I apologize for the misunderstanding. Here is a summary of our previous conversation based on your first post:

1. You asked what “wtf is this we talked about?” referred to.
2. I responded by providing a summary of the previous conversation, which involved analyzing a sequence and exploring ways to make it more intriguing.
3. You proposed modulating or permutating the pattern of ratios and asked for suggestions on how to achieve this.
4. I provided several ideas, such as trying different mathematical operations, introducing variables or parameters, applying mathematical transformations, considering iterative processes, and exploring alternative number systems or bases.
5. You suggested using the root of each resulting value to build upon a subsequential co-pattern or cross-pattern and asked for my thoughts on this approach.
6. I acknowledged that using the root of each resulting value could be an interesting approach to explore and provided an example of how this could be applied to the sequence you mentioned.
7. You clarified that you wanted to use only the resulting values in a “close-equatorial expression” equation.
8. I asked for clarification or a definition of the term “perquatorial” and mentioned that it does not appear to be a recognized word.
9. You stated that “perquatorial” is a term you created but did not provide further context or a definition for it.
10. I asked for more information to understand the meaning of “perquatorial.”
11. You mentioned that in “perquatorial,” the equations would be combined with each other through the resulting sum of their potential.
12. I explained that the meaning of combining equations through the sum of their potential would depend on specific definitions and mathematical frameworks, and that it seems to involve a form of equation manipulation or combination.
13. You provided an example where 1 + 1 equals 21 based on the pattern of the next equation being the same as the previous one but with an additional digit.
14. I acknowledged the example but noted that it is not consistent with conventional arithmetic rules.
15. You mentioned a playful term like “gemamamatria” or “perquatorial expression” to describe the combination of gematria and mathematical manipulation.
16. I explained that gematria traditionally relates to mystical interpretations rather than mathematical manipulation, but the playful terms could be used informally.
17. You mentioned the phrase “2+2=5” and humorously suggested “2+2=42” as a continuation of the pattern.
18. I acknowledged the reference to “2+2=5” and noted that the phrase “the answer to all is 42” comes from Douglas Adams’ “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” where 42 symbolizes the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.

I hope this summary helps clarify our previous conversation. If you have any further questions or need more information, please let me know.
so, generally we have compt to some interesting conclusion.
Yes, during our conversation, we explored various concepts and ideas related to analyzing sequences, manipulating patterns, and considering playful interpretations. While we didn’t arrive at a definitive mathematical conclusion, we discussed different approaches to make the sequence more intriguing and potentially uncover patterns or relationships. It was an exploratory and creative discussion. If you have any further questions or would like to delve into any specific topic, I’m here to assist you.
it’s like: 1+1=2, but 1+1=2+1+1=? is undefined.
In mathematics, the expression “1 + 1 = 2” represents a simple addition operation where the sum of 1 and 1 is equal to 2. However, when you extend the expression to “1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1,” there is an ambiguity in terms of how the additional terms should be grouped or combined.

Without any further clarification or predefined rules, the expression “2 + 1 + 1” is indeed undefined and does not have a unique or well-defined value. It could be interpreted as either adding 1 to 2 and then adding another 1 or as adding 1 to 3. The result depends on the specific grouping or order of operations chosen.

To avoid ambiguity and ensure a well-defined result, mathematical expressions typically follow established rules and conventions, such as the order of operations (PEMDAS/BODMAS) or the use of parentheses to clarify the intended grouping.
so, I basically played on that “ambiguity” and created a new term.
It seems that you used the ambiguity in the expression “1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1” as inspiration to create a new term or concept. It can be an interesting and creative approach to explore different possibilities and interpretations within mathematics.

Creating new terms or concepts can provide fresh perspectives and invite further exploration and discussion. However, it’s important to note that these new terms may not be recognized or established within the broader mathematical community.

If you would like to share more about the specific term or concept you created, I would be happy to discuss it further and provide any insights or feedback I can.
assuming that “1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1” equals 4, then what will be the next chain or group in possible following iteration?
If we assume that “1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1” equals 4, then continuing the pattern, the next chain or group in a possible following iteration could be determined by adding 4 and 1. Therefore:

4 + 1 = 5

Based on this assumption, the next group in the iteration would be 5.

However, it’s important to note that this interpretation deviates from conventional arithmetic and introduces a new pattern based on the specific equation you provided. This deviation may lead to different results or interpretations depending on the chosen rules or assumptions.
1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 5 + 1 + 1 = 10 <–in that case, we added the sum of the first “1+1” and the following “5” by assuming the next “+1” in the following iteration.
Understood. If we follow the pattern you described, where “1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 1 = 5 + 1 + 1 = 10,” it appears that you are adding the sum of the first “1 + 1” and the following number (in this case, 5) by assuming an additional “+1” in each subsequent iteration.

Applying this pattern, we can continue with the next iteration:

10 + 1 + 1 = 12

Therefore, based on the established pattern, the next group in the iteration would be 12. It is important to note that this approach deviates from conventional mathematical operations and introduces a unique pattern based on the specific rules you provided.
yes, I recognize the fact that it’s highly “deviates”. ha-ha. but the vastness in math is even-immerse and generally unpredictable in its final form or a concept.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Mathematics is indeed vast and encompasses a wide range of concepts, principles, and possibilities. It can often be unpredictable and exhibit complex behavior. Exploring deviations, alternative interpretations, and unconventional patterns can lead to new discoveries and insights within the field.

Mathematics allows for creative thinking and the exploration of concepts beyond traditional boundaries. While conventional mathematical principles provide a solid foundation, the exploration of new ideas and the willingness to deviate can lead to interesting discoveries and advancements.

So, embracing the vastness