I just couldn’t find this on the blog, or any blog, and took me a while to find it one of my note folders… Just want to stick it in here before I lose it. It’s a bit messy, but there you have it…

*maths: why powers are related to fractions? eg 2^-2 is 1/4… what does 2×2 in a negative sense mean?*

i’d relate this to p is true, p is false, p is neither true nor false, p is both true and false

- ?? 2 is true, -2 is the false version of 2, 2-2 is neither true nor false, 2+2 is both true and false
- ??? 2 is true, -2 is false, 2^-1 is neither true and false, 2^1 is both true and false
- ? 2 is just 2, -2 is not 2, 2^-1 is neither 2 and not 2, 2^1 is both 2 and not 2
- ?? 2 is exactly 2, -2 is exactly not 2, how do we signify everything but the 2? ie ∞-2, neither 2 and not 2, neither 2-2; so what is both 2 and not 2, both 2-2
- ? orange exists, not orange is imaginary, orange^-1 is neither orange nor imaginary orange, orange^1 is both orange and imaginary orange
- ! 2^-1 is division ie recursive division, 2^1 is recursive multiplication, ie 2^2 is 2×2, whereas 2^-2 is /2/2, which actually leads to /4 oooooo

keep thinking of 2 as a point on a number line, ie a point in relation to other points spatially… tut

seems to be two ways of taking it: both 2 and not 2 seems empty and neither 2 and not 2 seems like infinity without that bit;

- ? 2^0 is 1 is everything…
- ?? 2^-1 is the imaginary, one dimension removed from actuality (what we have been thinking so far as not 2)
- ?? 2^1 is the actual thing

gotta remember what x2 means… recurring pattern

- 2^2 means 2 perceptions of…
- 2^-2 means perception of perception
- ! orange^2 means two perceptions of orange
- ! orange^-2 means what i am thinking of your imaginary orange

so we have

- 2^1 perception of the number 2… 2… i see two oranges
- -2^1 perception of not 2… not 2… i imagine two oranges (and there aren’t any)
- 2^-1 imaginary perception of number 2… ? both 2 and not 2… i imagine seeing two oranges and there are two oranges!
- -2^-1 imaginary perception of not 2… ? neither 2 and not 2… i neither imagine nor are there two oranges

then we get

- 2^2 two people see two oranges
- -2^2 two people imagine two oranges (and there aren’t any)
- 2^-2 a person imagines another person seeing two oranges (ie has heard there are two oranges… rumour, second order)
- -2^-2 a person imagines another person who is imagining two oranges… but no oranges actually exist

is this approaching a subjective derivation/proof/evolution of numbers…?

- 2^2 the two people could be looking at two different pairs of oranges, ie 4 in total, or the same 2…
- it is repetition, seeing the same thing, that makes something more true in terms of reality, ie a million people believe in the pharoah/king/god/democracy/maths…
- we may need a third thing here to determine whether it is the same 2… we can’t do that, since both are imaginary
- but if they both refer to the same item of actuality, eg two orange-shaped things, there is an alignment, a trick, such that there is ‘agreement’ in terms of perception/word/value
- maths is the purest mental form, the first abstraction as it were
- actually 2×2 is two people seeing two oranges each, is 4 oranges…

the whole conflation of positive and negative with opposites, and true and false… that is, the mind’s capacity to see in opposites versus reality just is… imagine a maths that is not based on the mind’s capacity to think in opposites, a totally positive maths as it were… a maths based on actuality v reality

a maths based on actuality v reality… the multiplicity of realities creates popper’s third world of imaginary objective thoughts

- 2^-7 a real chinese whisper chain… the further we go the more we don’t know if the 2 actually exist, could be -2^-7
- traditionally -2^x output alternates +/-… morally, two wrongs don’t make a right, and yet in maths it does…
- 2^7 are seven people looking at the same 2 oranges… (compare to 2×7)

this maths might be useful for computing eg re-tweets

**is π neither an exact number nor a not-exact number… or is π both an exact number and a not-exact number?**

all looks a bit crazy, but i am questioning the conventions of maths which have been adopted throughout history, deriving different conventions, different systems… just like non-euclidean geometry

that is, adopting non-duality mathematics, mathematics that is not based on opposites **OMG**