NP.

4roportionality is a $ery important part of mathematical fiel#s, especially !eometry an# Trigonometry, where in or#er to fin# segment $alues an# the si#es of specific shapes proportion is an important part of fin#ing those $alues. "t woul# not possible to be able to fin# these proportions if complexity is non3linear. This woul# mean that complexity woul# ha$e to be linear. 'owe$er, this is a misconception because for something complexity is linear while in other parts complexity is non3linear. This i#ea of linear an# non3linear complexity is what may separate all the fiel#s of science, especially between general physics an# 2uantum mechanics. !eneral physics follows the i#ea that many things that are in the physical realm can be calculate# with certainty with %ust using formulas an# e2uations, where 2uantum mechanics is the complete opposite. 1ith 2uantum mechanics, calculations are uncertainty within pre#icting locations of particles with formulas an# e2uations, howe$er these e2uations an# formulas pre#ict with some accuracy because the e2uations an# formulas bring into perspecti$e the factors that are in$ol$e# within the problem. ,ne issue with measuring proportionality is being able to measure the complexity of that proportion. This woul# re2uire a formula that ta&es into perspecti$e both the complexity of that proportion an# the proportionality $alue. To measure proportional complexity, the following formula woul# be use#.

"n this formula, the proportional complexity is e2ual to the 2uotient of the complexity $alue an# the #ifference of the pro#uct of the proportional $alue an# the first $alue an# the pro#uct of the proportional $alue an# the secon# $alue. This shows the connection between the complexity $alue of an algorithm with its proportionality factor an# output $alues. (nother way to loo& at this formula is by replacing all the $ariables with their correspon#ing formulas, which woul# be the following.

This woul# be the final form of the formula for calculating proportional complexity if the only factors of the proportional complexity $alue. 'owe$er, ran#omi.ation is also one of the factors of complexity) therefore another formula woul# ha$e to be ma#e to bring into perspecti$e the form of complexity. 'owe$er, these formulas are only for linear complexity. The following woul# inclu#e the ran#omi.ation factor.

1ith this formula, ran#omi.ation is inclu#e# as a factor of the proportional complexity $alue. This is a more accurate $iew of proportions because the ran#omi.ation $alues represent the main #ifference between $alues an# their uni2ueness. The farther apart the two $alues get, the more complex the proportionality is for one specific algorithm, hence the name 9proportional complexity:.

(ll of these formulas an# e2uations can all be properties of the Schafftarian matrix. 1ith the increase in n, the complexity $alue #ecreases. 'owe$er, with the increase of k, complexity increases.

1hat is interesting about this i#ea is how it lin&s to proportionality. 1ith proportionality, the same system woul# apply where k causes proportionality to increase, while the increase of n #ecreases the proportionality of an algorithm.

This means that with the increase of le$els that the problem is #one one, the less proportionality the problem has. This woul# also mean that with the increase of le$els, the less li&ely P will be e2ual to NP. "n or#er to con$ert an NP problem to a P problem there must be at least enough le$els or layers to carry out the problem on, but ha$e too many layers or le$els it will become, again, an NP problem. The amount of layers or le$els that the problem is sol$e# on must be relati$e to the complexity of the problem. To #etermine this, the problem must be assume# that it is, at first, being sol$e# with only one layer. /rom this relati$e point, #epen#ent on the complexity $alue, a## layers to the problem. This woul# allow the problem to become a P problem, therefore mo$ing the problem from an NP problem to a P problem on the spectrum. This i#ea causes confusion because with linear complexity, the spectrum of complexity is strict because of it being linear. This lea$es complexity an# proportionality in 2uestion because they both follow linear properties, but yet together they form a non3linear bon# of concepts. This becomes an i#ea where a linear to linear conceptual bon# becomes a non3linear concept. This a##s a new $iew on complexity because now complexity types can be #etermine# on how much of complexity or proportionality there is within the algorithm or problem. Through the proportional complexity formula, howe$er, both the increase of k an# n will bring about more of it. 4roportional complexity is $ery #epen#ent on the ratio between how many elements are with

the Schafftarian matrix an# how many elements are within the problem combine# with the pro#uct of all the factors within the algorithm.

1ith the Schafftarian matrix, when there is an increase in k, there is an increase in complexity, proportionality, an# proportional complexity. 'owe$er, when there is an increase with n, there is a #ecrease in complexity an# proportionality, but the proportional complexity increases. The issue with this is the fact that complexity an# proportionality #ecrease with n, yet proportional complexity increases with n. These two concepts, e$en when they are similar, are contra#ictory mathematically. 'owe$er, this #oesnt mean that they arent correct concepts. 0on3linear complexity woul# wor& with this concept because accor#ing to non3linear complexity the e2uations an# formulas #o not ha$e to be proportional. This woul# ha$e to mean that proportional complexity is only a $ali# concept within non3linear complexity, not linear complexity. (nother problem with proportional complexity being in the spectrum of linear complexity is the way the amounts of elements within the algorithm interact with complexity. 1ith the proportional complexity formula, the amount of elements an# the elements $alues woul# #ecrease the proportional complexity $alue) therefore the increase in elements #ecreases the proportional complexity of the algorithm. This #efies linear complexity because with the increase of elements there shoul# be an increase in complexity. Since, howe$er, it wor&s the

opposite) the concept must fit within non3linear complexity. This woul# mean that if non3linear complexity is pro$en to be the right form of complexity, this woul# pro$e e$en more that within the spectrum of non3linear complexity P can be e2ual to NP. 4ro$ing that complexity is non3 linear woul# pro$e that P can, in fact, e2ual NP. 'owe$er, if it were to be pro$en that complexity, in any way, is linear this woul# automatically pro$e that P cannot e2ual NP in any circumstance. This woul# also pro$e that proportion, with non3linear complexity, is non3linear as well because of how it has an effect on both complexity an# proportional complexity. 0on3linear complexity #oes not follow balance as linear complexity #oes. -alance an# proportional complexity ha$e similarities, but also ha$e #ifferences. -alance is a concept of linear complexity while proportional complexity is a concept belonging to non3linear complexity.

This is the approximate formula for balance within linear complexity, where both $ariables of ( represent the amount of elements within two algorithms. The point of this balance e2uation is to #etermine how well two algorithms are balance# with each other, assuming that complexity is linear. This balance e2uation brings into perspecti$e the i#ea of comparing two algorithms to see if they fit within the lines of either P or NP. The scale for balance is $ery similar to the scale for complexity, except the balance scale is more linear than the complexity scale in a sense that balance only #eals with factors, such as the length of the algorithm an# the factors in$ol$e#.

-alance follows linear complexity because balance will always say that two pieces of a problem are always e2ual no matter what. "n this concept, balance is $ery sensiti$e within linear complexity because if two things are e2ual they must be e2ual. 'owe$er, this balance is not what is thought of as balance. "n #efinition, balance is where two things are e2ual no matter what. This type of balance falls within spectrum an# scale. "n a certain area of the scale, things are within balance an# falls within the linear complexity. 1hile proportional complexity has a broa#er spectrum of e2uality, balance in #efinition with linear complexity has a more strict $iew of e2uality. 'owe$er, these formulas only gi$e approximate $alues to algorithms with linear an# non3linear complexity. "n or#er to gi$e an exact $alue with complexity, there must be a $ariable in$ol$e# with linear an# non3linear complexity. 'owe$er, o##ly enough, this $ariable $aries between algorithms. /or example, ran#omi.ation algorithms will ha$e either similar or the exact $ariable, while algorithms #ealing with other %obs will ha$e a #ifferent $ariable in$ol$e#.

This $ariable is &nown as the complexity constant of algorithmic se2uences. This $ariable, represente# by omega with a subscript of c, is a $ariable that shows classification for certain types of algorithms that exist. This $ariable can be use# to classify algorithms into specific categories, since all algorithms, no matter their intention, ha$e a ran#omi.ation $alue. This

ran#omi.ation $alue classifies all algorithms as being proportionality between the approximations of exact $alues that exist in reality. -alance an# e2uality is within the range of spectrum rather than exact, which also applies to proportional complexity. 4roportional complexity not only focuses on the i#ea of approximate e2uality, but also focuses on the complexity of this approximation. This mainly as&s the 2uestion of how in3balance# is both si#es of the e2uation, meaning the complexity of this in3balance. This insight into e2uality an# proportionality will allow the obser$ation of e2uations from the perspecti$e that uncertainty is at han#, e$en when the intention is for e2uality within mathematics.

These formulas, e2uations, an# concepts apply to mainly algorithms an# Schafftarian matrices that follow the #imensions of only k an# n. 'owe$er, this whole i#eology of complexity becomes more complicate# with the existence of a Schafftarian matrix on the thir# #imension. 1ith this type of Schafftarian matrix, there are now three $ariables in$ol$e#. These $ariables, &nown as the #imensions of the Schafftarian matrix, are &nown as n, k, an# d. The d $ariable, in this case, represents the #epth of the Schafftarian matrix within the thir# #imension.

1ith correlation of the $irtual worl# with the reality, the thir# #imension of the Schafftarian matrix becomes more complex with the newly a##e# d $ariable of #epth. 0ow, the formulas for the secon# #imensional Schafftarian matrix ha$e to be mo#ifie# to fit the en$ironment of the thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix. The formulas are, fortunately, not much #ifferent than the formulas for the secon# #imension $ersion of the Schafftarian matrix. The reason for the

complexity is because of $ariation of the Schafftarian matrix within the thir# #imension. "n geometry, there are many types of forms a thir# #imensional $olume can ta&e, inclu#ing a sphere, cube, prism, pyrami#, an# cylin#er. The complexity in$ol$e# here is the fact that the amount of layers or le$els can, in fact, $ary when each section of a thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix is forme#.

@ules of interpretations for this type of Schafftarian matrix can $ary because of the complexity of the algorithm itself within this type of #imension. The thir# #imension has more uncertainty than the secon# #imension because at least, for the secon# #imension, there are stricter rules that apply. 'owe$er, the $ariable of # is not to be a##e# #irectly. "f a thir# #imension is a##e# to the Schafftarian matrix, not only #oes the complexity increase, but the amount of calculations in$ol$e# will #ouble #epen#ing on how the calculations are #one. 'owe$er, this #oes not mean that the amount of steps ta&en to calculate a problem has increase#. This i#ea woul# assume that steps are all being #one on one layer or le$el, which this assumption is incorrect. 1ith the existence of more layers an# le$els, multiple calculations can be #one at the same exact time. 1ith more le$els or layers, efficiency increases as well within the boun#s of complexity, as pro$en by the formulas mentione# before. 6$en though the secon# #imensional Schafftarian matrix may be more efficient than the first #imensional Schafftarian matrix, the thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix is more efficient than the secon# #imensional Schafftarian

matrix. There is a balance between complexity an# efficiently with these systems, which lea#s to the issue of whether efficiency or complexity is the goal of the system.

"n this case,

resembles a one #imensional Schafftarian matrix,

resembles a two

#imensional Schafftarian matrix, an#

resembles a three #imensional Schafftarian matrix.

6$en though the formulas for each #imension must change, there is not much a #ifference between the formulas. /or the formulas, the following will represent the Schafftarian matrix for each #imension.

These are only sample formulas for a one #imensional Schafftarian matrix. /or the formulas of the thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix, all that woul# be nee# to be #one is to multiply the amount of 9faces: on the Schafftarian matrix by the formulas an# sol$e the formulas from there. 'ere are a set of geometrical $olumes that exist.

Some geometrical shapes

Though the Schafftarian matrix #oes not resemble the shapes in !eometry, they ha$e a strong connection with the shapes of these geometrical $olumes. /or example, with a simple Schafftarian matrix existing on the thir# #imension, it is only a repeat of a two #imensional figure, except with multiples of the faces of the Schafftarian matrix. This relates to the geometrical shape of a cube. There are ways to form Schafftarian matrices that resemble the shapes of a pyrami# or sphere, but the issue with these Schafftarian matrices is their complexity. "n or#er to symboli.e these types of Schafftarian matrices mathematically, the $ariable symbol

woul# be

, where n represents the amount of faces the Schafftarian matrix

consists of. ( similar instance can be #one with a two #imensional Schafftarian matrix. This woul# be #one where an# a represents the amount of elements in each layer or

le$el an# its subscript n represents the layer or le$el number within the Schafftarian matrix. This

woul# mean that the #efault i#entity for a Schafftarian matrix is

, where the

$ariable ) represents the amount of #imensions that the Schafftarian matrix is wor&ing on. This, howe$er, is not the complete i#entity of a Schafftarian matrix to be presente# mathematically. There are other properties that coul# be #escribe# within the i#entity, such as complexity, proportionality, an# proportional complexity. There is also the type of problem an# whether it

woul# be a P or NP problem. This woul# mean that the whole i#entity woul# be . This i#entity, howe$er, #oes not ha$e to be written out fully because it truly #epen#s on the intention of a##ressing the i#entity of the problem with the Schafftarian matrix. The point of this i#entity is to shorten what is nee#e# to be written without ha$ing to write out the whole problem within a matrix. This is #ue to how the complexity, proportionality, an# proportional complexity representing both the amount of elements within the Schafftarian matrix an# the amount of layers or le$els that the problem was wor&e# on.

"t is har# to imagine how binary language can fit into the Schafftarian matrix, since it is complicate# to see how binary language fits only on a layer within a matrix e$en when it is not inten#e# to be li&e this. 'owe$er, binary is, in fact, a single layere# language because it wor&s on one layer to carry out a tas&. Though binary seems li&e an efficient language, it is not efficient enough. The problem with binary is each element of the language is only use# once to carry out a process. There is an e$en more efficient way to process information, li&e how 70( is processe# within the human bo#y. "n the language of 70(, each nucleobase is not %ust use# once, but is, in fact, use# at least six times to create structure, accor#ing to the Schafftarian hypothesis. This is not only efficient, but shows how nature itself accomplishes processes an# tas&s. 70( can be $iewe# as a Turings machine, but consisting of six tapes that ha$e not only two, but four factors. The main #ifference between binary an# the language of 70( is not only the efficiency, but because of the fragility of both languages. 1ith binary, e$en with one change not much is affecte# by the change. 'owe$er, with genetic co#ing, e$en one change can change the structure of the human bo#y. ,ne nucleobase change can change at least six structural se2uences within the 70( se2uence, which means at least six characteristics woul# be change#.

There is one factor that becomes a $ery specific an# important factor of the Schafftarian matrix is the amount of types of factors that are use# within the Schafftarian matrix. This normally #oes not apply to regular algorithmic analysis, but rather wor&s with languages an# computation language mainly seen within mathematics. 1ith binary, there are only two factors in$ol$e#. 'owe$er, with genetic language, there are four factors in$ol$e#, which are $, *, +, an# C. Many of the formulas for the Schafftarian matrix #eal with how many elements or layers are #ealt with when sol$ing a problem or fin#ing the properties of both linear an# non3linear complexity, but the formulas #o not inclu#e the factors that are in$ol$e# within the Schafftarian matrix. The reason for this is the formulas are meant for analysis of algorithms rather than languages. This is why there is a separate section of formulas an# e2uations that calculate the complexity of the Schafftarian matrix. ,ne of these formulas is a formula that calculates the complexity of a language with the use of a Schafftarian matrix.

The complexity formula for computation languages is $ery similar to the complexity formula for the Schafftarian matrix that analy.es algorithms, but instea# of #i$i#ing by n the #i$ision is by the amount of factors in$ol$e# with the language. Since this is not an algorithmic analysis of the Schafftarian matrix, the $ariable for exponential time is not to be measure# the same. "n this case, exponential time is to be measure# by #i$i#ing the pro#uct of n an# k by the a$erage time it ta&es to interpret the se2uence or message.

"f these two formulas were to be combine#, this woul# be the result.

This shows that by #i$i#ing the pro#uct of n s2uare# an# k s2uare# by the pro#uct of the amount of factors in$ol$e# an# the approximate time it ta&es to interpret the se2uence, the complexity $alue of a language, within the boun#s of a se2uence, can be foun#. The complexity $alue is the only formula that can be similar to the algorithm analysis $ersion of the Schafftarian matrix because proportionality an# proportional complexity is not rele$ant to computation language. More specifically, with the analysis of computation language, there is no nee# to compare the proportionality because there is no analysis of e2uality with computation language, but only with the algorithmic analysis. !enetic language is one example that coul# be obser$e# this way with the Schafftarian matrix. These formulas, howe$er, ha$e one main goal, which is to obser$e an# analy.e complexity of algorithms an# computation languages. "n or#er to use the Schafftarian

matrix, there are specific formulas that are nee#e# to fin# the properties nee#e#, such as locations of elements in or#er to achie$e a language.

"n this formula, P is e2ual to the element that is at the position of its subscript. "n this formula, the element $ariable is a representation of the element at the position of the subscript of P. This gi$es a #efault #efinition for the Schafftarian matrix. 'owe$er, if one is to #efine the properties of the Schafftarian matrix, the following formula woul# be use#.

"n this formula, the $ariable S with subscript y represents how the language will be compute# with the Schafftarian matrix. /or example, if a Schafftarian matrix has the $ariable n e2ualing six an# k e2ualing fi$e, with u e2ualing two the following woul# be the result.

"n this case, there is a way to #etermine the $alue of an element at a certain position using the $alues of k an# n along with the $ariable u an# S subscript y. 'owe$er, in or#er to put this to

goo# use, there nee#s to be a way to a##ress this $alue within an e2uation or formula. "n or#er to gi$e this element an i#entity, the following woul# be the format.

This e2uation is an example of how the format woul# loo& li&e when carrying out a mathematical operation with two elements within a Schafftarian matrix. 'owe$er, not only mathematical operations can be carrie# out using this type of format. 1ith genetic co#ing, the same is applie# to the Schafftarian hypothesis where the matrix is split into two sections, #i$i#ing the $ariable n by two, to carry out the Schafftarian matrix algorithm on 70( se2uences. This same type of algorithm can be use# to create more efficiency with calculations using binary combine# with the Schafftarian matrix.

The main point of the Schafftarian matrix algorithm is efficiency. This type of efficiency can imme#iately be e$i#ent within genetic co#e, where there are only four base pairs in$ol$e# an# all the base pairs, when in specific locations on the 70( stran#, ha$e more than one function. 6$en with this amount of efficiency, there are also $ery negati$e conse2uences of this. 6$en with on single base pair change a huge structural change can happen, which is especially pro$en with how the human bo#y reacts with e$en the slightest change in genetic information. This same concept can apply to other machines that follow within the same area of complexity with the use of multiple layers or le$els. Since, with multiple le$els or layers, there are these sensiti$e areas that exist) e$en with such perfection there is also the greatest probability of negati$e conse2uence. 6$en with this complexity of 9perfection:, there is the area in which the greatest

conse2uences can thri$e, fortunately an# unfortunately. "n this area of complexity, error within a multiple layere# Schafftarian matrix is li&e a bomb lan#ing on groun# an# explo#ing. Though, the point of target was base# on one specific point, the area aroun# is greatly affecte#. This can also be &nown as the butterfly effect, but this is not the best analogy to apply to this. This brings big issues with using the Schafftarian matrix for impro$ing artificial intelligence. 1ith such great sensiti$ity, one simple error can be foun# as one of the most #estructi$e forces within the computation within the language analysis of the Schafftarian matrix. This inability to a#apt to an error can bring things into 2uestion of whether efficiency is %ustifiable to say that the ris& shoul# be ta&en to use the Schafftarian matrix for language computation, especially in artificial intelligence. The proof to the reason why the ris& shoul# be ta&en is the human bo#y itself. The human bo#y, which is structure# with 70(, is a $ery complex system an# maybe e$en one of the most complex systems that humans themsel$es &now of. This complexity can be lea# bac& to the existence of genetic information, or 70(. 'umans are complex machines consisting of a computational machine, &nown as the brain. 6$en the human brain is consi#ere# still a mystery to the fiel# of science. 1ith such close perfection, there is the greatest conse2uence of failure within the structure of 70(. This follows along with the i#ea of being the biggest an# ha$ing the har#est fall. 1ith the increase of complexity, the smallest error can become the biggest mista&e within a system. The main un#erstan#ing of a complex machine is un#erstoo# to mean that the system can withstan# such mista&es when encountering the mista&e in the first place. 'owe$er, this is an incorrect assumption. The more complex something is, the worse a small error can affect an entire system, while with more simplicity there is less effect of a small error upon the system.

1ith such power of computation follows a higher price of error. The complexity formula itself coul# be use# to calculate the impact of error upon the system. This has a $ery close connection within philosophy, where the increase of power comes along the higher impact of error upon a system. The more complex a system becomes, the more $iable it is for error. This is one of the reasons why nature ten#s to carry out its processes with the most efficient process. The efficiency of process is the sa$ing point of a system. 1ithout this efficiency, nature is always probable to error. 1ith this i#eal, e$en pro$en by the $alues of physics an# its fine tuning, if these $alues were not as they were the Uni$erse woul# not exist. 6xistence relies on this simplicity where efficiency, not complexity, is the goal of computation with the Schafftarian matrix. 6$en with the increase of how many le$els a problem is sol$e# with, there must be a balance. 0ature achie$es or tries to achie$e this balance. There is proof of this existence of fragility of the Schafftarian matrix. 'uman effects on a system are $ery $isible to statistics ta&en to show our impact upon nature, politics, an# economy. The more complex a system becomes the more probable an error is to occur. This is $ery $isible in economics an# politics. This concept is especially seen within nature. This may be confusing #ue to the #efinition of error within this i#eology. "n this i#eology, error is the #ifference of norm existence within a spectrum amount of time, accor#ing to a relati$e stan#ar#. 1ith the complexity of economics, there is more probability of error. 1ith the complexity of politics, the more probability of error there is within the system. 1hat shoul# be the goal of the entirety of politics an# economy shoul# be simplicity. 1ith simplicity, there is little error or a less probable area of error.

To bac& up from this i#ea, there has to be a thorough analysis of error. "t can be argue# that error is relati$e to perspecti$e. 'owe$er, this #efinition of error #oes not follow the regular #efinition of error. This #efinition of error is relati$e to the norm, where a change is existence #ue to either

natural or artificial effects. "n statistics, there is a situation where complexity has become the greatest enemy of both economics an# politics. Complexity an# simplicity are at a 9tug3of3war: with each other in systems, where the increase of complexity brings upon more probability of error while increase of simplicity brings upon less probability of error. There is this false notion that exists that the more complex something becomes the more accurate it becomes in the $ery en#. This notion is $ery #angerous an# can cause the existence of error to enrage an# sprea# li&e a #isease. This is why nature follows the route of efficiency. 1hen humans #o become in$ol$e# within nature an# its processes, nature has to go the more complex route. This #oes not ma&e humanity the enemy of nature, but it ma&es complexity the enemy of nature. The Uni$erse is a wor&ing system that wor&s to ma&e the most efficient mo$e that exists. "t is li&e a li$e being that wor&s to ma&e the most efficient #ecision. 1hen another ob%ect or species enters a system, the system must a#apt or e$en e$ol$e to this change in the system. This causes the system to ha$e to become more complex. "t is li&e being in a train station, where there are thousan#s of people that wal& across e$erywhere going in straight lines an# fin#ing the most efficient #irection to the #estination. 'owe$er, if some obstruction all of the su##en comes into existence in the mi##le of the buil#ing, the people ha$e to change their path in or#er to a#apt to the system, which ma&es the system more complexity an# e$en slow. "f more obstruction were ma#e, the people woul# ha$e to figure out a more efficient path in or#er to follow the system, howe$er at a certain amount of obstructions the system will e$entually stop an# self3#estruct. The Schafftarian matrix follows the same philosophy, especially with genetic information. "t can e$en be e$i#ent that any system has to follow the same philosophy in or#er to li$e on as a system. ( system must meet stan#ar#s that e$en nature has to follow. Systems must follow properties in or#er to li$e on to exist. /or a system to exist, it must be able to a#apt within the boun#s of complexity. "n or#er for

a system to exist, it must be efficient an# less than complexity an# a system cannot accept massi$e change without being able to a#apt to the change before the change to occur. ( system is li&e a li$ing being, where it must &eep to its en$ironment. (lgorithms, themsel$es, follow the same type of properties. 1ith e$en a small change to an algorithm, a huge effect is put upon the solution to the algorithm. (ll systems exist with the same properties no matter the intention of the system.

Complexity of a system, howe$er, #oes not rely on what #imension the Schafftarian matrix is on with the system. /or example, the natural algorithm, as it coul# be calle#, may in fact wor& on either the secon# or thir# #imension. This #epen#s on the efficiency of the algorithm being on which #imension, but the point being is how a three #imensional Schafftarian matrix is carrie# out. 1hen on multiple #imensions, it is assume# that all layers are being wor&e# on at the same time, meaning the no time is lost by a##ing a new layer to the problem to get a solution. 'owe$er, bringing the algorithm to the thir# #imension woul# bring issues with efficiency because with the rule of the thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix there must also be another rule in$ol$e# in the algorithm. "f nature woul# be to go the most efficient route, nature woul# most li&ely follow the two #imensional Schafftarian matrix. 6$i#ence of this, of course, is the human genetic ma&e3up. 1ith research on 70( with the Schaffter hypothesis, it all wor&s on a two #imensional Schafftarian matrix that has $ariable n e2ualing six of course. This shows that nature follows a fine3tune# system of efficiency with genetics, an# e$en with the other processes of nature. 1ith nature, there is the 2uestion of whether both humans an# other mammals follow the same algorithm closely as human genetic co#e #oes. (nother area of e$i#ence that pro$es this connection between nature an# efficiency is the existence of e$olution. 6$olution is one of natures ways of #ealing with complexity, where when something #oes not fit into it this item or

factor is remo$e# an# #ispose# of. This shows that nature #isposes of obstructions to its impro$ements an# a#aptations. 1ith natural selection, there is an algorithmic se2uence that #etects error within the properties of nature an# completely remo$e# it. 'owe$er, this assumes that e$olution is, in fact, a system that exists as a force without the species that exist in nature. This force exists within the species an# organisms that exist an# within the 70(, which follows the i#ea of simplicity. This process of e$olution is not a force, but is a result of the approach of simplicity by genetic information of organisms that exist. Since nature follows efficiency, there woul# be less efficiency if, in fact, e$olution is a separate force. 'a$ing e$olution as a result of genetic information built into organisms woul# be more simplistic an# more efficient that woul# re2uire less time an# forces to carry out natures processes. 'a$ing e$olution as a force itself woul# bring upon a more complex system, which woul# mean that efficiency woul# not be the goal of nature. This woul# bring upon the #estruction of a system of nature an# with it the #estruction of the Uni$erse, not only by the non3efficiency of e$olution, but by the non3 efficiency of the Uni$erse the Uni$erse woul# not exist at all. This fine tuning of the Uni$erse is cause# by this efficiency, e$en with all the matter that exists. The only complexity of the Uni$erse is cause# by its simplicity that in$ol$es fin#ing the most efficient way to manage the matter that exists in the Uni$erse. The reason why the efficiency with simplicity is more complex is because the human min# challenges itself to un#erstan# complexity. 1hen un#erstan#ing complexity comes to meet un#erstan#ing simplicity, the human min# cannot un#erstan# the #ifference between simplicity an# complexity. The human min#, in the mo#ern #ay worl#, is traine# to un#erstan# mainly complexity because it is to be thought that the Uni$erse is complex in its buil# up, howe$er this becomes a false assumption that bloc&s the human min# from #isco$ering simplistic i#eologies.

8uantum mechanics, itself, is a complex system that, howe$er, goes along with the i#ea of complexity an# uncertainty. "t follows along the paths of non3linear complexity, consisting of uncertainty of reality. This goes against the i#ea of efficiency for nature an# for the Uni$erse. 0on3linear complexity #oes not follow the array of efficiency, but follows the exact opposite. Since there are multiple ways for something to be e2ual, there woul# ha$e to be a way to #etermine those e2ualities. This is not efficient) therefore linear complexity must be the true form of complexity, at least the only natural form of complexity. This #oes not mean non3linear complexity #oes not exist. (rtificially, non3linear complexity coul# be use# to compare P problems an# NP problems, relying on the i#ea that they can at times be e2ual, but other times they cannot be e2ual. 'owe$er, the problem with non3linear complexity, as wanting to be achie$e#, is it #oes not follow efficiency. 6fficiency is only possible with linear complexity, which is why it is calle# linear. 0on3linear complexity is not efficient because of its stan#ar#s of e2uality, hence it being non3linear. (gain, efficiency is the goal of the Schafftarian matrix because with the measurement of complexity, there are many factors in$ol$e# in fin#ing the most efficient solution to a problem. The reason for natures complicate# appeal is #ue to its simplicity. Simplicity, in many forms, is sometimes percei$e# incorrectly of being complex. This is one of the main reasons why 70(, with rea#ing it #irectly as a one3layere# Schafftarian matrix, is so complex in its buil# up. 1hat happens is the way the user rea#s it #oes not follow along with the i#ea of efficiency. 6fficiency means to use e$erything without only %ust using it once an# being able to recycle elements of the problem, %ust li&e how in genetic information, most of the nucleobases are use# at least six times in a se2uence. This &in# of usage is $ery common in nature, where materials are efficiently use# an# not #ispose# of till the last particle is use# up. /or example, if an animal #ies in nature it is not #ispose# of as %ust #ea# an# entering

the groun# as waste as it gets eaten ali$e by the many small organisms that exist in nature. 1hen the organisms #o eat up the #ea# animal, other animals may come to eat it an# ta&e the resources it nee#s to sur$i$e. Then, the little organisms will start eating away at the bo#y of the #ea# animal, eating away at what remains. (fter these little organisms eat what they can of the bo#y, other processes may occur that nature carries out to use efficiently the substances that come from the #ea# bo#y, which then after the lefto$er particles are absorbe# into particles as nutrients into the groun# for plants to grow. This &in# of efficiency is necessary in or#er for the foo# chain to carry on its natural processes. 6$en one small change to the foo# chain can cause a huge effect upon the existence of nature. This &in# of effect is $ery common within the natural algorithm, e$en in the genetic ma&eup of organisms. 6$olution is not %ust a 9force: that exists in nature that go$erns which animals #ie an# which ones li$e on as a species. "t is a built in process of genetics that allows nature itself, within the organisms, to #eci#e what li$es an# what #ies. 0ature is also a li$ing organism, e$en when it #oes not seem li&e it. 6$olution, in this case, is also about the process of conser$ation of matter. "nstea# of letting matter going to waste, nature uses e$ery last particle of it. That is why it is shut a perfect system) howe$er humans must also be in$ol$e# in the system in or#er to ma&e sure #rastic changes, which are enemies of a system, #o not occur. 'umans ha$e a big effect upon the algorithm of nature an# can cause either really positi$e or negati$e changes to nature. /or example, when too many trees are cut, the system has to continue to change #rastically. 1ithout the system being able to 9a#apt: to this change, there is no way for the system to continue. The system goes to a halt an# soon begins to brea& #own until a new con#ition can be met for this specific system. Aust li&e an animals system, where since the animals bo#y cannot a#apt to either $iolent or #ies with non3a#aptable occurrences, it also comes to a halt an# #ies, which then the system of nature must a#apt to this change by #isposing

of the material pro#uce#. 6$en if the system of nature can a#apt to such changes, there is a boun# for systems. "f too many #rastic changes occur, the system begins to fall apart. The system of nature consist of a perfect balance of complexity an# simplicity, which shows that nature tries to achie$e the most efficient outcome if a #rastic change occurs. 'owe$er, e$en with this ability, errors can cause the system to change #rastically.

The Schafftarian matrix is also an example of a system. 1ith one simple change of the matrix, the algorithm itself also changes to fit the change that occurre#. "n or#er to be able to fit this change, the algorithm must change slightly in or#er to sur$i$e the change, which means that the algorithm relates to the original form, but a#apts to the change that occurre#. 'owe$er, this type of process #oes not always happen. (s state# before, with such perfection there is also a negati$e conse2uence that can occur e$en with one error. 1ith such complexity in a system, the more li&ely errors are to occur because of the structure of a system. That is why, with the Schafftarian matrix, it is the goal to #ecrease the complexity $alue of an algorithm or language. 1ith less efficiency, it is most li&ely that the system is not simplistic, howe$er with more efficiency it is more li&ely that the system is simplistic, e$en if it #oes not seem li&e it is. 1ith simplicity, pre#ictability becomes more of a feasible tas& than when pre#icting complexity. This has to #o with the proportionality $alue an# the proportional complexity $alue, where the increase in these $alues means the more complicate# it is to pre#ict e$ents within algorithms, especially algorithms foun# in nature. 8uantum mechanics is an example of a complex algorithm because it fits within the range of complexity, especially in non3linear complexity. 8uantum mechanics follows the non3linear way of thin&ing, which is why it follows a complex type algorithm. 1ith 2uantum mechanics, the location of particles is always changing #ue to its sensiti$ity of Uni$ersal changes. 8uantum mechanics is one of the main examples of what the conse2uences

are when the complexity of it is so high on the spectrum. That is why pre#ictability with 2uantum mechanics is complicate# in the nature of uncertainty. 'owe$er, this assumes that 2uantum mechanics follows an uncertainty principle. 8uantum mechanics coul# actually be simplistic with simple rules, lea#ing to a complex #esign. The issue here a##resses whether simplicity is the result of complexity an# that complexity is the result of simplicity. This woul# mean that P problems are actually a result of NP problems while NP problems that are a result of a P problem.

This woul# also ha$e to mean that P problems are almost the same as NP problems in the first place. The result of P problems being NP problems woul# ha$e to mean that the results of P are e2ual to NP while the results of NP are e2ual to P. This woul# ha$e to mean that both linear an# non3linear complexity exist, but within boun#s. 1hile linear complexity exists on the higher le$els, non3linear complexity exists at the core of what follows linear complexity. This woul# mean that, since complexity by this i#eal is both linear an# non3linear, P can e2ual NP, or rather the results of these types of problems is the exact opposite type that the problem impose#. "n other wor#s, ha$ing complete efficiency is impossible) howe$er the goal of efficiency is not impossible. 0atures system relies on the ability of trying to achie$e a purely efficient system that lea#s to natures seemingly complex system. 6$olution is this attempt to perfect the system of natures algorithm, where the goal is to achie$e perfect efficiency. "f the point of a system #oes not inclu#e fin#ing the most efficient algorithm to accomplish a tas&, the system will simply fall apart an# be #ispose# from existence. The Uni$erse is a growing an# li$ing system that attempts to achie$e perfection. 'umanity, in fact, is an example of this attempt. 'umans try to fin# the most efficient algorithm to achie$e #aily e$ents. 1ith a growing human race, the algorithmic se2uence of humanity is increasing in complexity. This complexity can be resemble#

by roa# systems. "f a roa# system attempts linear course, the less traffic there is. 'owe$er, if roa# systems begin to enter cur$ature, or non3linear complexity, the whole system slows #own an# soon becomes so wea& that the system cannot wor& anymore until linear complexity is achie$e#. This woul# mean limiting the route or path of an algorithm to lessen the amount of processes or steps nee#e# to accomplish a tas& that occurs in a system. /or example, if there is a problem to be sol$e#, the first step is to lower the si.e of the problem, which then ma&es the problem within the boun#s of simplicity. Simplifying a problem is the ma%or step of fin#ing the solution.

1ith a more complex problem, it is more li&ely an error will occur. 1ith this, the range of simplicity an# complexity is also a scale of fragility with a problem. This is especially $isible within the uncertainty principle of 2uantum mechanics. 8uantum mechanics has a fragility that ma&es it har# to pre#ict e$ents with particles using the e2uations that are a part of the uncertainty principle. This lea#s to the i#ea of a spectrum of certainty an# uncertainty, which then can be calculate# mathematically if all the factors are accounte# for. -oth certainty an# uncertainty can fall within their own areas of complexity. Certainty woul# fall within the range of linear complexity while uncertainty falls within the i#ea non3linear complexity. Certainty, as by #efinition, states that linear complexity &nows an# can pre#ict exact $alues within a system. ,n the other han#, uncertainty states that within non3linear complexity pre#ictions with e2uations, formulas, an# algorithms are not always correct an# ha$e to a#%ust to the specific area of occurrence within a system. "f this uncertainty also applies to the natural algorithm, many things with the natural process woul# be uncertain, therefore the natural algorithm woul# not wor&.

/ragility of an algorithm can, in fact, be calculate# by fin#ing the $alues of an algorithm an# fin#ing the ratio an# proportionality between then.

This formula brings into perspecti$e the $alues that come as outputs form an algorithm, the complexity $alue of the algorithm, an# the amount of elements in$ol$e# in the algorithm. The point of it is to measure the fragility or sensiti$ity of an effect upon the algorithm an# the impact a change woul# ha$e upon the algorithm the calculation is #one on. The Schafftarian matrix can also use this as a formula to calculate the impact of a change upon a specific language. /ragility has a big part in$ol$e# in both linear an# non3linear complexity, where the more complex an algorithm or language becomes the more fragile the algorithm or language is to change. /or example, with a language, the more complex it is, e$en with one simple change, the whole meaning of a se2uence use# by the language woul# change. ,ne a scale, the fragility is proportional to complexity, where the more complexity there is the more fragility there is. ,n the other han#, less complexity means less fragility.

1ith P problems, change #oes not cause a huge impact upon the problem an# what the solution will be. 'owe$er, NP problems are affecte# massi$ely by change an# are more fragile than 4 problems. This woul# mean that P problems are #ifferent than NP problems. This woul# ha$e to mean that 4 an# 04 problems cannot be e2ual, which is a contra#ictory concept between linear an# non3linear complexity. "f, with non3linear complexity, P an# NP can sometimes be e2ual, this woul# ha$e to mean that their properties are either similar or i#entical. This becomes an issue because 2uantum mechanics pro$es the existence of non3linear complexity, but the concepts of non3linear complexity woul# ha$e to be consi#ere# contra#ictory because of the i#ea of similar properties between P problems an# NP problems. 'owe$er, since they #o not ha$e the same properties they cannot be e2ual. The problem with this notion is the assumption that both cannot change properties an# treats them as separate instances when they are only classifications of problems. Classifications, in this case, can ha$e #ifferent properties when put into certain instances or situations. 1ith this in min#, P, as a classification, can e2ual NP if these are consi#ere# classifications of problems. Therefore, these two types of concepts are no longer contra#ictory. This woul# mean that the classification of P can e2ual the classification of NP, as propose# by non3linear complexity. There is another problem, howe$er, with the classification of 4 e2ualing the classification of NP.

"f P problems can only e2ual NP some of the time, that woul# mean that there woul# ha$e to be a certain #efinition of what these classifications woul# be because non3linear complexity #eals with this whole realm of uncertain e2uality. "f uncertain e2uality is the truth of mathematics, then nothing can be pro$en because there is an uncertainty in$ol$e# that limits the i#ea of proofs. This uncertainty also lea#s to the i#ea that some may ta&e the assumption that ran#omness is how the natural algorithm goes by, this is incorrect. @an#omness, in this sense, has an or#er, but

falls within the range of proportional complexity. This ran#omi.ation $alue represents how the #ifference between $alues pro#uce# by an algorithm #oes ha$e, in fact, proportionality to it. This lea#s to the existence of a proportional complexity $alue, where there is proportionality between the $alues, but the proportionality is so complex that it cannot be #etecte# easily. (s state# before, out of simplicity there is an output of complexity while out of complexity there is the output or result of simplicity.

This can lea# to the misconception of simplicity an# complexity, especially with P an# NP classification. Simplicity, in itself, is not always a result of complexity. The same thing applies to complexity where it is not always the result of simplicity. Simplicity an# complexity are both of #ifferent concepts an# can be #eri$e# on their own.

-oth fragility an# efficiency are main issues with linear an# non3linear complexity. (chie$ing an algorithm or language that can a#apt to intense changes while becoming complex enough to complete a tas& that resol$es aroun# complexity woul# be #ifficult because with the e2uations this is almost improbable to #o an# e$en if it can be #one the problem woul# most li&ely fall within the spectrum of non3linear complexity, which alrea#y #efies the i#eas of complexity. -alance woul# ha$e to be forme# in or#er for this to wor&. 6$en in nature, there is not perfect efficiency because of the many changes that occur, whether human or not human. (ll organisms ha$e an in$ol$ement in forming this natural algorithm that exists) therefore all organisms can ha$e an effect upon the natural algorithm. /or example, with the growth an# extinction of species, the natural algorithm has to a#apt to these changes with the process of e$olution. "n this case, if an organism begins to inhabit another organisms habitat the natural algorithm has to a#apt to this change in structure within this certain area of en$ironment. This brings a connection

between the natural algorithm an# the genetic algorithm. The genetic algorithm has $ery many similarities with the natural algorithm.

These similarities #eal with the impact of change upon the genetic information. (s state# before, following the Schafftarian hypothesis, each nucleobase is use# at least six times within se2uences to form the structure of an organism. This type of algorithm can be applie# in artificial means as well, impro$ing the spee# an# efficiency. 1ith computer #e$elopment, there is always the existence of limits because in or#er to impro$e technology with the computer language calle# binary, it re2uires processors to increase in spee# with a one3layere# Schafftarian matrix. This causes an issue with the impro$ement of technology also because of the problem with complexity. @eferencing from pre$ious issues with complexity, with the increase of complexity there is an increase in the li&ely chance of error. This woul# mean that with the increase of complexity in our technologies, the more error that comes into existence the bigger impact that changes ha$e upon these technologies. The solution the problem is not to increase the spee# of processors through means of compacting so much on a processor, but to impro$e the metho#s of how processors process the information, such as increasing the amount of le$els that the processors process the information. This metho# woul# not increase the complexity, therefore 3 ma&ing the metho# an efficient way to transferring an# storing information. The Schafftarian matrix metho# woul# #efinitely increase both spee# an# si.e of memory an# processing without ha$ing to increase the complexity of memory an# processing. This woul# re#uce the complexity of processors an# a## simplicity to the system of processors an# memory.

/or memory, the Schafftarian matrix algorithm coul# help where instea# of storing information on one specific le$el it can be store# on multiple le$els, which woul# ta&e up less space. This

techni2ue is also use# in genetic information. "n 70(, especially human 70(, all the genetic information can be store# in small chromosomes, which are smaller than e$en the technologies that we can #e$elop. This is #ue to how genetic information wor&s with each nucleobase an# attempting to be efficient with using these nucleobases to form a structure# organism. "f this type of techni2ue can be use# to form better technologies for computation, high3powere# computers can be generate# that are the si.e of or smaller than your finger. This impro$ement in technology woul# bring about new i#eas among the technologies that exist in our mo#ern #ay worl#. "t woul# also impro$e the #e$elopment of artificial intelligence because information can be store# more efficiently than with a one3layere# system. 1ith artificial intelligence, processing of information woul# be 2uic&er because of how many layers the information coul# be store# on at the same time. "nstea# of #ealing with the limitation of step3by3step processes, there coul# be multiple processes happening at the same time. "nstea# of increasing the spee# to carry out the processes #one on one particular le$el, the calculations an# processes shoul# be #one on multiple le$els, more specifically six le$els.

This switch from a complex system to a simplistic system becomes $ery useful for competition between compacting processes into faster systems an# begins to support efficiency. This aim for simplicity an# efficiency brings more abilities to technologies an# fast computations. This not

only brings ability to artificial technologies, but also allows biological computations. Using biological materials to compute algorithms woul# be easier because they are easily #isposable an# are less expensi$e than pro#ucing the technologies that ta&e longer to ma&e an# compute less, but still cost more because of the technologies in$ol$e# in the pro#uction of these technologies.

The human brain, being a highly complex system that can #o computations way faster than a regular artificial computer, is still a mystery to how it is able to store memory with all the information that is inputte# into the brain. -inary co#e is, ob$iously, not the type of system that the brain uses to store information an# it is not li&ely that the brain stores memory on a one3 layere# system. "n this case, the brain may e$en use a six3layere# Schafftarian matrix to store memory. Since the time that the memory inputte# into the Schafftarian matrix is i#entical to all the layers, the input $alues are more efficiently store#. 1ith the ability to store an# process memory with such efficiency, the min# can store more memory in $ery little space. Since the Schafftarian matrix is what follows this i#ea of multiple le$els, efficiency is what the human brain tries to achie$e. Since the human brain follows, hypothetically, the Schafftarian hypothesis, this woul# mean there are an alrea#y #efine# set of formulas an# e2uations to calculate the properties of the human brain with complexity $alues, ran#omi.ation $alues, proportional $alues, an# proportional complexity $alues.

'owe$er, there are e$en more e2uations that can result from the Schafftarian matrix being the set mo#el of the inner wor&ings of the human brain. "f this is true, it woul# ma&e pre#icting human thought more easily #one than e$er before. /or example, referring to a specific area of memory within the Schafftarian matrix woul# loo& as such.

This formula pinpoints where a memory within the Schafftarian matrix is store#. 'owe$er, this assumes that the human brain follows a secon# #imensional Schafftarian matrix. The problem this notion of a secon# #imensional Schafftarian matrix is though it assumes efficiency, it also has less memory that can be store# within its properties. Therefore, the other possible solution to the brain functionality with memory storage an# #e$elopment, the Schafftarian matrix coul# actually be a thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix. The three #imensional Schafftarian matrix woul# pro$i#e enough memory an# processing room in or#er to store information 2uic&ly an# efficiently. ( three #imensional Schafftarian matrix woul# allow more maneu$erability for information an# allows more uni2ue algorithmic rules than the two #imensional Schafftarian matrix, meaning that the brain has some uni2ueness to its memory storage an# processing. The only issue with this #epiction of the brains fun#amental metho# of memory an# storage is the efficiency. (fter the secon# #imensional Schafftarian matrix, complexity an# efficiency begin to brea& #own where the usual formulas for the Schafftarian matrix #o not wor& for the thir# #imensional Schafftarian matrix.

,ther issues in$ol$e# in the three #imensional Schafftarian matrix inclu#e whether it follows linear or non3linear complexity. The two #imensional Schafftarian matrix, with most of its formulas, shows a #epiction of a linear complexity in$ol$e# in the complexity an# proportionality within algorithms an# languages. The three #imensional Schafftarian matrix may show #ifferent signs of complexity, where it coul# most li&ely follow non3linear complexity.

Since there are multiple rules that coul# be followe# for a three #imensional Schafftarian matrix, there are millions of algorithms that coul# be use# to interpret information for this metho#. "f there are multiple algorithms that coul# be use# for the three #imensional Schafftarian matrix, there woul# be no core algorithm to base the interpretation on. Therefore, efficiency is not in$ol$e# in the three #imensional Schafftarian matrix, ma&ing it more complex than it nee#s to be. Unli&e the three #imensional Schafftarian matrix, there is at least a set algorithm base# on the structure of the matrix itself.

0ow with the existence of a three #imensional Schafftarian matrix, it may be assume# that there are no more $ersions of the Schafftarian matrix that coul# be #e$elope#. This, in fact, is incorrect. Though all the spatial #imensions of the matrix ha$e been implemente#, there is another factor that coul# be a##e# in to ma&e the algorithm e$en better. "magine that there are two sen#ers of information that both use the three #imensional Schafftarian matrix to sen# information to an un&nown source. "f both sen#ers sen# both of their pieces of #ata at the same time to a specific #estination it is &nown as a networ&. Though the assumption is these pieces of information can only reach their #estination with no other effect impacting their #ata structure, there is something hi##en with networ& information such as this being sent to a $ast #atabase of information. These two pieces of information coul# some form of interaction between them, affecting their #ata structure, which then these pieces of information are li&e li$ing organisms within a system. This is where this type of Schafftarian matrix comes into play. 1ith #ata interactions, these pieces of #ata can pic& up bits of other pieces of #ata. This woul# mean that
pieces of #ata coul# a#apt to specific changes with the change of a system.

)ata can pick up bits and pieces of other interacting data

"n reality, #ata is interacting all of the time. This occurs especially within 2uantum mechanics where information from particles is always being entangle# with other particles cause# by the entanglement of particles. This type of system acts similar to what happens when someone touches an ob%ect with their han#. 1hen a person touches an ob%ect, #ata is actually transferre# to the ob%ect because when the person touches the ob%ect #ata, such as their genetic information

or fingerprint, is transmitte# onto the ob%ect they touche#. 6$en though it is not notice# in reality, #ata interaction occurs with humans as well. 1hen someone passes by another person, e$en when they #i# not inten# to interact, there is information that is left on the first an# secon# person. /or example, the person passing by the other may get a glimpse at what this person loo&s li&e. The same thing occurs with the other person as well, getting a glimpse at what the other person loo&s li&e. 6$en on the 2uantum le$el, there is information interacting with other particles that interact with the information. There are goo# an# ba# things about this type of interaction between pieces of #ata. 1ith the interaction of #ata, there coul# be ways to pre#ict easily what the source was for piece of #ata %ust by loo&ing at other pieces that ha# interaction with it.

'owe$er, there are some negati$e si#es to this concept. 1ith computer security, such as firewalls an# such, when people attempt to brea& into a computer by bypassing the security, the security software in$ol$e# in protecting the computer filters out threats that attempt to brea& into the computer an# stops the security threat from there. 'owe$er, with this concept, this only threatens the computer e$en more. Since #ata interaction causes bits an# pieces of #ata to fall upon other pieces of #ata, the security threat coul# attempt to brea& in the first time an# get the information nee#e# to brea& into the computer. "t is common for this to happen in mo#ern #ay technologies, where hac&ers attempt to carry out a #7oS, or #enial ser$ice, attac& an# when the security or ser$er that is attac&e# has to restart, the information with rebooting the security or ser$er is use# by the user who is hac&ing an# the user carrying out the attac& gets access to the information an# then carries out what they attempt to #o. 'owe$er, there are more things in$ol$e#, but it will not be co$ere# because it is not as important with #iscussing this concept. Therefore, with this i#ea, it woul# become more #angerous when #e$eloping security to protect a

computer because the more powerful security software is the har#er the impact will ha$e when someone attempts to brea& into the computer.

-esi#es the negati$e effects of the concept, it coul# actually ma&e the transferring of networ& #ata easier an# e$en safer. Since #ata follows a more complex line of transferring, it woul# ta&e too long to #ecrypt the #ata. "nstea# of ha$ing security with filters, ha$e #ata with filters. 1ith certain signatures, the #ata coul# be accesse#, but if out the signature rea#ing the encrypte# #ata woul# be close to impossible. This is where linear an# non3linear complexity becomes a problem with this techni2ue of secure #ata with the Schafftarian matrix. 1ith two competing i#eologies that are the complete opposite of each others concepts, if linear complexity is the true form of complexity there is no problem with this techni2ue of secure #ata because signatures woul# be able to compare to the signature of the piece of #ata without a problem. 'owe$er, if non3linear complexity is the form of complexity it woul# be more #ifficult to compare a signature with a piece of #ata. 6$en if both linear an# non3linear complexity were the true forms of complexity, there woul# still be a problem with #etermining if only one signature wor&s with #eciphering the piece of #ata to be rea#.

(nother issue with non3linear complexity being the form of complexity with this i#ea is with approximations. Since the signature, with non3linear complexity, can only be an approximation, there woul# be no way to #etermine if the approximation was the true form of the signature to be able to rea# the #ata. 'owe$er, it woul# not mean that if non3linear complexity is the true form of complexity that it woul# be impossible, though the efficiency woul# #ecrease massi$ely. This woul# be #ue to how the system, in this case the #ata, woul# ha$e to a#apt to changes in certain parts of the signature, meaning that the #ata itself woul# ha$e to change without changing the meaning of the #ata.

The #ata woul# ha$e to infinitely change accor#ing to the small change occurring in the signature. This woul# be highly inefficient because there woul# be no way to #etermine if the signature was coming from the correct recei$er or not.

The main problem here is #etermining if the recei$er of the information was the correct recei$er of that information. Though a simple 2uestion, it is a complex an# philosophical 2uestion of whether the recei$er of the information was the correct recei$er, or rather if the recei$er shoul# ha$e recei$e# the information in the first place. The 2uestion woul# be whether there is a mathematical way to be able to #etermine if the recei$er was the correct recei$er of the information. ,ne way to #o this woul# be to ha$e the sen#er always being able to chec& if the recei$er was the correct recei$er of the information, but the problem with this is being able to sen# information without ha$ing to worry whether the information got to its correct #estination. ( ma%or problem with the i#ea is in or#er to #etermine if the sen#er #esire# that information to go to a specific #estination it woul# re2uire that there was a hi##en piece of #ata within the information that was sent that #etermine# whether the recei$er ha# actually recei$e# the information or not, which is similar to the i#ea of signatures. 1ith the i#ea of signatures, it the

issue of whether other recei$ers woul# ha$e access to that signature. "t woul# be a #ifficult process of being able to #etermine if the signature came from the right recei$er.

*o 'hom does the data belong,

(gain, being able to #etermine the correct recei$er mathematically woul# mean un#erstan#ing the algorithm of human thought. (naly.ing human thought an# #isco$ering the human thought algorithm woul# efficiently allow a mathematical e2uation to #etermine to whom or what that #ata really belongs. This, of course, woul# only ha$e to be #one mainly if non3linear complexity

is the correct form of complexity. 6$en with linear complexity, howe$er, there woul# still be issues with this problem, which in itself falls within the spectrum of NP problems.

Conclusion Computation with a hypothetical Turings machine seems 2uite simple, with the language of binary being use# an# only consisting of two types of inputs, which are ones an# .eros. ,nce more complex problems occur, howe$er, the efficiency of computation becomes far less than what shoul# be use# to accomplish to tas& with. -inary, being a one3layere# language, is only useful when the amount of computation nee#e# below the boun#s of complexity for binary. "n or#er to increase the amount of complexity a language can withstan#, new le$els or layers ha$e to be gi$en to a language. !enetic information is one of these examples, where the goal is to fit as much information into $ery little $olume as possible. !enetic information relies on six layers as a language to carry its function within the human bo#y an# in many other organisms. "nteresting enough, the number of layers being six is the perfect number of layers nee#e# to ma&e such a complex, but efficient language. 'a$ing more layers for a language, especially genetic language, woul# ha$e cause# more complexity an# less efficiency because in or#er to fit so much information into one small $olume or area there must a perfect structure that can withstan# being 9s2uee.e#: into such a small space.

1ith such a simplistic buil#3up, it woul# re2uire such a complex intelligence to #esign such a structure with such perfection. This woul# bac& up the claim of linear complexity because with linear complexity must ha$e a sen#er in or#er for there to be any feasible information for the recei$er. "n or#er for there to be intelligence behin# information, there must be intelligence behin# the information. This woul# also inclu#e the concept of #ata interaction. 1ith the

interaction with one piece of #ata with another piece of #ata, there will always be bits an# pieces of #ata clinging onto the other piece of #ata, which then lea$es behin# a fingerprint of the original piece of #ata. This woul# mean that with a sen#er that has a form of intelligence the information will always ha$e a form of intelligence, while a sen#er with a chaotic system will come out with the correspon#ing type information, which woul# be chaotic information or &nown as ran#omness. ,f course, with non3linear complexity, since P problems can an# cannot e2ual NP problems, the same coul# be sai# about the connection between the information an# its sen#er. "f P can at times e2ual NP while at other times not e2ual NP, this woul# also mean that the information at times shows a connection with its sen#er while at other times it #oes not. This woul# mean that there woul# be no way to pro$e that information came from an intelligent source or not, which woul# also mean that nothing coul# be pro$en. This concept woul# ha$e to be incorrect currently because there is no e$i#ence that the information cannot always be lin&e# to its sen#er. (lso, without the proof that one3way functions exist there is no way to pro$e that information can at times not ha$e any connections with its sen#er. This woul# ha$e to mean that information cannot be lost, since the information of the sen#er can ne$er be lost, accor#ing to linear complexity.

This brings up the 2uestion of whether information can e$er be lost when it comes into existence. The i#ea coul# be similar to the concept of conser$ation of substances, where nothing is gaine# or #estroye# but simply mo$e# or %ust mo#ifie#. 1ith information, no #ata is simply %ust create# or #estroye#, but mo$e# from location to location or mo#ifie# to not loo& similar to the original piece of information. This conser$ation of information woul# pro$e to be useful, especially to fin#ing 9missing: information where it may least li&ely be foun#. /or example, when a magnet is ho$ere# o$er a har# #ri$e, the information on the har# #ri$e becomes scramble# an# is

unrea#able. 'owe$er, the information still exists with it being scramble# an# mo#ifie# the way it is. Conser$ation of information is a $ery interesting concept because how information, no matter how complex, is still rea#able in any form because the only thing that nee#s to be #one is fin# the correct way to interpret the information. !enetic information is a $ery goo# example of this situation. 1ith the complexity of genetic information, it is #ifficult to un#erstan# that there is feasible information within 70(. 'owe$er, there is, in fact, information hi##en through the se2uences which allows the human bo#y to carry out its processes. This applies to all information that exists, where information is ne$er lost but only mo$e# or mo#ifie#.

Conser$ation of information is also one of the properties of linear an# non3linear complexity. ?inear complexity accepts the i#ea of conser$ation of information because it follows the existence of one3way functions, meaning that e$aluating a problem an# fin#ing the solution woul# result in not being able to re$erse the solution to the problem. 0on3linear complexity #oes not support the concept of conser$ation of information #o to how non3linear complexity han#les #ata. Since the input, with non3linear complexity, #oes not always ha$e proportionality with the output there #oes not ha$e to be any 9fingerprint: left behin# by the information that was affecte# by a source.

"n this particular case, the examples presente# for linear complexity woul# be the opposite, where if someone touches an ob%ect a fingerprint is not left or when a magnet is ho$ere# o$er a har# #ri$e that #ata is lost fore$er, which is not the case. Since there is no concrete proof that information can be lost, this woul# be one proof that non3linear complexity is not the true form of complexity. 6$en in the worl# of computers, #ata is always ha$ing interaction with other pieces of #ata with the existence of networ&s an# connections between computers that share

information. "n systems that ha$e #ata interaction, the #ata that interacts seems to become blen#e# in with the #ata that it has interacte# with. This is why, when you change an en$ironment of a system, the system a#apts to the change that ha# occurre#. 1hen a system changes, #ata interaction occurs an# the #ata grows connections with the other pieces of #ata within the system. This happens in nature all the time where a new species is intro#uce# to a certain habitat, an# while the new species e$ol$es slowly to sur$i$e the habitat begins to form connections with the new species that was intro#uce# into the en$ironment. This not only applies to natural systems. "t can apply to many other systems that exist. Mathematical systems follow along the same type of process, where a new $ariable is intro#uce# an# the e2uation or formula grows connections with that specific $ariable. "t can also apply to computer systems, where with the increase of new #ata the computer has to a#apt to the amount of #ata that is on the computer an# the increase in new software that enters the computer.

Though, the issue with current artificial intelligence is the limitations of being able to ma&e connections with its en$ironment an# being able to a#apt to these changes. 1hen #e$eloping artificial intelligence, the issue with it is not being able to connect with its en$ironment, especially when #e$eloping human3li&e artificial intelligence. The main reason why artificial intelligence has not been able to #o this is #ue to the limitations in memory. Unli&e computers, humans ha$e the ability to store millions of bits of #ata that comes from the senses, such as sight, hearing, taste, an# the other sense that humans ha$e. 'owe$er, with the two or three #imensional Schafftarian matrix, the memory problem might be sol$e#, which can bring about the existence of #ata interacting artificial intelligence. 1ith this concept, it coul# also bring about the #e$elopment of #ata interacting software. This woul# mean that software is able to interact with the other software that exists on the same computer or interacting with the user of the computer.

This woul# impro$e technologies to#ay because software coul# a#apt to the changes of a computer without ha$ing to #eal with strict boun#s of error cause# by the slightest change. "f the boun#s an# limitations are remo$e#, there are many more possibilities for artificial intelligence.

0ot only #o these concepts impro$e the #e$elopment of artificial intelligence, but they also impro$e the ways of security. 1ith new inno$ati$e ways to #e$elop security, it becomes more #ifficult to brea& security on machines. "n to#ays technology, most algorithms of security rely on se2uences that #o not pro#uce completely uni2ue co#es to protect a machine. "f an algorithm were to be able to pro#uce completely uni2ue $alues for security, the algorithm use# woul# not be as pre#ictable. 1ith the increase in ability of a#apti$e systems, the strength of security will impro$e, pro$i#ing safer an# more reliable machines that can protect themsel$es from possible threats, such as $iruses. ?i&e the human bo#y, this new concept of interacti$e #ata woul# pro$i#e a machine with the capability to ha$e its own immunity to $iruses. 1ith this ability, there woul# be no nee# for continuous up#ating of anti$irus software because the computer woul# a#apt to these new $iruses an# grow immune to them.

1ith the growth of new technologies, there has to be a time for new #e$elopment an# more efficient metho#s of #e$eloping these technologies. "f the same path is &ept for #e$eloping technologies, there will soon be a slow#own in inno$ation an# soon no more impro$ements can be ma#e with the same metho#s of #e$elopment. -inary is the main language for computation with artificial intelligence, but the problem with it is the inefficiency cause# by the limitations of binary. There is another language that goes along with binary, which is a 2uantum mechanical language calle# Ternary. 1ith this language, there are infinite possibilities of se2uences that coul# be ma#e from this language because it wor&s on the 2uantum le$el, where there are an

infinite amount of possibilities. Therefore, it follows along with the concept of non3linear complexity. The issue with the Ternary system is the fact that there are an infinite amount of possibilities that more than one se2uence means the same thing as another set of se2uences. (gain, it falls in the category of multiple e2ualities, where something can at times be e2ual an# at other times not be e2ual. Time an# time again, this is pro$en to be an inefficient system because of how non3linear complexity wor&s with efficiency.

(s there is a growth in technology, there nee#s to be a growth in inno$ation. 1ithout one, the other cannot impro$e. 0ew metho#s an# i#eas are nee#e# to impro$e technologies because with following the same metho# of computation an# when the only goal is to impro$e the current #ay technology, there will be a limitation to these specific metho#s where there is only so much that can be impro$e upon a metho# of computation. This type of i#eology also can be applie# to the Schafftarian hypothesis, where e$en with this new $iew of efficiency there is still room for impro$ement. ,nce Schafftarian hypothesis is impro$e# upon, where efficiency has reache# its limit, new i#eas must be presente# supporting inno$ation an# new i#ea to ma&e technology better than its original form. This follows the i#eologies of science, where the goal is to continue to research the inner wor&ings of the Uni$erse an# ne$er stopping until the truth is &nown about how our Uni$erse truly wor&s. "nno$ation shoul# be stri$e# for, not %ust stri$e to impro$e technologies. Technology is an important aspect of inno$ation, but without both wor&ing with each other neither of them will be impro$e#, creating a halt in the pro#uction of a better society. ( ma%or connection with the impro$ement of technology an# the increase in inno$ation is the i#ea of complexity. 1ith the impro$ement of technologies, there is an increase in complexity. "nno$ation attempts to #ecrease that complexity cause# by the impro$ement of technologies. 1ithout the increase of inno$ation, there is a ma%or problem with complexity within

technologies. 1ith the increase of complexity, there is an increase in the probability of error. "n or#er to #ecrease that probability, there nee#s to be a #ecrease in complexity, which means an increase in inno$ation of this technology.

1ith the increase in the pro#uction of technology, there will be an increase in the amount of error within technology. 6rror is a huge issue with the increase in pro#uction of technology, especially with an increase in #eman# for better technologies to better impro$e society. To impro$e society with technology, efficiency is the main goal. Since the point of technology is to increase efficiency, the goal nee#s to be efficiency, which can be accomplishe# with the increase of inno$ation. ,nly then will the probability of error with technology #ecrease. There nee#s to be a balance between technology an# inno$ation to achie$e this. 6fficiency can only arise from the balance between two concepts, both being e2ually as important as the other. 1ithout this i#eology, the impro$ement of society cannot be achie$e#. 0ot only will the increase in inno$ation ma&e a physical impro$ement upon society, but also a mental impro$ement. 1hen new technologies arise from science, people must learn both the goo# an# ba# conse2uences arising from these increases of new technologies. "t must be reali.e# that e$en with the increase in technology there must be responsibility. This responsibility arises from the philosophy that people shoul# new i#eas an# inspiration to help others, not to bring #own the existence of humanity.

Implications of this technology Technology is a goo# thing for the a#$ancement of society because it allows humanity to obser$e its morality an# un#erstan# how much of an impact technology is on the worl#. 1ith the a#$ancement of science, there must also be an a#$ancement of morality. There must be a balance

between science an# morality, neither o$er running the other. 62uality between both will bring %ustice to both science an# the existence of moral stan#ar#s. 1ith the continuation of science an# its #e$elopment, there is an increase in the 9left min#e#ness: of society. 1hen humanity strays away from un#erstan#ing the conse2uences of science, only #estruction will arise from humanity. Though one shoul# reach for the heights an# #isco$er new things about our worl#, there must be a responsibility behin# it. @esponsibility an# mo#eration are two main factors behin# the existence of morality. @esponsibility with our actions an# ta&ing un#erstan#ing that technology shoul# be use# for the goo# of humanity, not to turn it into a tool of mass #estruction. Mo#eration with our technologies must also be watche#, where we must mo#erate oursel$es to what we shoul# an# shoul# not #o with our inno$ations an# inspirations. Science is meant for the #isco$ery of un#erstan#ing of our Uni$erse, not to pro$e a point.

1hen science an# personal belief become combine#, it only corrupts the main foun#ation of what science truly is. 6fficiency shoul# be the goal of science an# technology, not to sprea# a personal point of $iew. There must be a balance between science an# moral because if science becomes the main focus then the true point of science becomes lost an# there is no reason for the creation of new i#eas. "f society can achie$e this i#eology then the spee# of inno$ation an# technological #e$elopment will increase rapi#ly. ,nly when this occurs will society progress an# expan#, which will show that the society is rea#y for expansion. "f this #oes not occur, society will fail to continue on an# soon will fall apart, #efeating the purpose of unifying humanity. Unification is a big concept in society, where the goal to unite e$eryone #espite #ifference. Technology is a big characteristic of society that has unifie# humanity, where there is a big networ& of communication between e$eryone all aroun# the worl#. This unification of humanity brings about the fullest inspirations an# i#eas of the human race, where people are free to share

their i#eas without the limitations of #istance or time ta&en to sprea# that information across the worl#. 7ata interaction is a huge step in spee#ing up the process of science, inno$ation, an# #e$elopment of technologies. 1ith the concept of #ata interaction, new i#eas are forme#, combine#, an# then use# to #esign new technologies that coul# help impro$e society.

Science is a fiel# of exploration an# inno$ation, fin#ing new ways to impro$e technology that exists in the mo#ern #ay worl#. 0ot only #oes it allow people to #isco$er an# inno$ate, but it also allows people to explore moral implications. 1ith the growth of humanity an# the continuation of #e$elopment inten#e# for the goo# of humanity there are troubling situation that can occur. 1ith the increase of pri#e on the increase of intelligence, there is a bubble of isolation that forms, where humanity thin&s so highly of itself that it feels the nee# to separate itself from what is most important, which is to use science for the impro$ement of society. /or example, #e$eloping artificial intelligence with human3li&e features shoul# not be #one with the intention of either #estructi$e or immoral con#uct. The intention of this technology shoul# be to better impro$e society, #e$elop cures for #iseases, an# better the li$es of people. 1ith the increase both technology an# inno$ation, the more humanity nee#s to increase in responsibility of using the technology an# i#eas for the correct purposes.

The information of this hypothesis can be use# to #e$elop artificial intelligence an# practically can help fin# ways to cure #iseases with the genetic part of the hypothesis. 1hile it can be use# for goo# purposes, it coul# also be use# for ba# reasons. 1ith being able to #e$elop biological instances with the genetic algorithms, both biological me#icines an# biological weapons coul# be ma#e by programming cells to either help #estroy ba# cells or to go to healthy cells an# completely #estroy them. (lso, with artificial intelligence, new forms of computation coul# be

#one with the hypothesis. 1ith this in min#, new software programs can gain themsel$es an artificial intelligence, where software coul# soon thin& on its own without any other user gui#ance. (lso, obser$ation of humans woul# finally not be limite# because instea# of ha$ing to use humans as the case to stu#y, human representations that are artificial intelligence coul# help pre#ict statistics an# be able to pre#ict e$ents with human interaction. This same concept of experiment coul# be #one to stu#y systems of either $irtual or physical organisms. 1ith $irtual organisms, experiments coul# be #one to compare the interactions with $irtual organisms with other $irtual organisms, an# then perform an experiment with a $irtual organism an# a physical organism. These types of experiments coul# help #e$elop better artificial intelligence because with the examination of interactions it coul# help better un#erstan# #ata interaction with change an# #e$elopment of systems, especially systems that go through rapi# change. This coul# also help with statistical analysis, which woul# analy.e human statistic to get a better un#erstan#ing of human systems an# how humans interact with other humans an# e$en with artificial intelligence.

1ith concepts of interaction, there is this hint of a type of system, where e$erything is actually unifie# into one system of language or co#e. "n #ata interaction, there is this algorithmic se2uence that controls systems with e2uality, where with the connection between two pieces of #ata there is unification between these two pieces of #ata creating a system with a specific personality. 1ith #ata interaction, the co#e in$ol$e# between the two or more 9organisms: becomes unifie# as one piece of co#e, where changes occur within the system #ue to how the organisms interact or react with each other. Systems, after a perio# of exponential time, begin to #e$elop a personality with the amount of changes within the system an# how the organisms interact an# react with each other. 'owe$er, each system, e$en if #e$elope# in similar ways, will

ha$e a probability of a $ery small percentage of being i#entical. This is what ma&es systems strange. The 2uestion woul# be what is the constant factor in$ol$e# in the #e$elopment of systems. This constant is what is behin# the #e$elopment of all systems. The constant is a small algorithm that is behin# the existence of all systems. Thin& of systems as crystal formations, where there are millions of crystals within a ca$e. The crystals themsel$es represent the systems, where their formations represent these elements within the system. "n this case, the ca$e represents the area of all existence for systems, where there is a set algorithm behin# all these systems. There coul# be millions of these cases that ha$e #ifferent algorithms, which woul# form systems on that specific algorithm. 1ith this new concept, there coul# be new ways to experiment with the #e$elopment of systems with the existence of artificial intelligence. This woul# allow us to gain a better un#erstan#ing of how systems wor& an# fin# the #ri$ing properties of systems.

1ith this information, it coul# help #e$elop human3li&e artificial intelligence, where these forms of artificial intelligence can be self3aware an# #e$elop without the gui#ance of humans. This coul# help in the #e$elopment in un#erstan#ing human intelligence an# interaction. This un#erstan#ing woul# help #e$elop new forms of safety, being able to pre#ict human actions with the testing of $irtual organisms that act similar to humans. "n this range of #e$elopment, obser$ation of systems also coul# bring a better un#erstan#ing how systems of organisms are forme# in the first place an# whether there must be some force behin# this interaction between organisms that form en$ironments. This implication of artificial intelligence woul# bring an e$olution in technology that better helps humans without the gui#ance of humans. 6$en if this is all theory, there is a $ery li&ely change that it is the #ri$ing force behin# the existence of systems, where #ata interaction becomes a huge #ri$ing force behin# these systems.