ZERO - RESOLVED

I think there are some basic, elementary flaws in mathematics. I understand that every system has its own logic, however basic math has a problem with corresponding to what is natural and instinctive.

 

For example, zero cannot be a Natural number. We have 10 fingers on our hands, we count from 1 to 10. Zero is naturally Not included other than as a place holder in 10. We don’t count from 0 to 9 on our fingers, but in that way we can count a full set of 10 single digits. Negative decimal numbers are worse. There is no natural sequence for counting decimal numbers.

 

Naturally it seems they would count from 0, .9 to .1, or 0, -9 to -1, because negative numbers should decrease in descending order, because .9 + .1 = 1.0, but where is the zero between .9 to 1.0?

 

Now, one distinct problem is that decimals are negative values but they are not equivalent to negative numbers. So, -9 + -1 = -10 not +1. What I realize is that negative should be called graphic numbers because the represent no numerical value whatsoever.

 

For what reason should the numbers be in reverse order from 0, -1 to -9, as in the cartesian coordinate? I see nothing natural about zero except that it is a necessary place holder. It is absolutely not reasonable to count from (1.0), to (0) to (.1), - (.9). So, why is a graphic numeral different from its numerical value?

Two questions result from this sequence of operations: (1 - .1 = .9), (1 - .2 = .8), (1 - .3 = .7), (1 - .4 = .6), (1 - .5 = .5), (1 - .6 = .4), (1 - .7 = .3), (1 - .8 = .2), (1 - .9 = .1). How to make 0 and why (.1) does not equal (-9)?

The next number on the number line less than

“positive”, or “plus” (+)1,

which is equal to (1.0),

minus (-) [but not “negative”] (.1)

or [(+1) – (.1)] = (.9).

However, (1) - (0) is (1), whereas (+1) + (-1) = 0, but likewise so is (+2) + (-2), (+3) + (-3), (+4) + (-4), and so on.

In other words, if the set of (+2, -2), (+3, -3), (+4, -4), and so on equals zero, how can the set be empty () or {} as zero implies?

 

 

The other problem with mathematics is that in our world, all things are 3 dimensional, but actually 4: Positive, Negative, Neutral and Finite. So then why does mathematics represent everything as 2 dimensional objects?

 

The next problem is that most calculations are represented on only one quadrant of the Cartesian coordinate or at most only four out of the eight overall quadrants for x, y, and z.

 

The answer to all equations that results in zero should be replaced by X, because zero is not nothing. There is actually no such thing as absolutely nothing. A basket that has no more apples in it may seem to have nothing in it, but air occupies everything and there may certainly also be dirt and microscopic material still in the basket. Now, a vacuum is not nothing either. A vacuum creates a molecular gravitational pull manifested as pressure (pounds [as in weight] per square inch). This molecular gravity is a force of nature (or an atomic force) that occupies a vacuum. This vacuum is protentional energy or in numerical terms “credit”.

Then zero is not properly expressed as nothing. It is something. In numerical terms it is a decimal or a tenth. Therefore, it is best expressed as the Roman numeral “X.”

The implication now is that if nothing is actually something, then space in the universe is not empty space or nothing. If we consider the principle that matter is never destroyed (into nothingness) but transformed into energy and visa-versa, then we must recognize that everything beyond this known visible universe and even the space between the stars is not nothing, but is something which must be a quintessential form of energy. Now, if the infinitely unfathomable distances of universal space is actually a quintessential form of energy then it must be stable. Therefore, it must be a harmonious, symmetrical, conservative, steady zero state form of energy. Likewise, zero should be considered as representing something finite or neutral. Again, , it is best expressed as the Roman numeral “X” as in the expression (x).

 

.X, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.X, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, X

-X, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, 1.X, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, X

-X, -9, -8, -7, -6, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

 

By this model of the number line 3 x -1 = -6 is remains true as 3 x .2 = .6, where 1 and X share the same origin instead of zero. In this way X is either 10 or a 10^th, not zero alone, but as one unit value. Therefore |-X, +X| = |.X, X| = 1.

 

The problem is that negative numbers are equa-distant to positive numbers, but decimal numbers are all less than a whole number and approximately equal to zero.

 

Properties of zero:

1. Since percent decimals can be counting numbers, it would make them equal to negative numbers. Since percent decimal numbers are fractions of whole numbers, then negative numbers, which are equal to percent decimal as counting numbers, would be fractions of the whole number zero. This would make zero a value of tenths.

2. In accordance to the law of physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed, but only transformed from matter to energy and visa versa. Therefore, numbers representing the real world, when a positive and a negative are added together is not destroyed into oblivion, as represented by zero, but is transformed into energy, where the density is proportionally reduced in a vacuum, to a percent decimal, as in a vacuum.

If an infinitesimal set of points can fit between two defined points, then there are an infinitesimal set of points between positive one and negative one. Since there is an 'infinite space' and 'set of points' of 'finite dimensions' outside 'zero', then there is also an 'infinitesimal space' within the point of the 'zero dimension.' Because, 'a point' can also be occupied by an 'infinitesimal set of points,' from the allegorical, “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

So all sets of Real numbers must originate from the absolute zero, in higher orders of zero, which also can be reduced or inverted back to the absolute zero point.

This establishes an absolute and definite link between the nature of numbers and of physical objects, by means of absolute zero and physical space, being equal and the same. Whereby, a point in space, which can occupy a position anywhere in space, represents the concentration/condensation of the quintessence (antimatter), which is similar but opposite to the nature of the void of space, and it is the origin of matter.

I realize now I was looking at the Cartesian Coordinate scale the wrong way. I don’t how anyone else sees it, so this my way of seeing it. The negative scale of the coordinate are negative integers in position only NOT in value. Negative percent decimal numbers can in no way be represented on the coordinate equally with integers, since all negative percent decimal numbers are less than positive one. So, all those numbers actually exist between 1 and zero, and zero equals .9 to 0 with an infinitesimal set of 10ths, 100ths, thousandths, etcetera, etcetera.

 

 

Therefore, for me at least, being able to count negative decimal numbers to an infinitesimal scale enables me to see an infinitesimal space between whole numbers less than zero. Which is actually less than one, but zero is (1.0 after (.9). This means zero is actually a negative decimal number not a natural number. Therefore, if “0” is replaced by “X”, then we will have ten whole single digits in order of tenths:

 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, X

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2X (or as XX)

 

This leads me to suspect that no matter how many times the sub-atomic particles are smashed into smaller particles it will only lead to infinitesimally smaller particles.