1. What’s so special about zero?
2. What good does that do us?
3. Why would we want that?
4. How about one?

C-B

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> > There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
> > Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> > as that of 9,356 or 42.
> > > 2. What good does that do us?
> > It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> > > 3. Why would we want that?
> > Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
> >
> > > 4. How about one?
> >
> > Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
> > have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!..
> >
> > --
> > Ben.
> Zero starts in radix two.
> Radix one has no such thing.
> So for a value defined by successors there is a conflict.
> In other words your question poses problems for Peano's axioms.
> Start at one (hardly uniphobia) and all is well.
> One and One make OneOne.
> Zero and Zeros make Zero.
>
> Moving right along signs join at zero.
> Under the Cartisian product supposedly independent entities that happen to be copies of exactly the same thing meet at zero.
> Why? Now this is a really good question. One that breaks the bank actually.
> We could have gone another way; realizing that the ray is more fundamental than the line.
> That three rays emanating from zero could behave:
> - a + a * a = 0
> just at the familiar two rays bahave:
> - a + a = 0
> places those three-signed values in a very different camp than the two -signed values.
> How strange it is that one-signed values must thence obey:
> - a = 0
> and here to explain that a zero dimensional geometry has been defined; a unidirectional system that collapses to naught;
> so much like time and sitting there as a little sibling to the real value (now P2). Indeed if you can't accept that P3 imposes a geometry then you likewise should deny P2 its geometry, no? P1 the same, people. So now, having the realization that P3 will land you in the plane, and those three rays equally spread at 120 degree angles would it be any wonder that P4 will take into the volume as rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices? That arithmetic products naturally exist in these systems that are algebraically behaved? That P1 still does a bit of algebra even though its geometry is stunted:
> - 5 - 2 = - 7; (- 5)(- 2) = - 10
> That modulo behaved sign causes one to doubt the Cartesian product is heavy. So heavy that you won't go here. Zero as the origin; this is more where I meant to get to. When we make this sign law in its n-ary form:
> Sum over s ( sx ) = 0
> certainly the numbers beg for the continuum, yet this discrete behavior is getting cooked in too.
> That these number themselves need the modulo representation known as radix values...
> These links can hardly be traced as mistakes.
> And of course it is our habit to land in the radix ten as an assumption. We'll hardly want or need P10 however.
> Simpler things lower down seems to be the place to play out physical theory.
> Sure, 1+2+3+4=10, but then 1+2+3=1*2*3 too, so the sixes seem more apropos.
> Still there lays the breakpoint between three and four where magnitude under product goes corrupted. Still the algebra holds.
> The complex numbers found their new suit without all the old clap-trap.
> They even found their successor, and their successor's successor.
> Still about the origin; didn't relativity destroy that?
> Maybe that's where they went wrong.
> You could say that hydrogen lines were slower in the past couldn't you?
> Some transformation seems to be necessary and its getting time to flip the pancake.
> This one side is done isn't it?
> How many times do you flip a 4D pancake until it is done?
> I never got that topology lecture. Being flippant we really ought to be working out the 6D version. That would be P1P2P3|P4.
> Everything is off by one. You'll see.

Zero's the additive identity, but, the multiplicative annihilator.
It's the subtractive identity, but the divisive exploder.
It's really a neat placeholder in the positional.

I like to think of arithmetic as two things, one of which is
addition and multiplication and their inverses, the other
of which is addition and its inverses and division its inverses.

Here's some talk about vector fields, it's like "a space is a vector field already,
zero everywhere or one everywhere, about the additive or multiplicative".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g3UAFxr4S8

Zero works up "differences are zero means magnitudes are same".

In some sense there's only unsigned numbers, ....

You're right about tally arithmetic or unary or base 1, about where
0 is a vacuous case
1 is a trivial case
2 is a base case
3+ are out,
for things like the quadrature, doubling-spaces, and these kinds of things,
what establish systems and frameworks in the infinitely-divisible.

It's like this, take one of Zeno's paradoxes like the arrow paradox, never arrives.
Now, instead of halving each remainder, recursively halve both. Now it never
arrives and also never starts. Thusly you have made a frame above which is an
Aristotle's continuum, that models continuous uniform motion in continuous time,
with a beginning and end, one unit of a finite magnitude.

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:52:42 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> > > There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero..
> > > Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> > > as that of 9,356 or 42.
> > > > 2. What good does that do us?
> > > It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> > > > 3. Why would we want that?
> > > Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
> > >
> > > > 4. How about one?
> > >
> > > Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
> > > have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ben.
> > Zero starts in radix two.
> > Radix one has no such thing.
> > So for a value defined by successors there is a conflict.
> > In other words your question poses problems for Peano's axioms.
> > Start at one (hardly uniphobia) and all is well.
> > One and One make OneOne.
> > Zero and Zeros make Zero.
> >
> > Moving right along signs join at zero.
> > Under the Cartisian product supposedly independent entities that happen to be copies of exactly the same thing meet at zero.
> > Why? Now this is a really good question. One that breaks the bank actually.
> > We could have gone another way; realizing that the ray is more fundamental than the line.
> > That three rays emanating from zero could behave:
> > - a + a * a = 0
> > just at the familiar two rays bahave:
> > - a + a = 0
> > places those three-signed values in a very different camp than the two -signed values.
> > How strange it is that one-signed values must thence obey:
> > - a = 0
> > and here to explain that a zero dimensional geometry has been defined; a unidirectional system that collapses to naught;
> > so much like time and sitting there as a little sibling to the real value (now P2). Indeed if you can't accept that P3 imposes a geometry then you likewise should deny P2 its geometry, no? P1 the same, people. So now, having the realization that P3 will land you in the plane, and those three rays equally spread at 120 degree angles would it be any wonder that P4 will take into the volume as rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices? That arithmetic products naturally exist in these systems that are algebraically behaved? That P1 still does a bit of algebra even though its geometry is stunted:
> > - 5 - 2 = - 7; (- 5)(- 2) = - 10
> > That modulo behaved sign causes one to doubt the Cartesian product is heavy. So heavy that you won't go here. Zero as the origin; this is more where I meant to get to. When we make this sign law in its n-ary form:
> > Sum over s ( sx ) = 0
> > certainly the numbers beg for the continuum, yet this discrete behavior is getting cooked in too.
> > That these number themselves need the modulo representation known as radix values...
> > These links can hardly be traced as mistakes.
> > And of course it is our habit to land in the radix ten as an assumption.. We'll hardly want or need P10 however.
> > Simpler things lower down seems to be the place to play out physical theory.
> > Sure, 1+2+3+4=10, but then 1+2+3=1*2*3 too, so the sixes seem more apropos.
> > Still there lays the breakpoint between three and four where magnitude under product goes corrupted. Still the algebra holds.
> > The complex numbers found their new suit without all the old clap-trap.
> > They even found their successor, and their successor's successor.
> > Still about the origin; didn't relativity destroy that?
> > Maybe that's where they went wrong.
> > You could say that hydrogen lines were slower in the past couldn't you?
> > Some transformation seems to be necessary and its getting time to flip the pancake.
> > This one side is done isn't it?
> > How many times do you flip a 4D pancake until it is done?
> > I never got that topology lecture. Being flippant we really ought to be working out the 6D version. That would be P1P2P3|P4.
> > Everything is off by one. You'll see.
> Zero's the additive identity, but, the multiplicative annihilator.
> It's the subtractive identity, but the divisive exploder.
> It's really a neat placeholder in the positional.
>
>
> I like to think of arithmetic as two things, one of which is
> addition and multiplication and their inverses, the other
> of which is addition and its inverses and division its inverses.
>
> Here's some talk about vector fields, it's like "a space is a vector field already,
> zero everywhere or one everywhere, about the additive or multiplicative".
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g3UAFxr4S8
>
>
>
> Zero works up "differences are zero means magnitudes are same".
>
>
> In some sense there's only unsigned numbers, ....
>
> You're right about tally arithmetic or unary or base 1, about where
> 0 is a vacuous case
> 1 is a trivial case
> 2 is a base case
> 3+ are out,
> for things like the quadrature, doubling-spaces, and these kinds of things,
> what establish systems and frameworks in the infinitely-divisible.
>
> It's like this, take one of Zeno's paradoxes like the arrow paradox, never arrives.
> Now, instead of halving each remainder, recursively halve both. Now it never
> arrives and also never starts. Thusly you have made a frame above which is an
> Aristotle's continuum, that models continuous uniform motion in continuous time,
> with a beginning and end, one unit of a finite magnitude.

Zero is math of its own. Program Gamma by light speed and you get its zero math...

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:59:35 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:52:42 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > > Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> > > > There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
> > > > Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> > > > as that of 9,356 or 42.
> > > > > 2. What good does that do us?
> > > > It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> > > > > 3. Why would we want that?
> > > > Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
> > > >
> > > > > 4. How about one?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
> > > > have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Ben.
> > > Zero starts in radix two.
> > > Radix one has no such thing.
> > > So for a value defined by successors there is a conflict.
> > > In other words your question poses problems for Peano's axioms.
> > > Start at one (hardly uniphobia) and all is well.
> > > One and One make OneOne.
> > > Zero and Zeros make Zero.
> > >
> > > Moving right along signs join at zero.
> > > Under the Cartisian product supposedly independent entities that happen to be copies of exactly the same thing meet at zero.
> > > Why? Now this is a really good question. One that breaks the bank actually.
> > > We could have gone another way; realizing that the ray is more fundamental than the line.
> > > That three rays emanating from zero could behave:
> > > - a + a * a = 0
> > > just at the familiar two rays bahave:
> > > - a + a = 0
> > > places those three-signed values in a very different camp than the two -signed values.
> > > How strange it is that one-signed values must thence obey:
> > > - a = 0
> > > and here to explain that a zero dimensional geometry has been defined; a unidirectional system that collapses to naught;
> > > so much like time and sitting there as a little sibling to the real value (now P2). Indeed if you can't accept that P3 imposes a geometry then you likewise should deny P2 its geometry, no? P1 the same, people. So now, having the realization that P3 will land you in the plane, and those three rays equally spread at 120 degree angles would it be any wonder that P4 will take into the volume as rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices? That arithmetic products naturally exist in these systems that are algebraically behaved? That P1 still does a bit of algebra even though its geometry is stunted:
> > > - 5 - 2 = - 7; (- 5)(- 2) = - 10
> > > That modulo behaved sign causes one to doubt the Cartesian product is heavy. So heavy that you won't go here. Zero as the origin; this is more where I meant to get to. When we make this sign law in its n-ary form:
> > > Sum over s ( sx ) = 0
> > > certainly the numbers beg for the continuum, yet this discrete behavior is getting cooked in too.
> > > That these number themselves need the modulo representation known as radix values...
> > > These links can hardly be traced as mistakes.
> > > And of course it is our habit to land in the radix ten as an assumption. We'll hardly want or need P10 however.
> > > Simpler things lower down seems to be the place to play out physical theory.
> > > Sure, 1+2+3+4=10, but then 1+2+3=1*2*3 too, so the sixes seem more apropos.
> > > Still there lays the breakpoint between three and four where magnitude under product goes corrupted. Still the algebra holds.
> > > The complex numbers found their new suit without all the old clap-trap.
> > > They even found their successor, and their successor's successor.
> > > Still about the origin; didn't relativity destroy that?
> > > Maybe that's where they went wrong.
> > > You could say that hydrogen lines were slower in the past couldn't you?
> > > Some transformation seems to be necessary and its getting time to flip the pancake.
> > > This one side is done isn't it?
> > > How many times do you flip a 4D pancake until it is done?
> > > I never got that topology lecture. Being flippant we really ought to be working out the 6D version. That would be P1P2P3|P4.
> > > Everything is off by one. You'll see.
> > Zero's the additive identity, but, the multiplicative annihilator.
> > It's the subtractive identity, but the divisive exploder.
> > It's really a neat placeholder in the positional.
> >
> >
> > I like to think of arithmetic as two things, one of which is
> > addition and multiplication and their inverses, the other
> > of which is addition and its inverses and division its inverses.
> >
> > Here's some talk about vector fields, it's like "a space is a vector field already,
> > zero everywhere or one everywhere, about the additive or multiplicative".
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g3UAFxr4S8
> >
> >
> >
> > Zero works up "differences are zero means magnitudes are same".
> >
> >
> > In some sense there's only unsigned numbers, ....
> >
> > You're right about tally arithmetic or unary or base 1, about where
> > 0 is a vacuous case
> > 1 is a trivial case
> > 2 is a base case
> > 3+ are out,
> > for things like the quadrature, doubling-spaces, and these kinds of things,
> > what establish systems and frameworks in the infinitely-divisible.
> >
> > It's like this, take one of Zeno's paradoxes like the arrow paradox, never arrives.
> > Now, instead of halving each remainder, recursively halve both. Now it never
> > arrives and also never starts. Thusly you have made a frame above which is an
> > Aristotle's continuum, that models continuous uniform motion in continuous time,
> > with a beginning and end, one unit of a finite magnitude.
> Zero is math of its own. Program Gamma by light speed and you get its zero math...

It's like, "divide by zero it makes infinity, divide by infinity it makes zero".

Error, ..., error, .... instruction trap, ..., fault.

It's like in set theory, or ordinary regular ZF set theory which is the usual milieu
since all the 20'th century for descriptive set theory, there's two constants:
zero, or the empty set, and omega, or an ordinary inductive set, infinite.

"Zeno squared".

Notice I wrote "there is a 'two constants'" not "there are two, ... constants".

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 4:19:39 PM UTC-4, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:59:35 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:52:42 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > > > Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> > > > > There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
> > > > > Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> > > > > as that of 9,356 or 42.
> > > > > > 2. What good does that do us?
> > > > > It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> > > > > > 3. Why would we want that?
> > > > > Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
> > > > >
> > > > > > 4. How about one?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
> > > > > have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ben.
> > > > Zero starts in radix two.
> > > > Radix one has no such thing.
> > > > So for a value defined by successors there is a conflict.
> > > > In other words your question poses problems for Peano's axioms.
> > > > Start at one (hardly uniphobia) and all is well.
> > > > One and One make OneOne.
> > > > Zero and Zeros make Zero.
> > > >
> > > > Moving right along signs join at zero.
> > > > Under the Cartisian product supposedly independent entities that happen to be copies of exactly the same thing meet at zero.
> > > > Why? Now this is a really good question. One that breaks the bank actually.
> > > > We could have gone another way; realizing that the ray is more fundamental than the line.
> > > > That three rays emanating from zero could behave:
> > > > - a + a * a = 0
> > > > just at the familiar two rays bahave:
> > > > - a + a = 0
> > > > places those three-signed values in a very different camp than the two -signed values.
> > > > How strange it is that one-signed values must thence obey:
> > > > - a = 0
> > > > and here to explain that a zero dimensional geometry has been defined; a unidirectional system , ythat collapses to naught;
> > > > so much like time and sitting there as a little sibling to the real value (now P2). Indeed if you can't accept that P3 imposes a geometry then you likewise should deny P2 its geometry, no? P1 the same, people. So now, having the realization that P3 will land you in the plane, and those three rays equally spread at 120 degree angles would it be any wonder that P4 will take into the volume as rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices? That arithmetic products naturally exist in these systems that are algebraically behaved? That P1 still does a bit of algebra even though its geometry is stunted:
> > > > - 5 - 2 = - 7; (- 5)(- 2) = - 10
> > > > That modulo behaved sign causes one to doubt the Cartesian product is heavy. So heavy that you won't go here. Zero as the origin; this is more where I meant to get to. When we make this sign law in its n-ary form:
> > > > Sum over s ( sx ) = 0
> > > > certainly the numbers beg for the continuum, yet this discrete behavior is getting cooked in too.
> > > > That these number themselves need the modulo representation known as radix values...
> > > > These links can hardly be traced as mistakes.
> > > > And of course it is our habit to land in the radix ten as an assumption. We'll hardly want or need P10 however.
> > > > Simpler things lower down seems to be the place to play out physical theory.
> > > > Sure, 1+2+3+4=10, but then 1+2+3=1*2*3 too, so the sixes seem more apropos.
> > > > Still there lays the breakpoint between three and four where magnitude under product goes corrupted. Still the algebra holds.
> > > > The complex numbers found their new suit without all the old clap-trap.
> > > > They even found their successor, and their successor's successor.
> > > > Still about the origin; didn't relativity destroy that?
> > > > Maybe that's where they went wrong.
> > > > You could say that hydrogen lines were slower in the past couldn't you?
> > > > Some transformation seems to be necessary and its getting time to flip the pancake.
> > > > This one side is done isn't it?
> > > > How many times do you flip a 4D pancake until it is done?
> > > > I never got that topology lecture. Being flippant we really ought to be working out the 6D version. That would be P1P2P3|P4.
> > > > Everything is off by one. You'll see.
> > > Zero's the additive identity, but, the multiplicative annihilator.
> > > It's the subtractive identity, but the divisive exploder.
> > > It's really a neat placeholder in the positional.
> > >
> > > , y, y
> > > I like to think of arithmetic as two things, one of which is
> > > addition and multiplication and their inverses, the other
> > > of which is addition and its inverses and division its inverses.
> > >
> > > Here's some talk about vector fields, it's like "a space is a vector field already,
> > > zero everywhere or one everywhere, about the additive or multiplicative".
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g3UAFxr4S8
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Zero works up "differences are zero means magnitudes are same".
> > >
> > >
> > > In some sense there's only unsigned numbers, ....
> > >
> > > You're right about tally arithmetic or unary or base 1, about where
> > > 0 is a vacuous case
> > > 1 is a trivial case
> > > 2 is a base case
> > > 3+ are out,
> > > for things like the quadrature, doubling-spaces, and these kinds of things,
> > > what establish systems and frameworks in the infinitely-divisible.
> > >
> > > It's like this, take one of Zeno's paradoxes like the arrow paradox, never arrives.
> > > Now, instead of halving each remainder, recursively halve both. Now it never
> > > arrives and also never starts. Thusly you have made a frame above which is an
> > > Aristotle's continuum, that models continuous uniform motion in continuous time,
> > > with a beginning and end, one unit of a finite magnitude.
> > Zero is math of its own. Program Gamma by light speed and you get its zero math...
> It's like, "divide by zero it makes infinity, divide by infinity it makes zero".
>
> Error, ..., error, .... instruction trap, ..., fault.
>
> It's like in set theory, or ordinary regular ZF set theory which is the usual milieu
> since all the 20'th century for descriptive set theory, there's two constants:
> zero, or the empty set, and omega, or an ordinary inductive set, infinite..
>
> "Zeno squared".
>
> Notice I wrote "there is a 'two constants'" not "there are two, ... constants".

It's all very nice thinking, Ross, but as a generator zero can't do anything.
Whereas unity can do almost everything. What is two but one one. What is three but one one one.
These are radix one commitments, and though it is broken in some ways in others it is the ultimate primitive number.
Marbles in a bag: radix one.
They won't yield anything less than one either.
Arguably the sign mnemonics - + * # are radix one notations, for the number of strokes to draw them is their sign.
Then that pesky zero sign comes along; something ignored so far on this thread. What, no strokes to draw it?
So it is that the real value 3=+3, but to formalize the zero sign I use an '@' since it is reminiscent of zero without being 0.
So yet another zero comes along, and it is always the identity sign. Of course four modulo four is zero and the overlap allows us to overlook it.
To make this claim on the radix one numbers gives us the strange fact that one modulo one is zero.
As such to claim that they are one-signed and that this is consistent with one-signed geometry is all truthful.
Yet these details are going to roughly destroy the natural number ala Peano..
That just does not feel right.
So then does the counting actually go:
0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
This inversion maybe needs to be investigated. It's fresh on this end.
And would the first then actually be nill, and the second one? If so then I'm afraid we really do have our numbers off by one.
Physically speaking humans are still bewitched by the antimatter problem.
They haven't even made it to trimatter yet.
We are caught in a binary symmetry no different than our physical form; our commitment to the real value; to the two-signed number is a fraud that must be confronted.

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 2:33:49 PM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 4:19:39 PM UTC-4, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 12:59:35 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:52:42 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:32:50 AM UTC-7, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > > > > > Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> > > > > > There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
> > > > > > Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> > > > > > as that of 9,356 or 42.
> > > > > > > 2. What good does that do us?
> > > > > > It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> > > > > > > 3. Why would we want that?
> > > > > > Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. How about one?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you.. You
> > > > > > have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ben.
> > > > > Zero starts in radix two.
> > > > > Radix one has no such thing.
> > > > > So for a value defined by successors there is a conflict.
> > > > > In other words your question poses problems for Peano's axioms.
> > > > > Start at one (hardly uniphobia) and all is well.
> > > > > One and One make OneOne.
> > > > > Zero and Zeros make Zero.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moving right along signs join at zero.
> > > > > Under the Cartisian product supposedly independent entities that happen to be copies of exactly the same thing meet at zero.
> > > > > Why? Now this is a really good question. One that breaks the bank actually.
> > > > > We could have gone another way; realizing that the ray is more fundamental than the line.
> > > > > That three rays emanating from zero could behave:
> > > > > - a + a * a = 0
> > > > > just at the familiar two rays bahave:
> > > > > - a + a = 0
> > > > > places those three-signed values in a very different camp than the two -signed values.
> > > > > How strange it is that one-signed values must thence obey:
> > > > > - a = 0
> > > > > and here to explain that a zero dimensional geometry has been defined; a unidirectional system , ythat collapses to naught;
> > > > > so much like time and sitting there as a little sibling to the real value (now P2). Indeed if you can't accept that P3 imposes a geometry then you likewise should deny P2 its geometry, no? P1 the same, people. So now, having the realization that P3 will land you in the plane, and those three rays equally spread at 120 degree angles would it be any wonder that P4 will take into the volume as rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices? That arithmetic products naturally exist in these systems that are algebraically behaved? That P1 still does a bit of algebra even though its geometry is stunted:
> > > > > - 5 - 2 = - 7; (- 5)(- 2) = - 10
> > > > > That modulo behaved sign causes one to doubt the Cartesian product is heavy. So heavy that you won't go here. Zero as the origin; this is more where I meant to get to. When we make this sign law in its n-ary form:
> > > > > Sum over s ( sx ) = 0
> > > > > certainly the numbers beg for the continuum, yet this discrete behavior is getting cooked in too.
> > > > > That these number themselves need the modulo representation known as radix values...
> > > > > These links can hardly be traced as mistakes.
> > > > > And of course it is our habit to land in the radix ten as an assumption. We'll hardly want or need P10 however.
> > > > > Simpler things lower down seems to be the place to play out physical theory.
> > > > > Sure, 1+2+3+4=10, but then 1+2+3=1*2*3 too, so the sixes seem more apropos.
> > > > > Still there lays the breakpoint between three and four where magnitude under product goes corrupted. Still the algebra holds.
> > > > > The complex numbers found their new suit without all the old clap-trap.
> > > > > They even found their successor, and their successor's successor.
> > > > > Still about the origin; didn't relativity destroy that?
> > > > > Maybe that's where they went wrong.
> > > > > You could say that hydrogen lines were slower in the past couldn't you?
> > > > > Some transformation seems to be necessary and its getting time to flip the pancake.
> > > > > This one side is done isn't it?
> > > > > How many times do you flip a 4D pancake until it is done?
> > > > > I never got that topology lecture. Being flippant we really ought to be working out the 6D version. That would be P1P2P3|P4.
> > > > > Everything is off by one. You'll see.
> > > > Zero's the additive identity, but, the multiplicative annihilator.
> > > > It's the subtractive identity, but the divisive exploder.
> > > > It's really a neat placeholder in the positional.
> > > >
> > > > , y, y
> > > > I like to think of arithmetic as two things, one of which is
> > > > addition and multiplication and their inverses, the other
> > > > of which is addition and its inverses and division its inverses.
> > > >
> > > > Here's some talk about vector fields, it's like "a space is a vector field already,
> > > > zero everywhere or one everywhere, about the additive or multiplicative".
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g3UAFxr4S8
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Zero works up "differences are zero means magnitudes are same".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In some sense there's only unsigned numbers, ....
> > > >
> > > > You're right about tally arithmetic or unary or base 1, about where
> > > > 0 is a vacuous case
> > > > 1 is a trivial case
> > > > 2 is a base case
> > > > 3+ are out,
> > > > for things like the quadrature, doubling-spaces, and these kinds of things,
> > > > what establish systems and frameworks in the infinitely-divisible.
> > > >
> > > > It's like this, take one of Zeno's paradoxes like the arrow paradox, never arrives.
> > > > Now, instead of halving each remainder, recursively halve both. Now it never
> > > > arrives and also never starts. Thusly you have made a frame above which is an
> > > > Aristotle's continuum, that models continuous uniform motion in continuous time,
> > > > with a beginning and end, one unit of a finite magnitude.
> > > Zero is math of its own. Program Gamma by light speed and you get its zero math...
> > It's like, "divide by zero it makes infinity, divide by infinity it makes zero".
> >
> > Error, ..., error, .... instruction trap, ..., fault.
> >
> > It's like in set theory, or ordinary regular ZF set theory which is the usual milieu
> > since all the 20'th century for descriptive set theory, there's two constants:
> > zero, or the empty set, and omega, or an ordinary inductive set, infinite.
> >
> > "Zeno squared".
> >
> > Notice I wrote "there is a 'two constants'" not "there are two, ... constants".
> It's all very nice thinking, Ross, but as a generator zero can't do anything.
> Whereas unity can do almost everything. What is two but one one. What is three but one one one.
> These are radix one commitments, and though it is broken in some ways in others it is the ultimate primitive number.
> Marbles in a bag: radix one.
> They won't yield anything less than one either.
> Arguably the sign mnemonics - + * # are radix one notations, for the number of strokes to draw them is their sign.
> Then that pesky zero sign comes along; something ignored so far on this thread. What, no strokes to draw it?
> So it is that the real value 3=+3, but to formalize the zero sign I use an '@' since it is reminiscent of zero without being 0.
> So yet another zero comes along, and it is always the identity sign. Of course four modulo four is zero and the overlap allows us to overlook it.
> To make this claim on the radix one numbers gives us the strange fact that one modulo one is zero.
> As such to claim that they are one-signed and that this is consistent with one-signed geometry is all truthful.
> Yet these details are going to roughly destroy the natural number ala Peano.
> That just does not feel right.
> So then does the counting actually go:
> 0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
> This inversion maybe needs to be investigated. It's fresh on this end.
> And would the first then actually be nill, and the second one? If so then I'm afraid we really do have our numbers off by one.
> Physically speaking humans are still bewitched by the antimatter problem.
> They haven't even made it to trimatter yet.
> We are caught in a binary symmetry no different than our physical form; our commitment to the real value; to the two-signed number is a fraud that must be confronted.

Timothy Golden <timbandtech@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > 1. What’s so special about zero?
>> There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
>> Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
>> as that of 9,356 or 42.
>> > 2. What good does that do us?
>> It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
>> > 3. Why would we want that?
>> Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
>>
>> > 4. How about one?
>>
>> Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
>> have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
>
> Zero starts in radix two.

Yesterday, zero was a number. When did it become just a digit?

--
Ben.

On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 17:32:50 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:

> Zero starts in radix two.
> Radix one has no such thing.

Wrong as usual, but not more than your interlocutors.

Base 1: 0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
Base 2: 0, 1, 10, 11, ...
Base 3: 0, 1, 2, 10, ...
etc.

Julio

yo

check out www.miniPROLOG.com

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 11:19:05 AM UTC+10, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 17:32:50 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:
>
> > Zero starts in radix two.
> > Radix one has no such thing.
> Wrong as usual, but not more than your interlocutors.
>
> Base 1: 0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
> Base 2: 0, 1, 10, 11, ...
> Base 3: 0, 1, 2, 10, ...
> etc.
>
> Julio

Charlie-Boo <shymathguy@gmail.com> writes:

> 1. What’s so special about zero?

There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
as that of 9,356 or 42.

> 2. What good does that do us?

It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.

> 3. Why would we want that?

Why would we /not/ want such a thing?

> 4. How about one?

Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.

--
Ben.

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
> Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> as that of 9,356 or 42.
> > 2. What good does that do us?
> It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> > 3. Why would we want that?
> Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
>
> > 4. How about one?
>
> Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
> have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
>
> --
> Ben.

Zero starts in radix two.
Radix one has no such thing.
So for a value defined by successors there is a conflict.
In other words your question poses problems for Peano's axioms.
Start at one (hardly uniphobia) and all is well.
One and One make OneOne.
Zero and Zeros make Zero.

Moving right along signs join at zero.
Under the Cartisian product supposedly independent entities that happen to be copies of exactly the same thing meet at zero.
Why? Now this is a really good question. One that breaks the bank actually.
We could have gone another way; realizing that the ray is more fundamental than the line.
That three rays emanating from zero could behave:
- a + a * a = 0
just at the familiar two rays bahave:
- a + a = 0
places those three-signed values in a very different camp than the two -signed values.
How strange it is that one-signed values must thence obey:
- a = 0
and here to explain that a zero dimensional geometry has been defined; a unidirectional system that collapses to naught;
so much like time and sitting there as a little sibling to the real value (now P2). Indeed if you can't accept that P3 imposes a geometry then you likewise should deny P2 its geometry, no? P1 the same, people. So now, having the realization that P3 will land you in the plane, and those three rays equally spread at 120 degree angles would it be any wonder that P4 will take into the volume as rays emanating from the center of a simplex outward to its vertices? That arithmetic products naturally exist in these systems that are algebraically behaved? That P1 still does a bit of algebra even though its geometry is stunted:
- 5 - 2 = - 7; (- 5)(- 2) = - 10
That modulo behaved sign causes one to doubt the Cartesian product is heavy.. So heavy that you won't go here. Zero as the origin; this is more where I meant to get to. When we make this sign law in its n-ary form:
Sum over s ( sx ) = 0
certainly the numbers beg for the continuum, yet this discrete behavior is getting cooked in too.
That these number themselves need the modulo representation known as radix values...
These links can hardly be traced as mistakes.
And of course it is our habit to land in the radix ten as an assumption. We'll hardly want or need P10 however.
Simpler things lower down seems to be the place to play out physical theory..
Sure, 1+2+3+4=10, but then 1+2+3=1*2*3 too, so the sixes seem more apropos.
Still there lays the breakpoint between three and four where magnitude under product goes corrupted. Still the algebra holds.
The complex numbers found their new suit without all the old clap-trap.
They even found their successor, and their successor's successor.
Still about the origin; didn't relativity destroy that?
Maybe that's where they went wrong.
You could say that hydrogen lines were slower in the past couldn't you?
Some transformation seems to be necessary and its getting time to flip the pancake.
This one side is done isn't it?
How many times do you flip a 4D pancake until it is done?
I never got that topology lecture. Being flippant we really ought to be working out the 6D version. That would be P1P2P3|P4.
Everything is off by one. You'll see.

0 is useful for

BEZ ......... [ Branch if Equal to Zero ]

but you can start at

1 e N
[ s BIGNUM ] e N -> BIGNUM e N

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 12:54:13 UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:

> but you can start at

You can start by jumping off a bridge,
you and the whole indecent retarded brigade,
you umpteenth piece of spamming shit.

*Plonk*

Julio

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 4:31:34 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Timothy Golden <timba...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:34:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Charlie-Boo <shyma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > 1. What’s so special about zero?
> >> There's nothing quite like it! Every other number is not exactly zero.
> >> Zero can hold it's head up with pride. Its lived experience is as valid
> >> as that of 9,356 or 42.
> >> > 2. What good does that do us?
> >> It lets us solve equations like x^2 + 3x without special cases.
> >> > 3. Why would we want that?
> >> Why would we /not/ want such a thing?
> >>
> >> > 4. How about one?
> >>
> >> Yeah, how about that one? Go one! Don't let zero intimidate you. You
> >> have the right to exist as much as any other number. End uniphobia now!.
> >
> > Zero starts in radix two.
> Yesterday, zero was a number. When did it become just a digit?
>
> --
> Ben.

Zero is the count of the empty set.

Some confuse "non-zero magnitude" with "number".

Others don't.

One nice thing about a real number having a representation as
an infinite set of digits to the left and infinite set of digits to the right,
is that zero is all zeroes.

Flipping all the bits and calling that negative one, or zero,
is just like machine integers with an infinite word.

So, if you're in a realm of magnitudes, or, a realm of whole numbers,
you're welcome to work in your limited milieu, but, there's a greater one.

That is, there have been times, when, the dogma didn't have functions
of the usual sorts known today, or numbers the usual sorts known today,
and the greater forms that appreciate being numbers in a number theory
or functions in a function theory. Then, their elements are just called
"whole numbers" or "magnitudes" or "classical functions" or "Cartesian functions",
expressing that "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum" has free extensionality.

Everything true about those old numbers is still included, while,
"a theory of non-zero magnitudes" or "a theory of whole numbers",
leave out the parts limited to non-zero magnitudes or whole numbers,
to those, for example.

It's kind of like today, when introducing "new" concepts like "functions
but not in the Cartesian domains" or "Galois' group of numbers" to reach
back a bit, or, for that matter "for example when Cartesian domains were new",
to give _those_ own names, that also, when "old" concepts like "number" or
"function" have pretty much entirely become "standard real numbers" and
"Cartesian functions", that the "old" concepts get "new" names reflecting
their limitations, in the common context of the naive and de-facto defined.

Otherwise those who _would_ or sadly do confuse concepts,
are path-ological or path-etic, that can be fixed with these
kinds of scholarly approaches, because the objects of mathematics
exist, and just need correct names, for correct representations.

Then, concepts in quantities or "numbers", and their relations "functions",
in a world above representation in a real space or "geometry", is rich,
the space of the concepts and for numbers and functions in geometry.

I.e., here is conflated "concepts" and "space of the concepts", to de-confuse it.

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:20:27 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> because the objects of mathematics exist, and
> just need correct names, for correct representations.

You too can start by jumping off a bridge,
you and the whole indecent retarded brigade,
you umpteenth piece of spamming lying shit.

*Plonk*

Julio

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:23:39 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:20:27 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
> > because the objects of mathematics exist, and
> > just need correct names, for correct representations.
> You too can start by jumping off a bridge,
> you and the whole indecent retarded brigade,
> you umpteenth piece of spamming lying shit.
>
> *Plonk*
>
> Julio

No lie....

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:34:25 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:23:39 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:20:27 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > because the objects of mathematics exist, and
> > > just need correct names, for correct representations.
> > You too can start by jumping off a bridge,
> > you and the whole indecent retarded brigade,
> > you umpteenth piece of spamming lying shit.
> >
> > *Plonk*
> >
> > Julio
> No lie....

People usually think of the lemming, it's like "what's a lemming", well, a lemming
is a sort of rodent, and apocryphally, when there are too many lemmings, they
get a mass hysteria, and pile in a herd over a cliff into the sea.

Here the hope is to find some, "gurus of lemmings", thus that it results, actually
the resources don't make too many frustrated lemmings, and allow the lemmings
to not be frustrated by incomplete or inconsistent mathematics, then that they
transcend to higher animals.

Here it's sort of like "CPU lemmings, here are some magnitudes,
if you get a zero, take a hike, and a dive". Then, the point of having
higher-order lemmings, is that they'll eat zeroes, also.

And not just "run out of food".

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:34:25 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:23:39 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:20:27 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > > because the objects of mathematics exist, and
> > > just need correct names, for correct representations.
> >
> > You too can start by jumping off a bridge,
> > you and the whole indecent retarded brigade,
> > you umpteenth piece of spamming lying shit.
>
> No lie....

Systematically lying while shitting all over the place,
but I can believe you don't know the difference anymore.
Indeed, not even good for re-education...

*Plonk*

Julio

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:53:52 PM UTC+10, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:34:25 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 4:23:39 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > > On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 13:20:27 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > > because the objects of mathematics exist, and
> > > > just need correct names, for correct representations.
> > >
> > > You too can start by jumping off a bridge,
> > > you and the whole indecent retarded brigade,
> > > you umpteenth piece of spamming lying shit.
> >
> > No lie....
>
> Systematically lying while shitting all over the place,
> but I can believe you don't know the difference anymore.
> Indeed, not even good for re-education...
>
> *Plonk*
>
> Julio

..
..
..
..
just give me 10mins of your time

http://new-math.com/un-computable.pdf

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 14:57:12 UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:53:52 PM UTC+10, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> just give me 10mins of your time
> http://new-math.com/un-computable.pdf

Begging to be put out of your misery...

LOL, the tragicomics.

Julio

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 11:16:11 PM UTC+10, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 14:57:12 UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:53:52 PM UTC+10, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>
> > just give me 10mins of your time
> > http://new-math.com/un-computable.pdf
> Begging to be put out of your misery...
>
> LOL, the tragicomics.

ok I'll leave u in SCI-MATH
if you keep outta SCI-LOGIC

thanks for clikn

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:19:05 PM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 17:32:50 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:
>
> > Zero starts in radix two.
> > Radix one has no such thing.
> Wrong as usual, but not more than your interlocutors.
>
> Base 1: 0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
> Base 2: 0, 1, 10, 11, ...
> Base 3: 0, 1, 2, 10, ...
> etc.
>
> Julio

Well, it is very strange, isn't in.
Zero is the first number; one is the second number; two is the third number;...
For consistency we really need to adopt the zeroth concept into the English language.
There is a conflict here no matter which way you look at it.
The concept of the superposition of zero with zero yielding unity as 00 is not going to fly.
In this regard the source of the glyphs trails with zero: 1234567890.
That zero taking interpretation as an exception, whereby another digit must be worked, known as the carry.
The polynomial interpretation of number and the existence of a consistent base 1 value as:
1 + 1 = 11
is a proof that the counting numbers start at unity.
It's this, or the radix one numbers are invalid.
This latter then could obviate Peano completely.

The strangeness of these details is not unlike the strangeness of P1, which are the one-signed numbers. The sx interpretation where s is sign and x is continuous magnitude geometrically renders to naught, but the math can still occur. They still do simple algebra. Let's say it's close by.
Then too, the radix two numbers have the peculiarity that boolean logic falls through as 2's complement math so that sign is embodied within the number automatically with the upper digit being sign.

So far nobody has found this embedded sign behavior in P3 and up. Could be there is a special treat there. That could break into operator theory a bit..

I'm supposed to be big on compiler level integrity, and C wants that damn zero for indexing. This was the most Spock-like feature of them all. Now Peano has his foot in his mouth and Spock is scratching his head with curiosity.

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 16:30:15 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:19:05 PM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 17:32:50 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:
> >
> > > Zero starts in radix two.
> > > Radix one has no such thing.
> >
> > Wrong as usual, but not more than your interlocutors.
> >
> > Base 1: 0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
> > Base 2: 0, 1, 10, 11, ...
> > Base 3: 0, 1, 2, 10, ...
> > etc.
>
> Well, it is very strange, isn't in.
> Zero is the first number; one is the second number; two is the third number;...

Call it "base case" if "first" bothers you.
Or stay impervious to any reasoning.

> For consistency we really need to adopt the zeroth concept into the English language.
> There is a conflict here no matter which way you look at it.
> The concept of the superposition of zero with zero yielding unity as 00 is not going to fly.

It's relatively easy to give formal recursive
definition of the above. But since you don't
know the difference between a number and
a numeral to begin with, and even less how
that works in formal mathematics...

Julio

On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:50:13 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 16:30:15 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 9:19:05 PM UTC-4, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 17:32:50 UTC+2, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > >
> > > > Zero starts in radix two.
> > > > Radix one has no such thing.
> > >
> > > Wrong as usual, but not more than your interlocutors.
> > >
> > > Base 1: 0, 00, 000, 0000, ...
> > > Base 2: 0, 1, 10, 11, ...
> > > Base 3: 0, 1, 2, 10, ...
> > > etc.
> >
> > Well, it is very strange, isn't in.
> > Zero is the first number; one is the second number; two is the third number;...
> Call it "base case" if "first" bothers you.
> Or stay impervious to any reasoning.
> > For consistency we really need to adopt the zeroth concept into the English language.
> > There is a conflict here no matter which way you look at it.
> > The concept of the superposition of zero with zero yielding unity as 00 is not going to fly.
> It's relatively easy to give formal recursive
> definition of the above. But since you don't
> know the difference between a number and
> a numeral to begin with, and even less how
> that works in formal mathematics...
>
> Julio

Heh, you said "easy".

Rhymes with "weak".

On Monday, 24 April 2023 at 16:54:59 UTC+2, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 7:50:13 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> Heh, you said "easy".
> Rhymes with "weak".

You rhyme with piece of shit.

Sure, keep spamming...

*Plonk*

Julio