I saw on a post recently how collaboration was equated to the equation 1+1=3. This is absurd. An obvious equivalence, and simple enough to understand by most people is (1+1)^2.
A potentially simple way to introduce the power of nonlinear thinking to collaborative groups.
I am a fan of armagetron, the game based on tron lightcycle sequence, so much so that I spent months trying to draw people’s attention to it in education. I played with Wendy and her two children yesterday, Joe 6 and Anna 10. I was reminded of the incredible teamwork the game engenders. It remains a game that can insert open source into schools and help revolutionise the system.
What makes me write the post, however, is not the teamwork, it is the simple experience I had when I was playing with Joe. When we played a few weeks ago, he demanded that the ping be increased, from 1, the game local default, to 10, then 50. He wanted it higher, but I just thought that by then he is learning very little. We were running on the idea that he needed more time to see what to do. I mean, it stands to reason. He keeps on crashing, so give him some more time.
But for some reason, this time, he said he wanted cycle_rubber 0. I looked at him as he asked for this, shocked. And we did. Best decision we ever made. For one thing, the AI is not as good at 0. Which means we, as a team, won a little more. But then something truly startling arose.
After the split, Joe often got in a position where he was ahead of an opponent, leading him down a tunnel. He could see the end of the tunnel, but if he waited till then, the opponent accelerates because they are in the tunnel and close to both walls.
So I told Joe to block him while he was ahead. I had to stop playing as I noticed what he was doing. He would go left, and because the width of the tunnel was so close, he would end up crashing into the other wall of the tunnel.
That’s why we went down the path of increasing rubber, so that he would have time to see what he was facing, and thus turn from the wall. However, this doesn’t quite make sense. Are we suggesting that this 6 year old can not see the black when when he turns against it? A six year old? He lacks reaction time? And his mother thought it was because his wiring was not established. Possible, but let’s see what actually happened.
I told him a tactic, to shimmy.
That is, to quickly turn left and right. Not complicated. But he couldn’t. I asked him to just do it on the keyboard, left right. He could manage this easily, really quickly. But again, when we returned to the game, immersed, with the actual enemy in the tunnel, he couldn’t do it. He was pressing the keys aggressively, as if by pressing harder, it would work better. I told him to do it lightly, just simple tapping, as he had done. And as he was doing this came to my mind, and excitedly to my lips:
Just like one letter and another letter, two separate letters, left and right, but together they are more than two letters, they are a word.
There is a direct relationship between his wiring together of left and right as a “move” or tactic, to combine them into a unit of actionable meaning, a meme, and what he is doing in school as he is learning language. A few weeks ago he was having difficulty reading. He was reading each letter separately, and he could not see the pattern of the whole word. It is a bit of a jump for all of us, after all. And I hunted for some learning materials which outlines the word, the shape of the whole thing, thus engaging his right hemisphere etc etc. I even got him reading the words upside down. Seemed to do the trick. He seems to be moving on nicely with reading. And now this!
Tron can be used as an experiential basis to explain how language works — to a six year old! He can directly map his left/right combo to his reading of two letter to one “meme”. Incredible.
And sure enough, he managed to defeat the opponent. Will require a little bit of practice. But once he gets the combining trick, he’ll be able to do this with more than two moves, or letters. It is a multiplier, an accelerator of learning. Joe is going to go through an amazing few weeks…
But just to return to what we did. We thought it was to do with reaction time. It was not. Another way to think about it is this: he could not see beyond his next decision. (Does this remind you of a phrase in Matrix by any chance?) That is, he could not see that after turning left, he had to turn right immediately. He tried to press the left key harder at first, to indicate he knew he really had to do something, but he still waited to see what was on the screen to make the move.
I have experienced this myself in the game, sometimes, where the mind must perform quicker than it can see. It sees the whole maze ahead, which may involve five key presses. And it must perform them sequentially without any brain signal going into as it is happening. Getting in the zone, I believe it is called. And in tron, this zone, is in the micro-seconds beneath the mind’s perceptual ability to respond.
Incredible.
All in an open-source computer game. Which is another reason why we need this game in schools. Imagine the utility for teachers to explain directly, experientially. Imagine schools teams playing against one another. Combine this with eco^2, and we have ourselves a global million-dollar competition within a year. In education. Funding educational enterprise. — But of course, this doesn’t make any sense to many of us, because we probably can’t see beyond the next decision, just like Joe… Social confluence has this quality, and the only way to overcome it is trust, again something many of us are a little skeptical of.
Tron as the minimal meme, for language, strategy, teamwork… coding, open source… education, economic experiment…
When faced with an expression, the mind is instructed to perform a sequence of calculations. Consider a simple arithmetical expression:
1+4(4+7)-3(9-3)+2^4-1
The convention is to perform the calculations in a proscribed order: Brackets, Order, Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. So, the above calculation simplifies to:
1+44-18+16-1
Giving the answer 42. Of course.
Compare this to how you are unpackaging this sentence. In english, we read left to right, arabic right to left, chinese top to bottom. There is a linearity to it. With maths, we stretch into the equation and work from the inside out, as it were. Equations are nonlinear, in terms of the sequence of processes our mind performs.
My brother pointed out over the weekend, that we package sentences into phrases. An interesting comparison, and I got all excited because it provided a little more detail to the general, first order intuition, that algebra is related to language, when I conducted my first deep dive into XQ a few years ago. The manipulation of unknowns, akin to the semantic manipulation of unknowns when listening to wording.
It is important, even at this juncture, to note the different modality of script and vocalised wording. Mathematics, at least algebra, does take scripted form, and I am not sure what the equivalent is in wording. Can we speak mathematics as easily as we speak a language?
Of course, things get way more complex when we deal with generalised arithmetic, and when we examine the complexities of higher order mathematics. Looking at einstein’s field equation, and we can see the expression requires much unpackaging.
Most of the terms need to be expanded, such as lambda being the cosmological constant, einstein’s greatest blunder or so he thought at the time.
Mathematics is more like the creation of a chinese character than it is to writing a sentence. Composing a picture, more than writing a book. There is mental depth to it. In this way, we can take a prosaic interpretation, that the glyphs sequence the processes that need to be performed for the equation to “work”. Or we can take a more poetic interpretation, that the mind must hold various mental functions simultaneously in order for the equation to make sense.
The difference might be greatly overlooked. Scientists perform in the first way, like accountants manipulating spreadsheets, or factory workers simply performing tasks that work. To actually conceive of what is meant, to navigate the concepts, to be creative in such a conceptual space, requires composition, requires sensitivity, requires an experiential appreciation.
And rather than start off with a complex symphony like einstien’s field equations, or indeed any higher level mathematical constructs, might it be wise for us to retrace the conceptual developments that have been made historically? Or alternatively, to grapple with simple arithmetic as does every child, but this time from the vantage point of appreciating what the mind must perform for it to “make sense”.
Specifically, and returning to our first example, there is a sequence in time.
1+4(4+7)-3(9-3)+2^4-1
We perform the (4+7) and the (9-3) and the 2^4 first. And if we can learn to appreciate what function our minds are performing in time as we conduct arithmetic, and perhaps simple algebra, might this suggest a direction of mathematics that is less to do with application to the external world of objects, nor the pure field of formalist play in the flat world of script, but in the reflection of our internal world of thoughts?
3(x+2)-7=11
So when we look at equation, and we observe how our minds perform the various processes, we may observe the sequence in our minds. Perhaps we add seven to ll, then divide by three then subtract two. Perhaps. We get rid of things furthest away and gradually approach the revealing of the unknown. This temporal sequence, this algorithm of subjective processing, so easily objectified in our schools and implemented in computers, is often overlooked. But it did take humanity many centuries of exploration to discover and hone and apply. Mostly for physics, the application to physical objects out there in the “real world”. Perhaps it is time to consider the subjective implications, the effect on the mind that performs these functions, in time?
Undoubtedly, performing specific forms of mathematics exercises our minds. Can we take this a step further? If mathematics consists of formula for mental processing, can we derive formulations that exercise our minds to perform specific mental processes? That is, can we construct mathematical equations have therapeutic value? Equations that heal sick minds?
I have already detailed processes like multiplying by -1, a trick to convert any “negative” experience into a “positive” one, far more useful than the additive strategy. What is the mental equivalent to multiplying by -1? Or by zero, for that matter? To nullify an experience or a thought. And of course, something which maintains it fascination, the root of negative one. Can these have therapeutic value?
Once we feel comfortable with experiencing the effect of arithmetic and simple algebra, we might be able to appreciate the subjective appreciation of euler’s identity, for example, an equation which remains a beautiful and enigmatic formula.
I saw on a post recently how collaboration was equated to the equation 1+1=3. This is absurd. An obvious equivalence, and simple enough to understand by most people is (1+1)^2.
A potentially simple way to introduce the power of nonlinear thinking to collaborative groups.
From eco^2, a math^3 description of a new economic entity.
The late great Gregory Bateson drew attention to the simple equivalence:
What he meant was, if you close your eyes, and run your finger over a crack, you can sense the crack only because your finger is moving. If it is still, whether on the crack or not, there is no differential, and as such, there is no sense — you can’t tell whether your finger is on the crack or not.
It has made my mind go in a few explorative directions, some of which may test the reader’s ability to conceive as it may transgress certain conceptual boundaries.
Consider:
That is, value is an estimation of the difference between state of mind at time t and at t+1. This subjectively derived enumeration is a measure of experience. In a crude way, it could be used to determine the learning experience, how much I have learned over a period of time.
That is, the experiences of person A and B are different, given the same time. There is something multiplicative about this. Two different experiences, or indeed as many experiences are there are people, of the same time.
Combine this with the squaring observation above, and consider a group of seven people experiencing the same “meeting”, and the reflective evaluations of each other’s experience. Things get out of hand rather quickly, and not simply in terms of the mathematical number of handshakes (7! is it?), but in terms of the psycho-dynamics. There are orders of complexity here.
Which leads to a rather intuitive leap to map it against buddhist “piles” or “heaps”, which I have considered to be emergent levels of complex organisation:
| form | things, order, inorganic matter | |
| sense | change in form | awareness of form |
| perception | change in sense | awareness of change of form, and yet maintenance of “form identity” |
| volition | change in perception | awareness of change of sense, “making sense” |
| consciousness | change in volition | awareness of change of perception, continuity of “perceptual identities” |
| “social”? | change in consciousness | awareness of change of consciousness, true acknowledgement of equivalent “other” |
I’ve no idea how useful this is. And it is too linear for my liking. Bees and ants, for example, seem to suggest to me that their “perception” may be embodied at a collective level rather than at the individual. It is too easy to think of hierarchy here, of progress. The buddhists give clear warning to the illusion of our projective mind, the thought center, and seem to seat consciousness at a lower level, heart-mind. Having the simplicity of an animal, a self-aware animal, rather than an animal that runs after mental objects and thinks of themselves as something different.
This kind of thinking might enter into wise^0 territory. Just wanted to include this in order to exercise the possibility that any mathematician will tend to import math that has been applied to the world of objects, whereas there may be a different form of maths, or application of it, that is better suited for the exploration, and perhaps modelling, of consciousness and social dynamics. With this in mind, the table above suggests rates of change, eg
Which is simply reminiscent of acceleration, as d/t^2. And if you find your mind responding sceptically, simply consider your experience of music. Distinctions in time. And the different layers of complexity. It is in this are, subjective experience, that math needs to evolve a simplicity and subtlety that is lacking in its application to physical systems.
Can we allow ourselves to even think this…?
This is definitely peculiar. Absolutely no idea how useful it might be. I used to be a math teacher, and only recently did I realise that an equation is not read like a normal sentence. To keep things simple, consider the following expression, or sum:
Any school kid will tell you, you don’t start out from the left, like it was a sentence, with eg 2×3. You follow the procedure, BODMAS, in order to unpack the expression.
Consider what this means in time. The procedure of BODMAS sets the order by which the equation is unpacked in time. The mental sequence of processes. So, in the above expression, you complete (4+7) and (6-3) simultaneously, then multiply them respectively by 3 and 2. and then you subtract the second from the first, and then multiply the whole lot by 2, which gives 54. Or I guess you can multiply all the brackets and then simply sum them up. Whichever way you do it, the answer is the same, 54.
Now consider the following statement:
If we consider it from left to right, we get (10+4) then multiply by 3, which gives 42. Or, if we follow our usual BODMAS protocol, we do the multiplication first (4×3) and then add 10, the correct answer.
But what would a maths look like that holds both correct, at the same time?
That is, where both answers, 42 and 22, were correct?
And if this doesn’t strike you as being particularly useful, you are in popular company. However the following expression does pique a curious line of inquiry:
Which derives a possible simultaneous answer of 0 and 1. And because the digit in the middle can be a 1 or a 0, it might be more clearly written as:
And if we multiply this expression by itself:
And the answer to this is the truth table for the AND function:
|
AND (x) |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
And if we add it to itself:
We derive the boolean OR function:
|
OR (+) |
0 |
1 |
|
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
This is not entirely unsurprising, since our original expression simply changes the order of the operations, thus producing the effect of sequenced logic gates.
What is interesting, at least notionally, is that this is contained in a single arithmetical expression. I know that variables can perform this function in maths, and set theory, but to have it in a simple sum, is… peculiar. And I can’t help but relate this to chaos equations, which after a suitable number of iterations, tend to a constant, or two constants, or a set of constants.
Had more of an idea about this a few days ago, but never got down to writing it. So, here is the vestiges of it.
The very act of numbering cuts up the world. Two as distinct from three. It is less a distinction, between this and that, and more of a boundary. Drawing a boundary around a thing, much in the same way a word might be used to package a thing perceived.
The structuralist might necessitate a distinction, of opposites. And there is, of course, a difference between two and three apples.
I’ve already remarked on sameness as being important for counting, or multiplying. There was something in here about multiplication…
3×7 7×3
Three times seven. Three groups of seven. Seven times three. Seven groups of three. Quite different descriptions of reality, or indeed different situations in reality. When calculated to the “answer”, 21, there is a further loss of information. Three boxes of matches with 7 matches in each, versus seven boxes of matches with 3 matches in each… same number of matches, different numbers of boxes.
It wasn’t this… it was a different tack. I just can’t remember… it was something very very simple about this notion of discrete numbers. What this means in terms of our mind’s processing. What the last observation seems to be about, is our mapping of number to “things”, discrete mental objects that might match some material situation, eg matches and boxes. This is happening at a slightly… later, or higher… aspect of consciousness; what comes first, is the discrete mapping of number like a word to a thing. One, two, three…
Wait a mo — another thought. Counting is one, two, three… the pointing at a new thing and including the old… two includes one, three includes two and one. Whereas, there is the whole-image fom of counting (can’t remember the correct name for this… it’s not “counting”), where eg 7 things are immediately recognised as seven things even if the perceiver doesn’t have a word for “seven”. Hmmm three as in third…
For some reason, his makes me come round to music. Thinking about counting in time. Counting objects, I think, comes later. It’s a combination of this pattern matching, immediately taking in a pattern, and noticing a pattern in time. Combine those, and you get counting things.
But this is miles away from my initial thought about discrete numbers.
Just noticed, perhaps for the first time, I can’t remember, that reimann’s trick was to conflate positive and negative infinity to the same point. This is quite remarkable. This actually connects in my head to the higher-dimensional twist, the mobius loop in time, that I intuit is going on with consciousness. Ho hum, but there you have it.
It is strange. Zero, the number line going off to infinity to the right along the positive axis, and going off to infinity to the left along the negative axis. And strangely, these two opposite directions meet at the same point.
OMG, as I write this, I am amazed I haven’t seen this. No I am amazed that Reimann saw this. I think this is what he saw.
It’s actually pretty simple. In terms of fairly standard human, enlightenment thinking, we are standing on the planet, let’s say at the equator. You point off east with your right hand, and west with your left hand, and sure enough, if you follow your pointing around the globe, you are actually pointing to a thing at the opposite side of the planet. And indeed, you could point through this and continue until you are pointing back along the opposite direction: your right finger pointing eventually meets the end of your left finger pointing in the opposite direction. In a way, you are pointing at yourself.
But this is predicated on the curvature of the earth. Now imagine this pointing is not bending. So you are standing in space. You point off in one direction, and you point in the other. You point off to infinity. The only way this could possibly make sense, is if you think there is a similar thing going on with the universe. That your right pointing eventually ends up coming back to meet your left pointing. This may or may not be the case with the universe. But what Reimann does, is suggest that it is, in effect. That is, be bends infinity. That is, infinity is not this endless thing, but converges. That is, he captures our ability to conceive of infinity. Or, more prosaically, our ability to label it, “infinity”.
We have taken a step from received understanding, I suspect. We are definitely performing within XQ space here now.
It is not so much that the infinity used in the reimann sphere has anything to do with existence, with the physical universe. It is to do with our human immersion in it. But not so much our physical embodiment, but our subjective orientation within it. Eg, left and right.
Returning to the math of reimann, the strange thing is, positive and negative infinity meet at the same point. If you visualise this, it is a simple circle, as we have circumscribing the equator as in our initial thought experiment. This is ok if we are thinking of planets which are curved. This is a bit stranger if we are talking about subjective qualities, eg good things and bad things. A super extreme bad thing ends up meeting a super extreme good thing. The more they are apart, the more they converge on the same point.
It may be a mistake to think of this as a point, but it is definitely done with the reimann sphere. Anyhoo, however you think about it, the reimann sphere is useful because it allowed mathematicians to map arithmetical functions to geometric functions. Multiplying by 1 and -1 and i and -i result in rotations of the reimann sphere.
What I was trying to get around my head is how this is related to my notion of o being the centre of the individual and 1 representing the individual. I sometimes play with 1 as being the human, and in the reimann sphere, that would be the equator delineated by 1, i, -1, and -i. I’d like to square this (might have to be careful with my language here;) with notions of internal states, which would be represented by fractions as aspects of being approach zero, or negative numbers as the mind’s reflection of what is, which takes zero as the centre point of the individual.
There’s something like a torus floating around here somewhere, but I can’t find it. Three dimensions of circularity, versus the two of a circle. Not sure if this is correct. Torus can be created from rotations of two circles of different scale. A sphere can be created by a single circle rotated around one axis. That is, a two dimensional shape rotate through the third dimension. A torus can be created by created by rotating a circle through a disconnected axis through the third dimension. So they are the same, except for the connection/intersection with the axis. That is, whether the zero is inside (circle, sphere) or outside (circle, torus). Interestingly, as far as I can conduct the transformations in my head, the first transformation can be conducted with a 180˚ turn, while the second requires a complete 360˚ rotation to complete the torus. But these are artificial means of producing torus, whereas I am more interested in how they form in smoke, for example, or dolphins producing air rings in water.
This was all sparked when I started to thinking of the mathematics of emergence. First spread consisted of systems, circularity, fractal in time, simultaneously iterative, Second spread has one equation/function/expression that simultaneously operates on several different processes which have different periods in time; which also may map to presence, mental, emotional, physical as basic levels of being. Third spread jumped to 0 = 1 – 1, which could be translated as
0 as the centre of the equation/function/expression, if it is to represent consciousness
0 or 1 and -1, if we wish to explode 0 into duality of mind
0 or 1 and not 1, which is kind of a description of the duality of mind
which leads to
e^iπ -1 = 0, euler’s equation
which means that
e^iπ = 1
and this has something to do with period, if i remember correctly, and the reimann sphere.
There’s a lot in here. A lot. The revelation for today remains, that the positive and negative infinities meet at the same point, at least can in terms of maths. And if we are to take an XQ interpretation, this means the reimann sphere is more a description of how we bend subjective thought space, eg the notion of infinity, to a well behaved point, eg the word “infinity”.
Somewhere along here is the math of emergent systems. It is do with nested systems in time.
And interestingly, I noted as I started out that my mind approached this from consciousness outwards. I started with zero, and then attempted to derive the other numbers, and found myself with euler’s rule, and thereby to reimann’s sphere. That is, it is not about trying to work it out from the details, and integrating some kind of theoretical sense, but it is deriving details from some simple starting point. Kinda like the buddhist methodology, and like einsteinian physicists working it out from insight, first principles, and so on. This is quite promising. It suggests, that it is about appreciating simplicity, and from this derive all kinds of complexity. Can we intuit the field equations for consciousness.
Another thing to note, is that I am making progress, albeit slowly, on the notion that we may need a different form of maths. I am not sure about this at all, but it is simply a hunch when appreciating the invention of calculus by newton. A new maths had to be invented to capture the mapping of physical objects, that of functions. A new maths may be necessary to capture the mapping of mental objects. My mind might also have met with some encouragement when I read somewhere recently that the whole path of functions, the entire realm of maths, is limited in some way. Sadly, I can’t remember where I read this, heh. I shall have to wait until it pops up on the radar again, and again almost by random. Still, it will give me plenty of time to explore/prepare other areas.
ADDENDUM: after going back to include the image of the reimann sphere
What if the infinity point was the asymptote I keep thinking that mind is, not zero? And zero is the touching point with existence, the flat plane? I know this doesn’t make any sense, but all the numbers are contained in the sphere, and the plane below the sphere is just an illusion. Well, it is all an illusion. No, that’s not quite it. I keep getting fooled into thinking the reimann sphere is an object in space, heh, and I have thought about what is inside the reimann sphere, for example, or outside it. Nope, the extra thought wasn’t this.
It was something about rotating the sphere through one of the axes, eg the real axis. Not the axis that is rapped around the reimann sphere, but the axis of the plane surface below. This should create a torus, which touches at zero, or rather does not touch at zero. But all mind is capable is not really rotating the sphere, but the great circle marked by o, -i, infinity, i, 0, if we are rotating around the real axis. To rotate a whole sphere through space leaves what exactly? And an empty sphere at that?
Ho hum.
OK, when I wrote XQ Conditional, I made some faultering steps on mathematising consciousness. Very, very basic steps. Nowhere near an equation in sight. For some reason, as I approach the end of my fling with a Facebook community, The Next Edge, thoughts have occured regarding social dynamics. Perhaps spurred by this two hour video on Artificial General Intelligence, which to me holds some rather scary potential. Our system understanding of social emergence is pants in comparison.
Remember, this is after Wisdom, where the psycho-social concept actually revealed itself to be two different systems: the system going on in our heads, and the system going on out there. The out there bit is predicated on our action, and consists of social objects. The in-here bit is predicated on our thought, beliefs, and so on. What we have in here partially determines what happen out there, but it doesn’t really matter what we think is going on.
Here’s a couple of thoughts regarding rates of change.
We are all on a continuum of how much change we think is possible. The more we are engaged with the current system, the more fixed we are about what can and can not happen. The top dog is essentially fixed in position, responsible to maintain it. The further out we are, the more flexibility our thinking, the more we can see the bigger picture perhaps, unbounded by any specific institutional directive. There is a relativity of sorts going on here.
Things get ugly when two people from different systems engage, each embedded in their own. This is just about understandable for two companies competing, what about different companies? What about job system versus a governmental system versus the natural world system? Embedded systems. Messy.
Can’t be bothered writing this in html… gotta wait until I am off the ipad…. jeeez, the hassles…
So, it can get a little too much. But the simple version, which can be used as a field to metaphorise, is what follows. Useful for explaining where buddhists are, and perhaps help people who are a little… confused. After all, this is simple maths, it is true, and we have experience of it. Powerful stuff.
Zero has several … uses of it or approaches to it.
First, the obvious, zero as a digit, used in place value with the other digits to signify numbers. eg 302 is the number three hundred and two, indicating three hundred and two things. The 3 stands for three hundreds, the 0 for no tens, and 2 for two units. A useful shorthand.
Second, the subtle, zero even as a digit, does not behave like the other digits. In eg 3003, the 3 stands for three thousand and the other 3 for three, and three thousand is quite different from three. You can’t confuse them. Whereas, the 0 stands for no hundreds, the other for no tens, that is the same number, none.
Third, the obvious, zero as a marker for the number zero. And what is the number zero? This gets tricky. No anything. Nothing. Is it even a number? Well, whatever it is, we have a symbol for it.
Fourth, the subtle, zero. Nothing. Not even the symbol to represent it. Beyond thought or thing. Void.
So, to map it to subjective experience. Fourth, the subjectivity exists as null-state, beyond conception, the void. Third, we can call this buddha. We can call it anything, as it happens, because it is just a symbol, “buddha” or “0″ or “void”. Second, subjectivity as defined by context, a socially derived self. There is no meaning to the person beyond the engagement they have with others. And first, subjectivity as I, a specific person, here and now, thinking and reading this and believing they have a personality or perhaps beliefs independent of others, an essential self.
As pure that. What number are you?
I have had some experience like 0 as place value, and I have met a lot of people who know about the marker “0″. They talk a lot, they know a lot, they know how it fits into the number system and all that. But they are a million miles from the actual experience of 0, the void. And I’d rather engage other numbers, than those who talk about and signify 0.
hehehe, that’s actually funny.
happyseaurchin
Leon Conrad