Philosophy Now Forum

wtf wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:18 pm Philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser is famous for objecting to someone saying that although a double negative implies a positive, there is no instance where a double positive implies a negative. Morgenbesser responded: "Yeah, yeah."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:12 pm A Goodest Good necessitates a Gooder Good but does not necessitate anything else (except for Good and its comparative and superlative states).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm A "gooder good" necessitates one good is greater than another, thus one good is less than another as there is a seperation from these goods in degree.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm One good as less than another good necessitates a deficiency of "good",

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm thus an inversion of these two positives into a negative.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm A thetical statement such as:
"The pet is walking" and "The pets are walking" necessitates "The not pet(s) walk".

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm A "gooder good" necessitates one good is greater than another, thus one good is less than another as there is a seperation from these goods in degree.

Yes, this much is clearly the case.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm One good as less than another good necessitates a deficiency of "good",

Yes, this makes perfect sense as well. A lesser degree of good results in a good deficiency, a deficiency that approaches zero good.

I say “approaches zero” because less good is still some good. And since you can always approach zero without reaching it, an actual zero good is not necessitated.

Now, IF zero good were necessary, then I might want to allow that negative good is necessary to balance the good in the universe.

A negative good is still a good, it is just one good in a state of relation with multiple goods...ie grades of one always higher and lower than another..thus evil.

Evil is fragmentation but fragmentation is multiplicity. So to say something is positive is to necessitate a negative and vice versa...the phenomena is divided.

So while the bluest blue may necessitate blue is divided into multiple blues, some higher and lower than others, it still is always a variation of blue. So while good may be divided into lesser goods, thus always necessitating an evil, the goods (no matter how "low") are always an extension of the good.

This center point of 0, from which both forms result, is effectively zero "zeroing" itself as void...is well "void"...it had no definition as it is no definition. We only no of it because of multiple phenomenon moving through eachother, with movement just being multiple static phenomenon.

Movement is the divergence on one phenomenon into another, one phenomena into many, with the root of this divergence being "void".

(This means that you must submit a convincing argument that zero good IS necessary. Just because the number 0 exists on a number line does not necessitate that there be zero of a thing such as good.)

zero good is not necessary and not unnecessary as it underlies both necessity and non necessity...it underlies good and evil as both good and evil are abstract forms. We only know of them intuitively under a feeling of "rising" and "falling"...both these directions being up and down with thus up and down form being expressed in its most basic form under a "line". They are projective by nature, and as projective they move away from the origin of being.

I want to emphasize "origin of being", in this context, as "void prior to being". But this is a contradiction as to say "void is prior to being" is to define "void" thus making it subject to being as well. Considering being, intrinsically occurs through the repitition of phenomena, void is the center point and not subject to form as it multiplies form.

0 is the center point of it all.

We only observe the number line because of the projection of 0d points. It is the projection of these points which is formlessness negating itself into form. This form in turn, as constant considering void is void of void, necessitates these forms in turn always existing as being voided...ie multiplied and divided.

We see this in the number line where void cancels itself into a line, and this line is canceled further into other lines through void.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm thus an inversion of these two positives into a negative.

I thought so, too, at first, but this is where I tend to disagree. Here, we are raising the question of whether a deficiency requires an inversion.

If I see a deficiency in something, I see an absence of connection. If health is deficient it is because something is out of place...something is disconnected. A tumor may cause a disconnection in the brain or liver between nerves, cells, blood vessels, whatever. If I have a cold there is a deficiency in the rhythms of my breathing. A broken bone is the bone existing as fragmented, Etc. If a person is mentally Ill, it may be a deficiency in physical health, friends (disconnect from people), the ability to act within a larger structure (job/career), etc.

This deficiency is a disconnect. One phenomenon acting in harmony with another phenomenon, as one phenomenon, is seperated. This seperation is multiplicity.

The voiding of unity, results in multiplicity, but the voiding of multiplicity results again in unity.


For example I have one line, then I void it into many lines...then many more lines...then many more lines. (Picture a number line of a constant length being divided into 2 lines then 3 lines, then infinite lines)

Eventually you end up with the same line you started out with as composed of infinite lines.

Thus one becomes indefinite in nature as it's own intrinsically empty set where a set contains an infinite number of sets, but because the sets it contains are empty...so is the primary set as well.

Inversion, grounded in zero or void or formlessness (with these terms subject to the same nature they are defining), is a perpetual underling middle contained by the repitition of phenomenon.

All of this is proven in a simple number line, with the nature of counting itself as grounded in looping phenomenon being grounded in the measurement of space...thus the line proves number as not only grounded in geometry but the basic method of counting as well considering it is the inversion one one phenomenon through another through an intrinsic emptiness (the mind assumes it and as empty Inverts it to another)

Inversion may be an intrinsic middle, but it is inverted (self negated) as well by form.

My contention has become that a lack of good, no matter how nearly it approaches a complete or absolute absence of good, may be neutral, or nearly completely neutral anyway.

Lack of good is half of what neutral is, the other half is...well "good". Neutrality observes a balance between the good and evil, but this balance of good and evil (as evil is just fragmented good) is still "good".

Take a number line for example.

You split it in half. One half stays the same, the other half is perpetually being split. One side is infinite lines, the other side is a finite number approaching infinity.

One side is static. The other side is dynamic.

Now you have a line, halve of it is one static nature stemming from a center point. The other half is dynamically changing from another center point.

Both lines are not only lines, but stem from the same 0d center point. And where are the ends of both? Again a 0 center point.

A point is a point is a point, 0 always is 0 as 0 is effectively nothing. It is a quantum medium as only being exists.

Thus if you take that line divided into opposing times of segments, and fold it back into one where each 0d point at the end connects (as void is void), the lines are 1 line in a state of superpositioning.

The line has both thetical and antithetical elements simultaneously, but is still a line.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:17 pm A thetical statement such as:
"The pet is walking" and "The pets are walking" necessitates "The not pet(s) walk".

By now you’ve probably guessed that my response would be that no matter whether not pets are walking, swimming or sitting still they will have no effect on pets walking and therefore are not necessary for pets to walk.

True and false. Any empirical example of an abstraction will always be false due to timing. As well as vice versa.

What makes the pet a pet is the fact it is walked. This "walking" may be simply tying a leash and walking it, or taking it out for exercise....movement. The non-pet, that which determines the pet, always in trying to walk the pet must move with the pet, or move in such a manner to create an environment where the pet can move.

The non pet is always walking, in some way shape or form, and the pet walks are guided because of it. The pet exists, as having a certain nature (guided movement fundamentally), because of the non pet.

A pet is a series of guided movements. Guiding one movement does not make it a pet, but guiding multiple repeated movements (ie feeding, walking, etc.). Thus one pet exists in many states as many pets, when dividing its time line into segments.

A more empirical example would be own a dog and seeing how it changes over time. "Fido" is one Fido at one age, and another Fido at another, (so on and so forth) with "Fido" as composed of multiple changes being composed of one Fido.

Also...well there are also just many pets as many timeline continuums of an animals life.

It's a paradox of the one and many, but effectively exist simultaneously...we only alternate between one and the other because of relativity and time (sensory data).



The roundest round ball is now in your court!

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:24 pm You’ve covered a lot of ground most thoroughly.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:38 am With apologies to Eod for omissions or inaccuracies, I can offer a much abridged version of the argument presented in opposition to mine. The following is an abbreviation of my understanding of the argument against mine.

Since double negatives make a positive, it is reasonable that double positives make a negative.

There are various degrees of good that fulfill the idea of some good, ranging from most negative good to most good.

Negative good is called evil, but nonetheless is still some good.

The existence of good necessitates the existence of evil.

Under the aforementioned conditions, a double positive, such as the goodest good, equals a negative, such as some amount or degree of evil.

Statements were also offered about number lines and shades of blue as additional support of the double positive concept.

wtf wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:09 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:38 am With apologies to Eod for omissions or inaccuracies, I can offer a much abridged version of the argument presented in opposition to mine. The following is an abbreviation of my understanding of the argument against mine.

Since double negatives make a positive, it is reasonable that double positives make a negative.

There are various degrees of good that fulfill the idea of some good, ranging from most negative good to most good.

Negative good is called evil, but nonetheless is still some good.

The existence of good necessitates the existence of evil.

Under the aforementioned conditions, a double positive, such as the goodest good, equals a negative, such as some amount or degree of evil.

Statements were also offered about number lines and shades of blue as additional support of the double positive concept.

Wow. Thank you. I don't agree with all of it but I do understand it.

It seems to me that there are two distinct models here.

One is, say, the real number line. Numbers to the left of zero are negative and those to the right are positive. A negative number is NOT "still a little positive" at all. It's negative.

False, it exists when reversing the standard number line thus it is an observation of the gradation in a positive number line.

For example, I count from 7 to 3. The difference is negative 4, as the inherent gradation between these numbers. This is considering the number line in reverse is negative.

Both the positive and negative number line, as stemming from zero can be viewed as superpositioned on top of eachother considering zero is always zero. So the same 0 the positive numbers are progressing towards is the same zero negative numbers are progressing away from.

The negative numbers are grades of positives as it shows the difference of positive numbers.
As expressing the relationship between positive numbers, they necessitate positives. Negative 1 is an inversion of positive 1 in this respect, while 0 and 1 are isomorphic.

So if I see a negative number, I am observing the gradation of positive numbers by default as a negative observes an absence or deficiency.

Subtraction is strictly adding a negative number, 2 + -1 = 1.

We just dont say it that way because it is not grammatically efficient.

Multiplying negates also results in a positive, double negation.

So any time we observe a negative number we observe some intrinsic dependence upon a positive.


*********
*********A negative 1 is strictly a deficiency in positive 1, where 1 moving to 2 is the first gradation of 1 with -1 as a difference. This occurs in all numbers as they progress but this continual progression of positives is a fragmentation of one, thus negative numbers occurs simultaneously as an observation of gradation.

2 is the gradation and if -1 is applied we are left with 1 again...no gradation.
The same applies to 3 and 7 as -4. 7 is a gradation away from 3 and applying -4 to 7 and we are left with 3 again...no fragmentation past the starting number (even though 3 is a fragmentation of 1 with a different of -2.







On the other hand, there's temperature. Freezing temp has less heat than boiling temp; but freezing is still a significant amount of heat. Anything above absolute zero is heat.

heat and cold are relative extremes. Negative 30 is hot compared to negative 400.

The temperature only shows positives and negatives ranging from 0.

Hot and Cold are extremes of temperature. Temperature is the middle quality and any variation movement up or down results in hot and cold. Temperature is an empty term.

The point 0 on a thermometer, with positives and negatives ranging from it, is just a number line with farenheight attached to it, it doesn't address qualities in the respect of hot and cold as hot and cold are variations of temperature which is an empty term.

So there are qualities that are relative to a midpoint; and qualities that are absolute from nothing to something. Light is another example in the latter category. Dark is still some amount of light, unless you are in a specially designed totally dark environment.

Now it seems to me that good/evil are more like positive and negative numbers. Evil does not have "some good" in it on an absolute scale. There's bad action, neutral action, and good action. If you do me evil, you have not in any way done me a little good. Unless you did me evil "for my own good." Maybe there's a rabbit hole to dive down here.

wtf wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:09 am I don't agree with all of it but I do understand it.

wtf wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:09 am It seems to me that there are two distinct models here.

One is, say, the real number line. Numbers to the left of zero are negative and those to the right are positive. A negative number is NOT "still a little positive" at all. It's negative.

On the other hand, there's temperature. Freezing temp has less heat than boiling temp; but freezing is still a significant amount of heat. Anything above absolute zero is heat.

So there are qualities that are relative to a midpoint; and qualities that are absolute from nothing to something. Light is another example in the latter category. Dark is still some amount of light, unless you are in a specially designed totally dark environment.

Now it seems to me that good/evil are more like positive and negative numbers. Evil does not have "some good" in it on an absolute scale. There's bad action, neutral action, and good action. If you do me evil, you have not in any way done me a little good.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
[A negative number] exists when reversing the standard number line thus it is an observation of the gradation in a positive number line.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am For example, I count from 7 to 3. The difference is negative [sic] 4.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am Both the positive and negative number line, as stemming from zero can be viewed as superpositioned [sic] on top of eachother [sic]

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am ...zero is always zero.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am So the same 0 the positive numbers are progressing towards is the same zero negative numbers are progressing away from.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am The negative numbers are grades of positives as it shows the difference of positive numbers.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am As expressing the relationship between positive numbers, they necessitate positives.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am Negative 1 is an inversion of positive 1 in this respect,...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am ...while 0 and 1 are isomorphic.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am So if I see a negative number, I am observing the gradation of positive numbers by default as a negative observes an absence or deficiency.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am So any time we observe a negative number we observe some intrinsic dependence upon a positive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am A negative 1 is strictly a deficiency in positive 1, where 1 moving to 2 is the first gradation of 1 with -1 as a difference. This occurs in all numbers as they progress but this continual progression of positives is a fragmentation of one, thus negative numbers occurs simultaneously as an observation of gradation.

2 is the gradation and if -1 is applied we are left with 1 again...no gradation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am The same applies to 3 and 7 as -4. 7 is a gradation away from 3 and applying -4 to 7 and we are left with 3 again...no fragmentation past the starting number (even though 3 is a fragmentation of 1 with a different of -2.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
[A negative number] exists when reversing the standard number line thus it is an observation of the gradation in a positive number line.

Simple semantics:

Reversing is negation rather than gradation.

Not really, the number line in a reversed direction results in a negative number line. When over played on top of a positive number line, as the positive number line progresses so do the negative numbers.

Each progression of the positive numbers results in the fragmentation of one number into another.
This fragmentation, when the lines are over layed results in corresponding negative numbers.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am For example, I count from 7 to 3. The difference is negative [sic] 4.

Simple algebra:

The difference is [4], rather than -4.

And negative 4...when the number lines are over layed as empirical proofs.
The number lines are there own proofs as numbers are grounded in counting, counting in phenomenon, and the most universal phenomenon being space...ie number line.

The number lines over layed are proof. So yes it is 4, when you overlay a positive number line over another...but is it also negative when over laying a negative number line.

Positives and Positives always produced positives, just like negatives and negative continue creating negatives.....however positives and positives always produce negative simultaneously as well as negative and negative produced positives simulataneously.

This is only proving that positives and positives produce negatives.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am Both the positive and negative number line, as stemming from zero can be viewed as superpositioned [sic] on top of eachother [sic]

Yes.

Superimpose this
...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2,...
on this
....3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2,...
and now the symbol -2 represents two.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am ...zero is always zero.

No.

The concept zero is represented by the numeral 0 by convention (I.e., arbitrarily). Zero could be represented by some other symbol entirely, say €.

...-3, -2, -1, €, 1, 2,...

Zero is represented by a symbol, but is not a simple as zero is zero. Zero can also be represented by a number of different words (void, nothing, etc.) as the term is self voiding as well into new terms. We only observe zero because of multiplicity (two or more things exists because of a void), so to say zero is zero is to say "multiplicity is multiplicity" or "void is void" or "€ is €".

However you want to symbolize it, you get a new string of symbols starting from that center point.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am So the same 0 the positive numbers are progressing towards is the same zero negative numbers are progressing away from.

No.

Positive numbers increase going away from € rather than toward it. Negative numbers are vv.

False, fractals are proof. You have one progressing to two progressing to 3.
A 1d line segment, a 0d point, a 1d line segment, a 0d point....etc.

Each 1d line segment is progressing, from left to right from 0 to 0.

Each line is composed of fractals/fractions. So 1/x is approach 1/y is approaching 1/z...etc.
Each succession of positive fractions/fractals, through the inherent number itself, is always approaching zero.

1 as a line between two points observes a succession of positive fractals/fractions approach zero.

Now observe this from a larger scale. 1 progresses to 2 progresses to 3 progresses to x.

Each of these number as a succession of lines constitutes a much larger line composed of these numbers. One line composed of many lines, infinite lines, where one line as infinite lines.

So each whole number inversely is a fractal/fraction and each fractal/fraction is inversely a whole number.

It is like the paradox of multiplication and division. If I half a line do I get 2 lines, 1/2 a line, 2 1/2s or still 1 line?

All are true simultaneously as they are different interlocking contexts.

1. I get 2 lines when each line is viewed as a line in itself.

2. I get half a line when viewing each line a portion of another line defined by another.

3. I get 2 half lines when viewing each line as both a line in itself and existing in relation to another.

4. I get 1 line when observing that each line, no matter how many times divided is still a line with each new line. So I can cut a portion of the line away, and still end up with 1 line in it's own right.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am The negative numbers are grades of positives as it shows the difference of positive numbers.

Semantics again:

Reversal is negation rather than gradation.

Reversal is gradation as negation.

You have a line going in one direction.

Now you reverse it's to go in the opposite direction.

You have 2 directions with 1 direction being the negation of another.

So as multiplicity occurs, so does gradation, and so does negation.

Negative numbers are reversals (I.e., opposites) of positive numbers rather than grades.


But they only occur in opposition to positives (vice versa). A negative number line is strictly the inversion of a positive number line into an opposite direction.

Over layed, the difference of 3 and 7 results in -4 (positive 4 if overlaying positive number lines). As one progresses to two, -1 occurs, then two to three (-1 and -2 occurs), etc.

Both positive and negatives are both lines, hence when you observe the gradation of a positive number you are observing the manifestation of a line going in the opposite direction as well.

So with the increase of one set of lines comes an opposing seperate set of lines, but both are still lines. Using this example an applying it to the Good...as Goods increase so does evil increase in as strictly an opposition of the Good by means of seperation...and yet as a negative line is still a line so is evil a grade of Good.

/color]

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
As expressing the relationship between positive numbers, they necessitate positives.

It was to be shown that since double negatives make a positive, it would be reasonable to assume that double positives make a negative. This remains to be shown.

Actually it creates a cluster fuck for wtf. Because the various grades of blue necessitate other non blues...this is provable empirically and as all numbers are grounded in counting it places a winch in certain math theories. Color as an empirical phenomenon is a proof for the double positive theory.

Second the above nature of negative number occurring simultaneously with positive numbers works. Double positives necessitate negatives (other positives as well).

Even a moral stance of working to make money and then handinf this money to the poor requires a negation of spending more time with family. Two positive actions causing a negation of some other action.



Furthermore:

Positives and negatives behave differently.

False, in the number line they are both lines and both project in one direction.


Negatives are reversals.

And the positives are reversals of the negatives.

Positives are additive, rather than negative.

Yes, but not according to most mathematicians. WTF argued against this a while back... A positive number and negative number are entirely different from the functions of addition and subtraction as this would require the number as a form to also be a function as well.

Additive is connective, subtractive is seperative....

So when positive number progress, a negative number occurs as this progression is a seperation.

When negative numbers progress (seperation), positive numbers occurs as this reverses.

If -1 progresses to -2 the difference is -1 with a superimposed negative number line but 1 with a superimposed positive number line.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
Negative 1 is an inversion of positive 1 in this respect,...

Algebra:

The inversion of 1 is 1/1 rather than -1.

And yet there is no "/1" in the number line unless you take division and view it as a a negative. The subtraction of subtraction where 6/2 is strictly the continual subtraction of 2 until you get 0. In these respects subtraction of subtraction observes a negation of negation still necessitating further negatives.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
...while 0 and 1 are isomorphic.

This would cancel the distinction between zero and one.

And what is the distinction exactly considering the void of void is what results in being but any singular being effectively is just as void?

1 is void of all meaning unless it cancels itself out into further numbers. Zero cancels itself out through itself, as it is "nothing"...and nothing can only be observed through being.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
So if I see a negative number, I am observing the gradation of positive numbers by default as a negative observes an absence or deficiency.

Semantics:

Absence doesn’t mean negation.
Deficiency doesn’t mean reversal.

Address above, actually it necessitates it.

If one blue is blue than another blue, the one blue is absence of blueness when compared to another. This absence of one blue, compared to another, is a negation of that blue.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
So any time we observe a negative number we observe some intrinsic dependence upon a positive.

Again, this was to be shown, however it still remains to be shown.

Show above. 3 and 7 have a difference of 4 with a positive number line overplayed, -4 with a negative number line.

Now the same occurs with a negative number line. -3 and -7 observe a different of -4 with a negative number line over layed. 4 with a positive number line over layed.

The negative number line does not exist one it's own except as an inversion of a positive number line, thus the negative number line exists if and only if there is a positive number line.

What determines the negative number line is its direction, but direction cannot be observed except relative to another direction...thus the positive number line.

Negative numbers a deficiency, necessitate positive numbers existing as what is deficient is an observation of a positive.

The expansive progression of the positive number line in one direction necessitates the expansion of the negative number line simultaneously as to each progressive positive number is a seperstion of one number from another...thus a deficiency.

The progress of negative numbers, as a deficiency of positive numbers, necessitates that as deficiency/negation increases so does what is being negated.

For example if I have continual proofs on why "x" does not exist, then I by default am creating proofs for why "x" does exist as negation occurs through positives.

We negate positives in order to negate, and the negation of negation is a positive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
A negative 1 is strictly a deficiency in positive 1, where 1 moving to 2 is the first gradation of 1 with -1 as a difference. This occurs in all numbers as they progress but this continual progression of positives is a fragmentation of one, thus negative numbers occurs simultaneously as an observation of gradation.

2 is the gradation and if -1 is applied we are left with 1 again...no gradation.

Semantics.

Rofl....Not really, and math by nature is semantic if that is semantics.

Here is a simpler line proof.

2 lines observes a fragmentation of 1 line. This fragmentation of one line into two is a deficiency. Overlaying a negative number line on top and we are left with -1.

As 1 line progresses to two lines it becomes deficient in being 1 line...because it is two lines. Observing a negative line appear simultaneously as 1 progresses to 2 results in a negative 1.


In even simpler terms, one line turning to two lines is a fragmentation of one line into many and a deficiency in 1 occurs.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:51 am
The same applies to 3 and 7 as -4. 7 is a gradation away from 3 and applying -4 to 7 and we are left with 3 again...no fragmentation past the starting number (even though 3 is a fragmentation of 1 with a different of -2.

Algebra.

Number lines....that are more empirical and rational than algebra.