Like the idiot I am I thought of something important as I was falling asleep last night and now I cannot remember what it was.  Most likely it had something to do with gravity which is a topic this week, although it easily could have been some breakthrough in calculus.
I thought about waiting to post anything else in a silent protest against my lethargy and stupidity, but yesterday was a tough day in many respects and it would be wrong to stop on the eve of christmas eve in posting.
Perhaps it will come to me and I can write it down, perhaps it will just irritate me for several days.  I doubt it will have the effect of irritating me forever, something I reserve for you.

AuT Building an algorithm Calculus 2 of 5

The move using x, not sct, from linearity from non-linearity as a source of gravity in AuT allows for gravity to be separate from the other forces.

0,1,1,0 allows for gravity and anti-gravity but the solutions suggest that gravity is the movement to linearity 0,1 and that anti-gravity is the movement 0,-1.  There remains an alternative to this which has been suggested which is that gravity is a secondary dimensional result.  The measurement of gravity (m1*m2)/d^2 suggests two things.  1) Distance (and therefore relative change to ct1) is important and 2) the scale of mass and distance is the same so that they two represent different states of the same thing at the same carrier level.

In fact, this provides the best evidence that ct1 states cycle relative to the change in x during higher carrier states relative movement (better than the otherwise explainable visible evidence of invisibility which we see). We would not see gravity if there were not cycling of ct1 between compressive and decompressive states as spirals in the carrier and going from positive to negative within the individual solutions that make those spirals.

Since gravity requires separation it stands to reason that gravity would only arise at the ct1-ct2 barrier.  That in turn suggests that gravity is a force of comparison which raises the question of where photonic light fits it.

The suggestion of these observations is that gravity is the effect of cycling ct1 states in response to changes in x in the algorithm which continue as the ct1 states compress which compression is the alignment of ct1 states to form ct2 states (1,1,2 to 11,11,22 F-series quantum linear (not curved) intersecting spirals) and this alignment gives rise to photonic light as a relativistic consequence to the compression of multiple spirals.

The events are: 1) ct1 states cycling (o,1,1) and 2) ct1 states aligning to form carrier spirals and 3) 256 unit ct1 states being aligned along these carrier spirals.  There is, within this, room for gravity at steps 1, 2 or both.

If dimension is not a “force” in itself, which it may well be, then it is possible this shows “trailing forces”.  I.E. 1 is gravity, 2 is photonic light, 3 is wave energy even though each only becomes apparent when the next order or organization (1,11,111) come into place.  This is suggested by electromagnetic forces which are associated with wave energy but mostly present in association with ct4 (1111) states.

I am not convinced you have to look for outward signs.  Mathematically there is no mechanism speculated yet to stop the cycling.  It is possible that gravity and photonic light have the origin in the place originally designated; but that they only become apparent at the next relative state.  This allows for the differentiation of gravity from the dimensional forces while still allow for gravity to be observable only at the dimensional level.

The definition of gravity based on proximity and velocity is based on shared ct1 states (later) so it stands to reason that gravity, the force related to compression or the stacking of algorithms can only manifest itself at the ct1-ct2 boundary because, yes you guessed it, it requires dimensional characteristics to be observed.

Here is how this changes:

lim (as x goes to x0)  [f(x0+dx)-fx]/(x-x0) and you cannot plug in zero for x0 because in a quantum universe you don't have zeros.  You get the same effect by converging series, in this case x-x0 converges on zero in the same basic fashion and for the same reason, a variable x, increases but in the “real” universe the increase is quantum or incrementally.  It the calculus universe it is linear.

The zeros do exist at the ct1-ct0 boundary, but these are not "actual zero" but merely the potential for a yes or no answer; the potential for a plus or minus answer.  

It seems possible in AuT that you can divide a maybe by a maybe and get one.

We have actual limits in our analysis of AuT but the limits change with each change in x and these limits affect both curvature and the change in information quantity.  The arrangement of information also evolves since the curvature solution changes as x increases.

Derivative limits for AuT approach not zero but a varying matched compression which would balance the offset forces and return the system to linearity but they never reach that point.

There are complicated questions that arise from the formulation of this algorithm is the question of what happens when you add two prior states to get the next state with an offset.  We can and will draw this out.  As these are stacked to get to higher ct states (past ct1) the relativity of ct2 to ct1 allows for higher factors Ox^2, Ox^3, etc (using calculus nomenclature) to drift into what we call history which is the only place it can go there is no "new" state.