Here is a general summary of numbers, and their use or misuse.
A number, unlike, say, a stone, is not an object, but rather is used in counting objects. This simple fact has been so overlooked that modern enumeration is distorted in the same way that numbers themselves are misused.
For example, it is possible that one can actually mentally "view" numbers as 'abstract objects" , in the sense that one can say that, relative to a particular TYPE of number, then one can have its "counterpart" represented in a certain way.
Zero, '0', represents "nothing", but then, if one forgets what '0' stands for, then one can say that, relative to '0', the numbers "less" than '0' are therefore 'negative'...and so the distortion begins.
In school, it is taught and accepted that any number divided by '0' is "infinity", which is nerd-speak for a "very large number", meaning that anything divided by nothing is "a lot"... which really makes learning weirder than a trip into my mind!
Then, of course, there are the negative numbers themselves: If a number is less than nothing, then relative to it, every other number less than nothing is actually positive, so that, from the point of view of the "negative" number, a positive number is "negative", which means that, therefore, the statement
-(-3)= +3
would be correct, and this basic assumption is used in numerology, and incoporated into higher learning, so that, to balance things out, I expect, a number can have a square root that is either positive or negative.
The above takes no account of the fact that someone is saying a number less than nothing can actually be "squared" to give something a whole lot more than nothing!
A number, unlike, say, a stone, is not an object, but rather is used in counting objects. This simple fact has been so overlooked that modern enumeration is distorted in the same way that numbers themselves are misused.
For example, it is possible that one can actually mentally "view" numbers as 'abstract objects" , in the sense that one can say that, relative to a particular TYPE of number, then one can have its "counterpart" represented in a certain way.
Zero, '0', represents "nothing", but then, if one forgets what '0' stands for, then one can say that, relative to '0', the numbers "less" than '0' are therefore 'negative'...and so the distortion begins.
In school, it is taught and accepted that any number divided by '0' is "infinity", which is nerd-speak for a "very large number", meaning that anything divided by nothing is "a lot"... which really makes learning weirder than a trip into my mind!
Then, of course, there are the negative numbers themselves: If a number is less than nothing, then relative to it, every other number less than nothing is actually positive, so that, from the point of view of the "negative" number, a positive number is "negative", which means that, therefore, the statement
-(-3)= +3
would be correct, and this basic assumption is used in numerology, and incoporated into higher learning, so that, to balance things out, I expect, a number can have a square root that is either positive or negative.
The above takes no account of the fact that someone is saying a number less than nothing can actually be "squared" to give something a whole lot more than nothing!
After all, these are just numbers, and even if the basics are wrong, some may say, yet the practical application of the concepts gives results, as shown when describing, say, the slide of a trolley down an incline set at an angle α to the horizontal.
The equation describing the speed,υ of the trolley would be, if it was starting from rest,
υ = (a sin α ) t where 't' is the time taken to reach a specified point, and the sine of the angle,α, is the relationship between the incline plane and the vertical plane perpendicular to the known horizontal, which would make 'a', the acceleration due to gravity.
This all makes sense, on the surface, but if one looks deep into it then one first discovers how, the BASIS of these "statements" [like acceleartion due to gravity, sine] that appear to make sense and are seemingly "practical", is someone's theoretical take and logical extension of a case where a single instance was established as "fact", and then the rest were thought to follow from that, without being actually VALIDATED.
The point: EVERYWHERE where numbers are used, except maybe in accounting where negative numbers mean "OVERDRAFT", the calculations are WRONG, and I will be slowly revealing step by step just WHERE everything went wrong, as well as making corrections, from basic numbers to the most advanced use of the same, and thus prove why the modern learning methods are wrong.
So, PREPARE for a thorough overhaul of everything you thought you knew about what you are so confident is the truth, because, as I said, this is going to be the most EXPENSIVE revolution in world HISTORY, and I will broadcast it as far and as wide as possible.
This all makes sense, on the surface, but if one looks deep into it then one first discovers how, the BASIS of these "statements" [like acceleartion due to gravity, sine] that appear to make sense and are seemingly "practical", is someone's theoretical take and logical extension of a case where a single instance was established as "fact", and then the rest were thought to follow from that, without being actually VALIDATED.
The point: EVERYWHERE where numbers are used, except maybe in accounting where negative numbers mean "OVERDRAFT", the calculations are WRONG, and I will be slowly revealing step by step just WHERE everything went wrong, as well as making corrections, from basic numbers to the most advanced use of the same, and thus prove why the modern learning methods are wrong.
So, PREPARE for a thorough overhaul of everything you thought you knew about what you are so confident is the truth, because, as I said, this is going to be the most EXPENSIVE revolution in world HISTORY, and I will broadcast it as far and as wide as possible.
