Zero order goes first...
Then nonzero positive.
There is only an above absolute
zero...no quantity...

Mitchell Raemsch

söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> Zero order goes first...
> Then nonzero positive.
> There is only an above absolute
> zero...no quantity...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

still wrong

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 4:55:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Zero order goes first...
> Then nonzero positive.
> There is only an above absolute
> zero...no quantity...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

It's wonderful poetry on the differential.
Yet zero really comes first in the discrete.
The arabic numerals though: should they start with zero or not?
This is not in some ways settled.
Is it merely a matter of notation or convention?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
arguably makes the most sense in that the zero forms a return.
it is I who complain of the usage of values as operators, and yet here in the mechanism of the modulo form; in the radix representation that gets large values as well as small values; that the zero which forms the return forms the carry as well; then Mitch will falsify and insist upon a subtractive order thus forcing a zero on the bottom as well. Well, what about a double-zero? Rather, the polysign form suggests that systems supporting negative and positive values (two-signed systems) actually do have two registers, and by holding these two an increment-only system alights. This then can allow for the zero return, and it is an operational dynamic in the dance of numbers. That our numbers do contain this dance, while physically this dance does not exist at all: somewhere hereabout lays some fundamental interpretation, and I would not doubt if the great mathematicians and the ones who can do figures in their head do have this dance mastered in their cortex. Their numbers are alive, yet mine have never been. Well, then, comes a new dance of polysign which really has yet to be posited down onto the discrete value. I feel so committed to the continuum interpretation and yet what awaits may be more interesting. At least the crowd that is so fond of their integer does have to be made aware that their two-signed beast has other options. As to what sort of trickery they might come up with... it really is beyond me. I am such a simpleton in these things. Yet their discrete complex form awaits and is but a sign away. There will be no need of subtraction and a mere three directions rather than four as your troglodyte past presumes.

On Monday, June 21, 2021 at 9:34:39 AM UTC-4, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 4:55:43 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Zero order goes first...
> > Then nonzero positive.
> > There is only an above absolute
> > zero...no quantity...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> It's wonderful poetry on the differential.
> Yet zero really comes first in the discrete.
> The arabic numerals though: should they start with zero or not?
> This is not in some ways settled.
> Is it merely a matter of notation or convention?
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Here the terminology of 'ring' really has been lost and yet here is where a true ring exists in discrete form. That the zero acts as a connector from one side of the sequence back to the front: this is in some regards coinciding with the null terminated string that modern computing languages generally respect. This does as well go back to the aleph, where here on a discrete string which is elemental to our numerical constructions, and used as an assumption globally, that we can as well criticize number theory for reambiguating as we see interpretations of large numbers of more than one symbolic unit such as
321
which takes the exponential interpretation
3 x 10 ^ 2 + 2 * 10 ^ 1 + 1 * 10 ^ 0
and yet we must see that if this route is correct then our number theory is conflicting by the usage of a large number in the construction of large numbers. This reambiguates on what I will term the 'very large number':
20123456789
where the exponential interpretation yields an upper term of
2 x 10 ^ 11
which now engages two large values in order to construct a very large value.. This interpretation then is not the actual construction of these numbers. No. There is another mechanism in play and this perspectiver merely reinforces my earlier post.

One possible resolution is to affix an aleph to the symbolic numeric system, and one way to do this is to write:
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, &
where the '&' represents roughly an 'A' and is factually not used in the numeric representation yet does represent a characteristic value. This is to say that & is not an element of this set but is the aleph of this set. Now its usage in a secondary form does in fact mimic a double zero sort of second order numeric. If you are thinking that & is simply ten, well, this is an accurate translation, but it is almost as if in our attempt to disambiguate the above ambiguities that you have not gone far enough. Possibly I have not gone far enough either. This is how it goes when you numerical has been burned in since the age of three or four. It is understandable to believe that our numerics have perfection yet if the ambiguities I've exposed are accurate and go away with some additional notation then to accept that we've been off by one for so long, and I do have a proof that we've been off by one or more in terms of sign, then all that I am discussing should come into alignment and the issues of notational convention and a cleaning up of accumulated ambiguities would be a fine result.

That the product is regarded as
x y
and that our numerals take the same such as
89
is not helpful and this could arguably be where truely logical minds stop absorbing mathematics, which puts all the dummies as smarties and all the smarties as mere mimics. That such notational ambiguities exist is a differing level than computational ambiguities which likewise exist, yet the coupling of the two is guaranteed under ordinary instantiation. As a logical mind substitutes say 8 for x and 9 for y and they see
8 9
which then must be disambiguated then the very usage of variables within notation is troubling to the purely logical mind. The idea then that mathematicians are the ones who so readily absorb exceptions and go on and get the right answer puts us in a club that surely ought to result in some strangeness on the other end of the progression. This I believe to be the current state. We do have to bow down to the level of string processing here; the very medium by which we communicate does become a party to the problems. Information theory can be applied onto any branch of mathematics. Even if this forms a circular eddy which then forms a class of eddies then the medium as a basis can be exposed or at least stretched to its limits. I suppose breaking this topic as open here is an ontological level that leaves those who are committed to their mimicry behind and I am sad for that. I as well suppose that there is great danger in going here where the ease of falsification is so great. Yet to be incorrect is entirely valid in this domain and to strike out on a path that diminishes to naught and then to return and find another is exactly how we break out of our mimicry system. It is by playing such variations that we engage in a progression.

To confess the system that stands as ambiguous firstly: I believe this has been represented above. Yet I am not going to claim to have fully disambiguated it here but merely to explore the usage of the above described aleph now as a usable symbol, which arguably is the double zero; nearly the nine which contorts a one and a zero together graphically; yet one beyond the usual so that the usual value
89
can take the meaning:
8& + 9
and the earlier
321
takes the meaning:
3 & & + 2 & + 1
= 3 & ( & + 2 ) + 1
and another value
4321
represents:
4 & & & + 3 & & + 2 & + 1
and this notation causes some alarm as what was regarded as zero notation under the superposition product noted above as xy has disappeared... as has the zero! Where then will we find the zero? And then are they equivalent? Clearly we still need the value
4320
as sequential to the prior instance. Clearly the notation
4000 + 300 + 20 + 1
and the prior aleph representation are nearly identical, and yet this latter is resting on the prior. If you followed this far then you are doing about as good as me. I am unsure and I am uncomfortable, yet I am willing to drive toward this level of interpretation given the situation in higher mathematics where exceptions are eaten with every free lunch as if they are well deserved desserts.

> arguably makes the most sense in that the zero forms a return.
> it is I who complain of the usage of values as operators, and yet here in the mechanism of the modulo form; in the radix representation that gets large values as well as small values; that the zero which forms the return forms the carry as well; then Mitch will falsify and insist upon a subtractive order thus forcing a zero on the bottom as well. Well, what about a double-zero? Rather, the polysign form suggests that systems supporting negative and positive values (two-signed systems) actually do have two registers, and by holding these two an increment-only system alights. This then can allow for the zero return, and it is an operational dynamic in the dance of numbers. That our numbers do contain this dance, while physically this dance does not exist at all: somewhere hereabout lays some fundamental interpretation, and I would not doubt if the great mathematicians and the ones who can do figures in their head do have this dance mastered in their cortex. Their numbers are alive, yet mine have never been. Well, then, comes a new dance of polysign which really has yet to be posited down onto the discrete value. I feel so committed to the continuum interpretation and yet what awaits may be more interesting. At least the crowd that is so fond of their integer does have to be made aware that their two-signed beast has other options. As to what sort of trickery they might come up with... it really is beyond me. I am such a simpleton in these things. Yet their discrete complex form awaits and is but a sign away. There will be no need of subtraction and a mere three directions rather than four as your troglodyte past presumes.

On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > Zero order goes first...
> > Then nonzero positive.
> > There is only an above absolute
> > zero...no quantity...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> still wrong

is that the best you can do?
Subtraction is real... to the zero limit

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 2:50:01 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > > Zero order goes first...
> > > Then nonzero positive.
> > > There is only an above absolute
> > > zero...no quantity...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > still wrong
> is that the best you can do?
> Subtraction is real... to the zero limit

No. The best representative of time as unidirectional is P1: the one-signed numbers.
The idea that subtraction can operate requires the existence of an inverse, at which point subtraction can simply be expressed as addition, yet P1 has no such inverse. That P1 are as well zero dimensional via geometric rendering is entirely consistent with the notion of 'now' and the paradoxes of time when it is imposed on P2. We observe no dimensional freedom in time. The correspondence is clean and profound.

Subtraction as an operator is not commutative. It is peculiar because it is backwards. Summation suffices and is universal. Objects in our surroundings exist in superposition or in sum.

This interpretation may be relevant onto discrete mathematics where the successor is used to develop a numerical system. When sign is taken seriously is is also true that the signed integers will take a different dimensional interpretation than the whole numbers in terms of geometrical representation. Along come a complex version in the three-signed system too. The lattice on which polysign work is nonorthogonal. I am so used to thinking in terms of the continuum and have overlooked this option to explore the discrete version as nearby to the integer as say N2 versus P2, and then the one-signed version being N1 and the planar N3, but these are essentially the lattice cells of the signon
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
Whether there is room for consequential interpretations here: possibly there is.

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 2:50:01 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > > > Zero order goes first...
> > > > Then nonzero positive.
> > > > There is only an above absolute
> > > > zero...no quantity...
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > still wrong
> > is that the best you can do?
> > Subtraction is real... to the zero limit
> No. The best representative of time as unidirectional is P1: the one-signed numbers.
> The idea that subtraction can operate requires the existence of an inverse, at which point subtraction can simply be expressed as addition, yet P1 has no such inverse. That P1 are as well zero dimensional via geometric rendering is entirely consistent with the notion of 'now' and the paradoxes of time when it is imposed on P2. We observe no dimensional freedom in time. The correspondence is clean and profound.
>
> Subtraction as an operator is not commutative. It is peculiar because it is backwards. Summation suffices and is universal. Objects in our surroundings exist in superposition or in sum.
>
> This interpretation may be relevant onto discrete mathematics where the successor is used to develop a numerical system. When sign is taken seriously is is also true that the signed integers will take a different dimensional interpretation than the whole numbers in terms of geometrical representation. Along come a complex version in the three-signed system too. The lattice on which polysign work is nonorthogonal. I am so used to thinking in terms of the continuum and have overlooked this option to explore the discrete version as nearby to the integer as say N2 versus P2, and then the one-signed version being N1 and the planar N3, but these are essentially the lattice cells of the signon
> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
> Whether there is room for consequential interpretations here: possibly there is.

Because of the no quantity their is the point where there is nothing left to take.
There is that absolute zero with no more quantity. That is why subtraction
no longer could apply...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:54:04 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 2:50:01 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > > > > Zero order goes first...
> > > > > Then nonzero positive.
> > > > > There is only an above absolute
> > > > > zero...no quantity...
> > > > >
> > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > still wrong
> > > is that the best you can do?
> > > Subtraction is real... to the zero limit
> > No. The best representative of time as unidirectional is P1: the one-signed numbers.
> > The idea that subtraction can operate requires the existence of an inverse, at which point subtraction can simply be expressed as addition, yet P1 has no such inverse. That P1 are as well zero dimensional via geometric rendering is entirely consistent with the notion of 'now' and the paradoxes of time when it is imposed on P2. We observe no dimensional freedom in time. The correspondence is clean and profound.
> >
> > Subtraction as an operator is not commutative. It is peculiar because it is backwards. Summation suffices and is universal. Objects in our surroundings exist in superposition or in sum.
> >
> > This interpretation may be relevant onto discrete mathematics where the successor is used to develop a numerical system. When sign is taken seriously is is also true that the signed integers will take a different dimensional interpretation than the whole numbers in terms of geometrical representation. Along come a complex version in the three-signed system too. The lattice on which polysign work is nonorthogonal. I am so used to thinking in terms of the continuum and have overlooked this option to explore the discrete version as nearby to the integer as say N2 versus P2, and then the one-signed version being N1 and the planar N3, but these are essentially the lattice cells of the signon
> > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
> > Whether there is room for consequential interpretations here: possibly there is.
> Because of the no quantity their is the point where there is nothing left to take.
> There is that absolute zero with no more quantity. That is why subtraction
> no longer could apply...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Sure, and you've got physical correspondence on your side especially with discrete objects; say a bag of marbles.
There will have to be some introduction of a register though if this physical correspondence is to work.
Some box or bag or container of some sort will form a bound on this subset that is under discussion. Reaching for the continuum an instance such as a bowl of jello can yield similar continuous results.

When it comes to geometrical addresses of space, whether on paper or physically, the problem is quite different. Arguably relativity has already kicked in, though somehow the mathematician escapes this simply by jotting down a point and labelling it 'O' for origin. This is markedly different from the marbles or jello. Likewise when the mathematician draws a line on the blackboard, jots down the 'O', then another position as '1' so arbitrarily; that this last selection acts as a gauge by which the accuracy of any other point gets graphed: this is our ordinary meaning of a linear space, though I doubt you'll find this interpretation common. If this is an error then all of us are engaged in a common fraud, right? Could we at least admit this as a basic human mimicry problem that is habit since roughly age ten or so? When all teachers reach for their reference measuring rod as is mentioned in Einstein's papers then maybe we'll have a more serious system. That this rod should be a first cut which is arbitrary yet official and that each student should receive a copy of that; this would be a practical step that has been forgone in modernity. When this R1 fails the demonstration then an R2 might have to come into use. This regard for physical correspondence possibly should not be forgone immediately. The divorce of mathematics from physics should not be taken so early in life, for that is a false step in a progression of accumulation. That this break into two worlds of thought could be promulgated on a young mind as if science and mathematics are independent entities is a practice taken the world over as far as I know. I have heard that there are some interesting teaching styles, such as studying unity for a day in some Korean kindergarten, and such variations should not be normalized to a static and unchallenged global curriculum.

The idea that mathematics as it stands today in its accumulated form cannot be challenged is a losing position.
The simplistic thoughts of Mitch here I do appreciate. Such fundamental thoughts go rejected by who exactly? The minds that congregate in this place who hold up the status quo as if it is a closed system are the biggest failures of all. They are cooked and done while the subject remains open. That some subtle change of awareness deep down in the fundamentals will yield a remarkable change in the pile of accumulation I find entirely believable. That mimicry is our blessed curse is so readily proven; that mathematics does suffer this problem and that the burden has been thrown off by the academic culture is a shady business. The divorce of the mathematician from the physicist and from the philosopher demands this description as fraud in the hope that a semiclassical theory awaits.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 6:13:32 AM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:54:04 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 2:50:01 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail..com:
> > > > > > Zero order goes first...
> > > > > > Then nonzero positive.
> > > > > > There is only an above absolute
> > > > > > zero...no quantity...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > still wrong
> > > > is that the best you can do?
> > > > Subtraction is real... to the zero limit
> > > No. The best representative of time as unidirectional is P1: the one-signed numbers.
> > > The idea that subtraction can operate requires the existence of an inverse, at which point subtraction can simply be expressed as addition, yet P1 has no such inverse. That P1 are as well zero dimensional via geometric rendering is entirely consistent with the notion of 'now' and the paradoxes of time when it is imposed on P2. We observe no dimensional freedom in time. The correspondence is clean and profound.
> > >
> > > Subtraction as an operator is not commutative. It is peculiar because it is backwards. Summation suffices and is universal. Objects in our surroundings exist in superposition or in sum.
> > >
> > > This interpretation may be relevant onto discrete mathematics where the successor is used to develop a numerical system. When sign is taken seriously is is also true that the signed integers will take a different dimensional interpretation than the whole numbers in terms of geometrical representation. Along come a complex version in the three-signed system too. The lattice on which polysign work is nonorthogonal. I am so used to thinking in terms of the continuum and have overlooked this option to explore the discrete version as nearby to the integer as say N2 versus P2, and then the one-signed version being N1 and the planar N3, but these are essentially the lattice cells of the signon
> > > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
> > > Whether there is room for consequential interpretations here: possibly there is.
> > Because of the no quantity their is the point where there is nothing left to take.
> > There is that absolute zero with no more quantity. That is why subtraction
> > no longer could apply...
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> Sure, and you've got physical correspondence on your side especially with discrete objects; say a bag of marbles.
> There will have to be some introduction of a register though if this physical correspondence is to work.
> Some box or bag or container of some sort will form a bound on this subset that is under discussion. Reaching for the continuum an instance such as a bowl of jello can yield similar continuous results.
>
> When it comes to geometrical addresses of space, whether on paper or physically, the problem is quite different. Arguably relativity has already kicked in, though somehow the mathematician escapes this simply by jotting down a point and labelling it 'O' for origin. This is markedly different from the marbles or jello. Likewise when the mathematician draws a line on the blackboard, jots down the 'O', then another position as '1' so arbitrarily; that this last selection acts as a gauge by which the accuracy of any other point gets graphed: this is our ordinary meaning of a linear space, though I doubt you'll find this interpretation common. If this is an error then all of us are engaged in a common fraud, right? Could we at least admit this as a basic human mimicry problem that is habit since roughly age ten or so? When all teachers reach for their reference measuring rod as is mentioned in Einstein's papers then maybe we'll have a more serious system. That this rod should be a first cut which is arbitrary yet official and that each student should receive a copy of that; this would be a practical step that has been forgone in modernity. When this R1 fails the demonstration then an R2 might have to come into use. This regard for physical correspondence possibly should not be forgone immediately. The divorce of mathematics from physics should not be taken so early in life, for that is a false step in a progression of accumulation. That this break into two worlds of thought could be promulgated on a young mind as if science and mathematics are independent entities is a practice taken the world over as far as I know. I have heard that there are some interesting teaching styles, such as studying unity for a day in some Korean kindergarten, and such variations should not be normalized to a static and unchallenged global curriculum.
>
> The idea that mathematics as it stands today in its accumulated form cannot be challenged is a losing position.
> The simplistic thoughts of Mitch here I do appreciate. Such fundamental thoughts go rejected by who exactly? The minds that congregate in this place who hold up the status quo as if it is a closed system are the biggest failures of all. They are cooked and done while the subject remains open. That some subtle change of awareness deep down in the fundamentals will yield a remarkable change in the pile of accumulation I find entirely believable. That mimicry is our blessed curse is so readily proven; that mathematics does suffer this problem and that the burden has been thrown off by the academic culture is a shady business. The divorce of the mathematician from the physicist and from the philosopher demands this description as fraud in the hope that a semiclassical theory awaits.

The Unified Field is all positive math or all forward physical order...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 2:23:06 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 6:13:32 AM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:54:04 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-7, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 2:50:01 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 9:41:59 PM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > söndag 20 juni 2021 kl. 22:55:43 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > > > > > > Zero order goes first...
> > > > > > > Then nonzero positive.
> > > > > > > There is only an above absolute
> > > > > > > zero...no quantity...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > > > > still wrong
> > > > > is that the best you can do?
> > > > > Subtraction is real... to the zero limit
> > > > No. The best representative of time as unidirectional is P1: the one-signed numbers.
> > > > The idea that subtraction can operate requires the existence of an inverse, at which point subtraction can simply be expressed as addition, yet P1 has no such inverse. That P1 are as well zero dimensional via geometric rendering is entirely consistent with the notion of 'now' and the paradoxes of time when it is imposed on P2. We observe no dimensional freedom in time. The correspondence is clean and profound.
> > > >
> > > > Subtraction as an operator is not commutative. It is peculiar because it is backwards. Summation suffices and is universal. Objects in our surroundings exist in superposition or in sum.
> > > >
> > > > This interpretation may be relevant onto discrete mathematics where the successor is used to develop a numerical system. When sign is taken seriously is is also true that the signed integers will take a different dimensional interpretation than the whole numbers in terms of geometrical representation. Along come a complex version in the three-signed system too. The lattice on which polysign work is nonorthogonal. I am so used to thinking in terms of the continuum and have overlooked this option to explore the discrete version as nearby to the integer as say N2 versus P2, and then the one-signed version being N1 and the planar N3, but these are essentially the lattice cells of the signon
> > > > http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html
> > > > Whether there is room for consequential interpretations here: possibly there is.
> > > Because of the no quantity their is the point where there is nothing left to take.
> > > There is that absolute zero with no more quantity. That is why subtraction
> > > no longer could apply...
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > Sure, and you've got physical correspondence on your side especially with discrete objects; say a bag of marbles.
> > There will have to be some introduction of a register though if this physical correspondence is to work.
> > Some box or bag or container of some sort will form a bound on this subset that is under discussion. Reaching for the continuum an instance such as a bowl of jello can yield similar continuous results.
> >
> > When it comes to geometrical addresses of space, whether on paper or physically, the problem is quite different. Arguably relativity has already kicked in, though somehow the mathematician escapes this simply by jotting down a point and labelling it 'O' for origin. This is markedly different from the marbles or jello. Likewise when the mathematician draws a line on the blackboard, jots down the 'O', then another position as '1' so arbitrarily; that this last selection acts as a gauge by which the accuracy of any other point gets graphed: this is our ordinary meaning of a linear space, though I doubt you'll find this interpretation common. If this is an error then all of us are engaged in a common fraud, right? Could we at least admit this as a basic human mimicry problem that is habit since roughly age ten or so? When all teachers reach for their reference measuring rod as is mentioned in Einstein's papers then maybe we'll have a more serious system. That this rod should be a first cut which is arbitrary yet official and that each student should receive a copy of that; this would be a practical step that has been forgone in modernity. When this R1 fails the demonstration then an R2 might have to come into use. This regard for physical correspondence possibly should not be forgone immediately. The divorce of mathematics from physics should not be taken so early in life, for that is a false step in a progression of accumulation. That this break into two worlds of thought could be promulgated on a young mind as if science and mathematics are independent entities is a practice taken the world over as far as I know. I have heard that there are some interesting teaching styles, such as studying unity for a day in some Korean kindergarten, and such variations should not be normalized to a static and unchallenged global curriculum.
> >
> > The idea that mathematics as it stands today in its accumulated form cannot be challenged is a losing position.
> > The simplistic thoughts of Mitch here I do appreciate. Such fundamental thoughts go rejected by who exactly? The minds that congregate in this place who hold up the status quo as if it is a closed system are the biggest failures of all. They are cooked and done while the subject remains open. That some subtle change of awareness deep down in the fundamentals will yield a remarkable change in the pile of accumulation I find entirely believable.. That mimicry is our blessed curse is so readily proven; that mathematics does suffer this problem and that the burden has been thrown off by the academic culture is a shady business. The divorce of the mathematician from the physicist and from the philosopher demands this description as fraud in the hope that a semiclassical theory awaits.
> The Unified Field is all positive math or all forward physical order...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

Polysign absorbs this actually. To implement polysign each sign gets a register. These registers can rack up large values, but so long as they remain balanced they can yield zero:
+ 100 - 99 = + 1 (reduced)
( + 100 - 99 )( -5 ) = - 500 + 495 = - 5 (reduced)
The natural sum and product operations will in accumulation yield large values. Because they are balanced and graphically equivalent graphing them is like reducing them: the render operation is embodied in
- 1 + 1 = 0 ( in P2 )
Likewise in Pn.

That the ray is more fundamental than the line: this embodies your unidirectional sensibility. Polysign does not insist on maintaining large numbers since they can be reduced, but the act of graphing or rendering the value is identical to this act of reduction. One is algebra and the other graphical, or even physical, though this is a stretch of my ordinary interpretation. In that Pn insist already on their dimensional qualities via this rendering or balancing means that they truly construct these general dimensional graphical or physical systems as the family
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 ...
far better than can be claimed by the Cartesian system. The reals (P2) do not hold any special power over the others here. They are all on an equal n-ary footing. This means that the complex numbers exist as P3 and are not built from P2. This simple gain alone should cause their celebration. Still, there is much more to them.