That the product does beget from the sum.
That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.

From The Sum.
From the Sum...
Of the Sum
In the Sum
Unification
Unity
All Bounded
Yet bonded
In One.
One Sum.
Ahhhhmmmmm

On 11/30/2021 11:40 AM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> That the product does beget from the sum.
> That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.
>
> From The Sum.
> From the Sum...
> Of the Sum
> In the Sum
> Unification
> Unity
> All Bounded
> Yet bonded
> In One.
> One Sum.
> Ahhhhmmmmm
>

you been out in the sum too long

On 11/30/2021 12:40 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:

> That the product does beget from the sum.
> That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.
>
> From The Sum.
> From the Sum...
> Of the Sum
> In the Sum
> Unification
> Unity
> All Bounded
> Yet bonded
> In One.
> One Sum.
> Ahhhhmmmmm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
?

>

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 12:40 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
>
> > That the product does beget from the sum.
> > That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> > And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.
> >
> > From The Sum.
> > From the Sum...
> > Of the Sum
> > In the Sum
> > Unification
> > Unity
> > All Bounded
> > Yet bonded
> > In One.
> > One Sum.
> > Ahhhhmmmmm
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
> ?

I really appreciate the link, Jim.
Thanks for your respect.

But does the product as sum motto hold in your own interpretation?
Where is it then in mathematics that this is stated so?

I can tell you of a place where the product does formally take to the sum. It is in the sign of your numbers; your two-signed and your one-signed numbers. It goes like:

( s1 x1 )( s2 x2 ) = ( s1 + s2 ) x1 x2

and now with these continuous magnitudes in natural form (discrete radix form; 3.21 for instance) all is well with the latter part (x1x2) being a sum.
That the countable becomes accountable for the continuum is guaranteed only by epsilon/delta, and but for the secondary form of unity there could be no such interpretation. This is to say that the rational value of old is not compatible with this system. The integer of old is not compatible with this system. It must be remedied with the accretion of the radix point. This subtlety goes unappreciated as the ambiguity in the footholds accrues.

I am here to change all that I suppose. In time it will be done.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote:
> > On 11/30/2021 12:40 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> >
> > > That the product does beget from the sum.
> > > That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> > > And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.
> > >
> > > From The Sum.
> > > From the Sum...
> > > Of the Sum
> > > In the Sum
> > > Unification
> > > Unity
> > > All Bounded
> > > Yet bonded
> > > In One.
> > > One Sum.
> > > Ahhhhmmmmm
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
> > ?
> I really appreciate the link, Jim.
> Thanks for your respect.
>
> But does the product as sum motto hold in your own interpretation?
> Where is it then in mathematics that this is stated so?
>
> I can tell you of a place where the product does formally take to the sum.. It is in the sign of your numbers; your two-signed and your one-signed numbers. It goes like:
>
> ( s1 x1 )( s2 x2 ) = ( s1 + s2 ) x1 x2
>
> and now with these continuous magnitudes in natural form (discrete radix form; 3.21 for instance) all is well with the latter part (x1x2) being a sum.
> That the countable becomes accountable for the continuum is guaranteed only by epsilon/delta, and but for the secondary form of unity there could be no such interpretation. This is to say that the rational value of old is not compatible with this system. The integer of old is not compatible with this system. It must be remedied with the accretion of the radix point. This subtlety goes unappreciated as the ambiguity in the footholds accrues.
>
> I am here to change all that I suppose. In time it will be done.

The unification of quantities through addition...
There is a mathematical God.
That math is before man's mind.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote:
> > > On 11/30/2021 12:40 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > >
> > > > That the product does beget from the sum.
> > > > That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> > > > And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.
> > > >
> > > > From The Sum.
> > > > From the Sum...
> > > > Of the Sum
> > > > In the Sum
> > > > Unification
> > > > Unity
> > > > All Bounded
> > > > Yet bonded
> > > > In One.
> > > > One Sum.
> > > > Ahhhhmmmmm
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
> > > ?
> > I really appreciate the link, Jim.
> > Thanks for your respect.
> >
> > But does the product as sum motto hold in your own interpretation?
> > Where is it then in mathematics that this is stated so?
> >
> > I can tell you of a place where the product does formally take to the sum. It is in the sign of your numbers; your two-signed and your one-signed numbers. It goes like:
> >
> > ( s1 x1 )( s2 x2 ) = ( s1 + s2 ) x1 x2
> >
> > and now with these continuous magnitudes in natural form (discrete radix form; 3.21 for instance) all is well with the latter part (x1x2) being a sum.
> > That the countable becomes accountable for the continuum is guaranteed only by epsilon/delta, and but for the secondary form of unity there could be no such interpretation. This is to say that the rational value of old is not compatible with this system. The integer of old is not compatible with this system. It must be remedied with the accretion of the radix point. This subtlety goes unappreciated as the ambiguity in the footholds accrues.
> >
> > I am here to change all that I suppose. In time it will be done.
> The unification of quantities through addition...
> There is a mathematical God.
> That math is before man's mind.

Sometimes there is a terrible idea but it won't cost a dime.
Sometimes its the one yet its a terrible idea.
Those rodents are in it to win it, sir.
Yes those rodents are in it
To Win It, Sir!
(Little rodent girls dressed in checkers dancing back and forth accross singing)

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:45:52 AM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote:
> > > > On 11/30/2021 12:40 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That the product does beget from the sum.
> > > > > That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> > > > > And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum..
> > > > >
> > > > > From The Sum.
> > > > > From the Sum...
> > > > > Of the Sum
> > > > > In the Sum
> > > > > Unification
> > > > > Unity
> > > > > All Bounded
> > > > > Yet bonded
> > > > > In One.
> > > > > One Sum.
> > > > > Ahhhhmmmmm
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
> > > > ?
> > > I really appreciate the link, Jim.
> > > Thanks for your respect.
> > >
> > > But does the product as sum motto hold in your own interpretation?
> > > Where is it then in mathematics that this is stated so?
> > >
> > > I can tell you of a place where the product does formally take to the sum. It is in the sign of your numbers; your two-signed and your one-signed numbers. It goes like:
> > >
> > > ( s1 x1 )( s2 x2 ) = ( s1 + s2 ) x1 x2
> > >
> > > and now with these continuous magnitudes in natural form (discrete radix form; 3.21 for instance) all is well with the latter part (x1x2) being a sum.
> > > That the countable becomes accountable for the continuum is guaranteed only by epsilon/delta, and but for the secondary form of unity there could be no such interpretation. This is to say that the rational value of old is not compatible with this system. The integer of old is not compatible with this system. It must be remedied with the accretion of the radix point. This subtlety goes unappreciated as the ambiguity in the footholds accrues.
> > >
> > > I am here to change all that I suppose. In time it will be done.
> > The unification of quantities through addition...
> > There is a mathematical God.
> > That math is before man's mind.
> Sometimes there is a terrible idea but it won't cost a dime.
> Sometimes its the one yet its a terrible idea.
> Those rodents are in it to win it, sir.
> Yes those rodents are in it
> To Win It, Sir!
> (Little rodent girls dressed in checkers dancing back and forth accross singing)

I run a very mousy house to be honest. Wood chips accumulate on the floor in the living room.
Boots on. All the time if u like. Everywhere. In and out of the house I go as many times as I care and but for a nip in the air; a hat; some gloves; Possibly a shell but not today; when working outside heat is generated in the body. Chainsaws do not heat your core, sir.
Cadence power matching is a concept now. The snow hoe wins again. Not even a foot long and it wins. Not even a half foot wide. Push and pull. Mostly I pull the snow but I hardly ever lift it. Ahh, but when it does and your slope runs clean the prettiest of snow flows ensues. And then come the sculptures...

Hopefully built upon sound footings of packed snow. Possibly kept clean. Certainly on top but for purposeful effects. To play at math and to play at life and to carry on and on and on; to cover new ground is most profound and yet covering the same ground year after year your improvements matter. Really in these subjects a question of just how much movement away from sitting theory is necessary. Certainly freedom must be granted in every vector that it can be. The quip on the terrible idea is just this: try it and its failings will lead you on. Should you presume a single footed beast then a single footed beast can ensue. If they have some ability to foot in the earth, and certainly many do, as the taprooted hardwoods do. Should one be built there is no doubt that more can be. That all are in multiplicity is anticipated not merely by the natural valued philosophy but even as the possibility space that ensues. Should I care to study just a few it is my right to do so. Should I insist on one only and say to hell with generality then so it has been done. Should I outlaw and fail students who refuse to obey my principles; well, why yes; this is true. The failed student will not do well in life and many will help to guarantee it. Oh pity them who cannot see beyond their own mimicry; they know not what they do. They know nothing practically as they have offered themselves up and taken not just the blindfold to alternates of anything other than the two-variety, as if this is multiplicity; as if in two the operator forms and that this state is fundamental. In the one-form we see unification and its light. At three rotational actions are natural. In four we are natively volumetric. In five the 4D surprise is that a prime space lets all signs dance similarly. Only the lowly NU is stuck. All act as MU. Such a treat yet we have not even gotten to the six.

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:12:40 PM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 9:45:52 AM UTC-5, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 7:30:22 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 11:13:57 AM UTC-8, timba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:11:47 PM UTC-5, Jim Burns wrote:
> > > > > On 11/30/2021 12:40 PM, Timothy Golden wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > That the product does beget from the sum.
> > > > > > That subtraction is but the inverse of the sum.
> > > > > > And division but the inverse of the product begotten from the sum.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From The Sum.
> > > > > > From the Sum...
> > > > > > Of the Sum
> > > > > > In the Sum
> > > > > > Unification
> > > > > > Unity
> > > > > > All Bounded
> > > > > > Yet bonded
> > > > > > In One.
> > > > > > One Sum.
> > > > > > Ahhhhmmmmm
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum_bonum
> > > > > ?
> > > > I really appreciate the link, Jim.
> > > > Thanks for your respect.
> > > >
> > > > But does the product as sum motto hold in your own interpretation?
> > > > Where is it then in mathematics that this is stated so?
> > > >
> > > > I can tell you of a place where the product does formally take to the sum. It is in the sign of your numbers; your two-signed and your one-signed numbers. It goes like:
> > > >
> > > > ( s1 x1 )( s2 x2 ) = ( s1 + s2 ) x1 x2
> > > >
> > > > and now with these continuous magnitudes in natural form (discrete radix form; 3.21 for instance) all is well with the latter part (x1x2) being a sum.
> > > > That the countable becomes accountable for the continuum is guaranteed only by epsilon/delta, and but for the secondary form of unity there could be no such interpretation. This is to say that the rational value of old is not compatible with this system. The integer of old is not compatible with this system. It must be remedied with the accretion of the radix point.. This subtlety goes unappreciated as the ambiguity in the footholds accrues.
> > > >
> > > > I am here to change all that I suppose. In time it will be done.
> > > The unification of quantities through addition...
> > > There is a mathematical God.
> > > That math is before man's mind.
> > Sometimes there is a terrible idea but it won't cost a dime.
> > Sometimes its the one yet its a terrible idea.
> > Those rodents are in it to win it, sir.
> > Yes those rodents are in it
> > To Win It, Sir!
> > (Little rodent girls dressed in checkers dancing back and forth accross singing)
> I run a very mousy house to be honest. Wood chips accumulate on the floor in the living room.
> Boots on. All the time if u like. Everywhere. In and out of the house I go as many times as I care and but for a nip in the air; a hat; some gloves; Possibly a shell but not today; when working outside heat is generated in the body. Chainsaws do not heat your core, sir.
> Cadence power matching is a concept now. The snow hoe wins again. Not even a foot long and it wins. Not even a half foot wide. Push and pull. Mostly I pull the snow but I hardly ever lift it. Ahh, but when it does and your slope runs clean the prettiest of snow flows ensues. And then come the sculptures...
>
> Hopefully built upon sound footings of packed snow. Possibly kept clean. Certainly on top but for purposeful effects. To play at math and to play at life and to carry on and on and on; to cover new ground is most profound and yet covering the same ground year after year your improvements matter. Really in these subjects a question of just how much movement away from sitting theory is necessary. Certainly freedom must be granted in every vector that it can be. The quip on the terrible idea is just this: try it and its failings will lead you on. Should you presume a single footed beast then a single footed beast can ensue. If they have some ability to foot in the earth, and certainly many do, as the taprooted hardwoods do. Should one be built there is no doubt that more can be. That all are in multiplicity is anticipated not merely by the natural valued philosophy but even as the possibility space that ensues. Should I care to study just a few it is my right to do so. Should I insist on one only and say to hell with generality then so it has been done. Should I outlaw and fail students who refuse to obey my principles; well, why yes; this is true. The failed student will not do well in life and many will help to guarantee it. Oh pity them who cannot see beyond their own mimicry; they know not what they do. They know nothing practically as they have offered themselves up and taken not just the blindfold to alternates of anything other than the two-variety, as if this is multiplicity; as if in two the operator forms and that this state is fundamental. In the one-form we see unification and its light. At three rotational actions are natural. In four we are natively volumetric. In five the 4D surprise is that a prime space lets all signs dance similarly. Only the lowly NU is stuck. All act as MU. Such a treat yet we have not even gotten to the six..

Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays.