I appreciate your input. I don't think that's unreasonable.
However, this "theory" I proposed wasn't essentially about physics; it was ontological in nature, encroaching more on the field of CS's type theory as it applies to conceptions of physics.
Except it doesn’t as there is no actual physics in what you wrote… Without it there is no more correctness than any other random string of words
Don’t worry though, you aren’t alone. There is a thriving community of people coming up with their own “theories” or proving how pi is exact equal to 3.125
Listen guy, you're the one that called it a theory to begin with. I didn't make any claims, and you're right that there's no physics in what I wrote: I was interested in the ontology of fractional types, however and wherever they might be applied.
Do _you_ have an actual point to make, or are you being mean for the sake of it? I would sincerely like to engage with you, if you're quite done accusing me of trying to trisect the angle.
However, this "theory" I proposed wasn't essentially about physics; it was ontological in nature, encroaching more on the field of CS's type theory as it applies to conceptions of physics.