### Finding my nose

a=b+a ...... a+n!>b+n+2 .... If I keep walking toward infinity will I ever catch my nose?

I am doing puzzles and learning new techniques in heuristics. I am glad that they included problems and their solutions. The biggest result I get from all of this is that I solve problems in a way that is totally different than others apparently. I am currently solving a riddle about motion of a perfect particle inside a perfectly reflective structure. It reminds me a bit of James Clerk Maxwell.

It has resulted in an interesting solution that if true, implies that pi and e, are not numbers. That is really odd. I thought that if something was written as a number then it was a number. It is that invisible part that is added which creates the problem. If n is an integer then (n/m)*i always finds a point ( as i goes to infinity ) where the function is an integer. Rational and irrational numbers. The position of my nose with respect to my face is represented as a number, but it also has a direction. I am very sure that there is a problem with Pi. If Pi is a number then the universe is impossible. I didn't think this problem would be such a deep thinker, I had breezed through every other problem like it was cake. This is perhaps why these books are so useful. It is not the direct information, but the indirect conclusions of combining new knowledge to get new insights.

This some very wild stuff and it implies something that I vaguely grasp about real, irrational, and rational numbers. I solved my problem and characterized the solutions to find the answers, but there is a dead zone where an answer is not possible to be known and if this is true then the universe must have a dead zone where a situation is possible and impossible at the same time. What I may be saying is that the mis-application of methods and objects may be the cause of a great deal of the mis-interpretation of what happens in the universe. I obviously have a different perspective on how the universe operates and when I see the proof of Einstein's theory with respect to orbital shifts, I see a proof of something else more fundamental and a bad conversion to get a confusing statement.

Is 'a' + 'color_of_darkness' greater than 'a' itself?