Working out some details of pattern injection model. To entangle two identities by sequential emission requires an identity space. That’s inherent in the CM64 inversion. But there’s a levels issue: entangling identities within an identity space means they enter overlapping identity spaces which organize and function according to rules applied to layers within the identity space. These layers can conceived of as a zK and thus coherence is defined using a Riemann zeta. By coherence I mean those stack to form larger zK so coherence becomes transitional across the organization, meaning in all sorts of cool ways that can be evaluated spatially.

I can use this poetically to define Jahmi.

What picture does he draw in her of me?

Why should I trust more what I see in her than

What I see of me in her?

You don’t trust her, Jahmi.

Though I must for the story to end. Yes.

How do you talk? I persuade through a high

Degree of forthright, observational honesty.

The magic is I’m in her head, not what I say

Because all I do is speak what I know to be the truth,

She trusts my advice. I encourage her.

She’s far more and less fragile than people think.

And you

This is fascinating: an attempt to draw a anti-functional portrait, by which I mean I can conceive of me in her from her perspective, which is the opposite perspective from my natural one. This is hard. It requires a series of fine judgements. I can turn that into poetry as well: the interface between my perspective and hers defines how I appear to her across the T’T.

The way this is going is that if you’re the reference T then it’s the pattern implanted expanding within her existence. At the Planck level, this becomes literal: they’re little bangs of pattern popping into existence as they are created in time and over time, as the pattern injection traces over the identity space screen.

This suggests she was aware of the other T exactly as appears. This reduces the current case to exactly as described, except I feel manipulated because there was a reference to this in oblique form in a piece that appears a day or so before a photo. Which says she’s managing herself very carefully. It’s part of her game. Is she that disassociated? It’s not her in the T’T version but you, dummy. This is a weird threading in which the stripping of the negative generates a finding that I can’t evaluate because I don’t know the work load. Which seems really high. If I assume rough equality, and evaluate output, then really really high.

That’s a fast-expanding pattern.

In me, then the implantation is significantly visible in ways she can’t see because implantation happened earlier than 33, with the last stages coming into the 30’s at the latest when the separation occurred – so mid-30’s at most. I’d rather someone be attracted to things than to avoid attractions to things. I did a 2 minute research job, which says first report 1+ week ago, then 3 days ago, then 1 day ago, so you go from statements about how she’s disappeared by people who she’d see and then a report, then and it feels fishy. I smell a rat. Is it me? Oh fucking hell, this is how you talk to me. You’re devious in a million ways. Don’t pretend you’re not.

This is an amazingly deep vein. I put some notes in Pages about this for 3/9/2018. It comes from shedding the negative threads that relate to opposite perspective so it’s emission of pattern, its fCM growth, contains the choice of other color except that color isn’t superficially visible. So if you bang one into the other counting back that’s Mia again: bang, reply, bang or basic fCM 1-0-1 and 0-1-0 stacked sufficiently so the chains define a specific location – a literal base2 location in the CMs lattice. Mia is minimal information agreement, sometimes Miea with exchange added. Exchange is an additional construction but its existence in the identity space is part of the stick potential. What did I call that: the way the sticks light up one way and then the other counts as a series but also as a sum. How did I get here? Fortunately the poetic approach gives me a roadmap: it came directly out of figuring out the ultimate threads of negativity including the Our Lost Girl scenario in which the lighting approaches fully lit only to be revealed as a fraudulent thread pretending to light. That in the OLG scenario describes a nested identity space at the core of the core, etc. on which the entire structure’s existence has been predicated. It becomes impossible in every layer unless there’s exactly the cooperation which the impossibility states isn’t happening, a kind of management function so detailed it relies on core confusion to the level of the insane, as in it only exists if it’s completely evil on purpose and even then as a solution it’s intensely unstable if you don’t want to laugh out loud because that’s what’s necessary to flip the bit. I can hear that laughter, but it’s not absolute; relative laughter wouldn’t do because they’re trying to get as close to absolutely evil as possible.

This also answers the question of what I do: I figure stuff out across the identity spaces and I use you because I set you up to be used in that way, and all that stuff tilts directionally except for the OLG and that’s of doubtful possibility. It posits Verdi’s Iago. I know that’s not true.