People say that you can't divide by zero because it would give two possible answers. But this is silly, since if have a positive number scale that includes zero, and a negative number scale that includes zero, then you have always had two zeros, it's the only value that's is overlapped twice on the numberline, which is why you don' notice there are indeed two zeros, and whether you get to positive or negative infinity is dependent on which zero you use. Zero is not a number. It's a concept like infinity. Most of the laws you learned about multiplying by zero are flat-out wrong. Multiplying by zero does not equal zero. This is the tip of the iceberg on my theory on zero. The real theory is that zero should be treated as a concept that could never actually be reached, like infinity, and that +0 and -0 should be +1/∞ -1/∞, and true zero should be considered something that could never be reached on the scale of counting we use, and this introduces the concept of meta-counting, in that infinity should be considered a rejection of counting and rather a speed and 1 on a meta higher scale. 0*∞ = 1, 0*2 /= 0 but 2*0 is its own unique value which at our scale could be considered, so is 0^2. You can use this to prove 9.999... = 10 at our scale but not at the scale one meta smaller, in which it's one over infinity smaler than 10.

In that sense, the entire debate between atheists and theists is a stupid one, I think they just want to waste their breath debating. Because according to quantum mechanics, in an infinite period of time the probability that a superintelligent being would spontaneously pop into existence is one. Even without quantum mechanics, in an infinite period of time a universe will eventually be created with tuning of physical constants that allow such a being to exist. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the god theory that involves implications for multiple universes and also the responsibility of consciousness--going to other parts of the universe and other universes to stop bad things happening to other consciousness--which is different to the meaning of life--perfecting oneself to the ultimate monomorphic form, and resisting the vain dimorphic desired of making your species stronger, faster, and smarter or having what particular eye colour over being kind (this is a theory I've had since 2019)--and overall shows that the only thing you should be concerned about is what people claim such a superintelligent being says. God is simply a single hypothesis, while belief systems (like religion or similar) would include many hypothesis that may or may not include god . . . I'm a Uni-theist, in that I believe the debate between atheists and theists is a fake one. The real debate is about overall belief systems, not whether superintellegent beings exist.

How do you define "monomorphic form" and "dimorphic desire"?

Enough with the mystification already.

Are not all numbers concepts? Now define "concept".


There are zero live African elephants in the room with me at the moment. This is
a precise number. If there was one elephant in the room, things would
be wholly (geddit?) different. First the room would burst apart, then the floor
would collapse under the weight. In short, zero is as good a number as one.

My bank account will never reach infinity, but it could certainly reach zero. And if it did, it would feel very real.

_________________
And the go-fever which is more real than many doctors’ diseases, waked and raged...
- Rudyard Kipling, "The Light That Failed" (1891)

I think or I hope at least that the date of publication is the key to interpreting the original post.

And... I actually meant it the same way Antti introduced the black hole opening, in that it's not really some secret opening for Japanese players to use against international opponents, but it has been legitimately studied. Here the theory is described very badly in a way that can't be taken seriously and doesn't work under the most commonly used standard definition framework of mathematics. That being said, the fundamental idea isn't necessarily incorrect if we move away from the most often used framework representation system of mathematics.

Natural numbers +1, +2, +3 . . .
Their natural inverses -1, -2, -3 . . .
0, ∞, i

The problem I see is that mathematicians seem to have decided as standard to accept properties that defy the standard rule. It could be that most humans are phenotypically, and perhaps genetically, predisposed to bias there beliefs on what works 'in the moment' or what works for what there are currently trying to do. Rather than towards universal consistency.
Any number multiplied by zero is zero, and infinity with any number added, minused, multiplied, divided is infinity? What nonsense is this? This means that ANY calculation involving zero or infinity should be banned. The problem is one operation is banned, divided by zero, yet another equally problematic operation, multiplying by zero. But if one operation is problematic, all operations are problematic.

All numbers must follow the same rules of manipulation. If it doesn't follow them, it's a concept, not a number. Therefore, 0 and ∞ cannot be used unless multiplying and dividing them by unique numbers give unique values. So, if we are to use 0 at all, 1 times 0 must be different from 2 times zero. But how can this be done? Well the answer is to make an intuitive leap equal to the one required to believing in something as silly as 'numbers less than 0'. Silly but metaphorically useful for mathematical calculation. So yes this is no different to throwing away the idea that a number must represent an actual value above zero. If you don't throw away that intuitive idea, you can't accept negative numbers. Indeed, negative numbers are fake--you cannot have 'less than zero', but yet we've become comfortable using them metaphorically for values that are opposite in nature. In this way, it is better not to think of negative numbers as less than zero, but rather, but from the perspective of zero they are also greater than zero. It is only from the perspective of positive numbers that they are less than zero. Indeed, imaginary numbers are said to exist on a different imaginary plane, but in my view, it 'i' is really the number -1 from the perspective of the so-called negative numbers. For they see themselves as the positive numbers and what we think of as the negative numbers. And while often in math positive prejudice seems completely fine, in the situations when this type of prejudiced thinking breaks down you get so-called imaginary numbers. We shouldn't accept 0 in a half-hearted way. We must make the full intuitive leap into accepting numbers are not just value.

Revaluating our view.

1 There is no such thing as numbers smaller or less than zero. Rather, all values above zero can take one of two opposite properties, left or right direction, represented by - and +.
So all directions on the number line are greater than 0. However, a number greater than zero can be further from another value greater than 0 itself if it has an opposing direction.

2 Mathematical angular momentum or mathematical potential value. The point is 1 times 0 and 2 times 0 both have equally no value, however we say say that numbers are more than just value. They are value and potential value, which is the same as point-like particles conserving angular momentum even though they themselves do not spin. Likewise, 'value' is converted into potential value, and that potential value can turn again into real value, making potential value a distinguishing element between equally valueless values. This introduces something I call meta-counting, breaking the fourth wall in mathematics.

These are all we need to begin our foray into a new, more consistent definition of counting, of 0, ∞ and i.
_____

(+5-1)(+5-1) = +16
(-5+1)(-5+1) = -16

But what does it mean to be left of left? Is left of left left or right?

Every number divided by itself is 1, and this rule is true for anything that wants to call itself a number.

So 0/0 = 1. ∞/∞ = 1 as well. Well this means 0 = 1*0 and ∞ = 1*∞. So far, so good. But then, this means 2*0 != 0, and 2*∞ != ∞. This last part deviates from mainstream mathematical thinking. But 0/0 = 1, 2*(0/0)=2, (2*0)/0=2, therefore 2*0 is it's own unique value separate from 0. Likewise ∞/∞ = 1, 2*(∞/∞)=2, (2*∞)/∞=2, therefore 2*∞ is unique.

Infinity is meta number one. Two infinity is meta number two. These are not numbers. They are meta-numbers. Likewise two times zero is undermeta two.

The difference between 9.999... and 10 is 1/∞, 0.000...1, under-meta 1, but of course this one doesn't exist at the non-meta level. At the non-meta level 9.999... = 10 and 2*0 = 0. However in each case, they are separated by what from the nonmeta perspective is the potential value of 1*0. Yes, 0+0 != 0 really, but 2*0, however the nonmeta level cannot detect this and treats 0+0 as equal to 0. 0 - 0 = -2*0, as zero decides it's sign externally.

And a meta times an undermeta brings you to the normal, nonmeta level from our perspective. So 0*∞ = 1 after all.

When you count apples, that's counting. When you write a story and a character counts apples, that's under-meta counting. When that character writes a story within your story and a character in that story counts apples, that's double-undermeta counting. If you find out that you are simply a character in a story, then when the novelist of the story you're a part of counts apples, that's meta counting. If that person finds out they themselves are part of a story, then when the author of that story counts apples, it's double meta counting. I laughed when they fb changed their name to 'meta'. Not only had I come up with the concept and name of meta-counting, but had started to apply meta to life. Backwards time travel would be the last invention of any civilisation. Post-modernist concepts such as countries will crumble under metatime. And they think what they're doing is meta, how cute.

Another way to think of it, is that negative apples are apples created backwards in time, well at least that's how I've been thinking of it. But I think that means negative apples have negative mass, doesn't it?

Think of the Space-time continuum as the nothing. Then imagine that the reason masses warp the fabric of spacetime and cause gravity is because the masses themselves are made of the fabric of spacetime. When a single masses appear to move it's really different parts of spacetime seamlessly pulling themselves in and then releasing again. However all masses form in the time-direction space-time forms in that universe. If a mass formed the directions of it's quantum forces from the opposite direction, it would create negative mass. Now if you have five apples and run the forces that create a negative mass apple from a region of spacetime in which a positive apple already exists, you'd return to the nothingness of space-time. Therefore, whether the absolute value of 5-1 is 4 or 6 is dependant whether the -1 apple created itself from a +1 apple or created itself from a region of empty space-time.

Weather a number multiplies by it's own sign isn't determined by whether it's negative or positive but rather if it's static or active. A static number will always multiply by itself to create it's own sign. On the other hand, if it's active, it will end up on the opposite side every even multiplication.

A lot seems to hinge on this statement. Source?

Yes, my bad not making it clear that this as of yet is just my mini-theory with no confirmation. But it seems that in mainstream mathematics consistent logic is not followed in certain cases and then excuses are made for why that's done. In my mini-theory zero can't decide to take some proprties of natural numbers but then decide it's going to ignore others yet still call itself a natural number. I mean the cheek. And imaginary numbers are simply static negative numbers that became impossible to pretend don't exist.

Similarly, although this is implied, I disagree with how mathemiticians deal with infinite serires. Last year I came to my own conclusion of the and when I'll add my take on it's relationship to the zeta function soon.



First of all, the concept that when you add something to infinity it results in the same thing is false. What's happened is that infinity. Yet they then come back and say the series 'equals' something. How can that be if you've determined infinity to not be a number? Just like with zero, there are picking and choosing which rules to apply based on convenience over consistency. To me it seems clear that in convergent infinite series you can say it 'equals' something at the meta you are operating at because the rest of the series goes towards the under-meta. But for divergent series this is dumb, because when that occurs you have to switch to the higher meta.

Saying that something equls is the same as saying the end

The rule that seems most consistent is that you must always believe in proportionality. From that, both +1-1 and -1+1 to infinity are actually 0, because the sum is equal to the partial sums of where it repeats. Essentially, the limit of the infinite sum +1-1 must end with -1 since that's how the partial sum of the repeat ends. Similarly, -1+1 must end with +1. If you +1 or -1 to any of these you change the last term and obviously under my rules you no longer have ∞ terms but (∞-1) terms. Look at it this way: when you put something in your calculator sometimes you'll get a recurring sequence. On unusual ocassions this recurring sequence will be of multiple numbers. Now if I were to ask you what the hypothetical 'end' of the sequence was, you obviously wouldn't randomly pick out a number in between. You'd pick out the last number, since that's the end of the recurring pattern. If the result was 0.257 recurring the hypothetical 'last' number is 7. But if you reject such basic commmon sense that a Key stage 2 elementary schooler knows, then end up with nonsense where you can't decide whether the +1-1 sequence ends with -1 and equals 0 or +1 and equals 1. So you say a half. And when the sequence is -1+1, you think it's -1/2.

I was explaining this to Akhirah when we came upon the concept of -* negative multiplication and -/ negative division. It just so happens we were both sceptical of the current interpretation of the what the opposites of the multiplication and division actually are. Yes, they are opposites of each other, but unlike numbers these have two opposites, so the TRUE opposite of multiplication is negative division -2 -* -2 = -4. The problem is of course notation, so perhaps an underline before the power or the square root symbol for negative exponentiation, -2_^-2 = -4.

An analogy for this is opposite charge, parity, time. If you change only one or two, you cause an imbalance, but if you change all three, the mirror world is indistinguishable. This case is more like being in a 3d room, and the true opposite location is the opposite in the x, y and z coordinates, though you might have to use a ladder to get into a corner of the ceiling. The lesson here is not to fall for the mini dunning-kruger, which is assuming that one valid explanation for something is the only explanation, that there can't be multiple reasons something becomes about. Ironically, we probably become more prone to this by being cautious that one valid explanation is not the only possible explanation, but the word 'possible' makes us subconsciously assume that there is only one correct explanation, and we are most prone to falling into a trap when all of our attention is focused on not falling into a different trap. For another example, finding IQ has a causal correlation with life outcomes does show IQ measures intelligence, but it is a common mistake to assume that it measures all intelligence. Ironically, this is usually caused by assuming that the degree it does not correlate is all due to other environmental factors than don't affect IQ, whereas a person who thinks Intelligence determines everything is more likely to determine there must be some other form of intelligence that correlates with most of the rest that the IQ test doesn't measure.

Have you heard of the Single Electron Universe?

Ah! So that's how penguin diagrams came about.

It also implies the interesting egg theory of the universe. Like with the 'multi'-verse, I think people underestimate it's plausibility.

We really need a modulus sign designed for fractions. For those not overly-familiar of this convenient function, |x| takes the positive version of x. And if you want the negative version −|x|. However there's no symbol for a function to take x/y and convert it to a top-heavy fraction or a bottom-heavy fraction.

I needed it for a mathematical equation for a new religion I've been trying to derive from bio-logical first principles for the past three years. What do I do? Fortunately I've for now opted for simply adding the fraction to it's inverse, but what if it was the case that someone really needed

Perhaps x|/|y putting a modulus on the division line itself and x-|/|y for a bottom heavy. Maybe. Also, since we use the base 10 system, recurring 0.999... = 1/10^infinity, 9.999... is 1-(1/10^infinity).

A video going through our history of accepting weird numbers up to i, although when talking about the first irrational numbers skipping the Egyptian approximation of pi that preceded √2 makes it look a bit brainwashed. The name of the show is hilarious which itself is ironic, which makes it hilarious, which makes it ironic, which makes it hilarious, which makes it ironic, which makes it hilarious, which makes it ironic, which makes it hilarious, and so on to a ko of infinite laughter! I'm going to start pushing the notation I prefer to mathematicians, wish me luck!

I don't understand. But you may like to research p-adic numbers and their metric (modulus) (if you don't already know about it)

Well, break a leg!

I should note though that I have seen something similar that is essentially a single photon theory of the universe, so . . .