This is a continuation of a previous post: Another Look Our Number System

(I think the absence of "at" was an error)

In sum: I was considering the system of whole numbers as a representation of reality.

The complete set is the digits 0 through 9. Which I posit is actually two similar sets:

0 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

I was looking at whether the space between numbers should be associated with the number below or the number above.

Associating between with below had the effect of making the practical value of each digit more akin the following number. e.g. 0 is really 1, 2 is 3, ... and 9 is 10. This has the benefit of making the 0-9 set more representative of reality with the highest digit consisting of "10" elements (e.g. 10 fingers or 10 toes). Additionally, -1 now becomes 0, making the absence of an object actually a "want" for an object - an attractive concept.

Consider the space between being associated with the number above:

The practical value of each digit is consistent with current conceptualization: 1 is 1, 2 is 2, ..., 9 is 9. However, as a reflection of reality, we come up short - we have 10 physical fingers, not 9, etc... an inconsistency that will require resolution at some point...

Zero acquires the practical value of -1. It is not just an absence of an object but it becomes a "want" for an object/practical value.

This highlights a fundamental question of how we conceive reality. Is zero a state unto itself - does the absence of an object exist? If so, then zero acquiring the practical value of -1 (as in the "above" assignment of between) seems to be an accurate reflection of reality.

I'm going to offer this up on Quora for inspiration...

Don't forget to help out by leaving your COMMENTS, g+1 (assuming you like this stuff), and SUBSCRIBING! Thanks for reading!

(I think the absence of "at" was an error)

In sum: I was considering the system of whole numbers as a representation of reality.

The complete set is the digits 0 through 9. Which I posit is actually two similar sets:

0 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

I was looking at whether the space between numbers should be associated with the number below or the number above.

Associating between with below had the effect of making the practical value of each digit more akin the following number. e.g. 0 is really 1, 2 is 3, ... and 9 is 10. This has the benefit of making the 0-9 set more representative of reality with the highest digit consisting of "10" elements (e.g. 10 fingers or 10 toes). Additionally, -1 now becomes 0, making the absence of an object actually a "want" for an object - an attractive concept.

Consider the space between being associated with the number above:

The practical value of each digit is consistent with current conceptualization: 1 is 1, 2 is 2, ..., 9 is 9. However, as a reflection of reality, we come up short - we have 10 physical fingers, not 9, etc... an inconsistency that will require resolution at some point...

Zero acquires the practical value of -1. It is not just an absence of an object but it becomes a "want" for an object/practical value.

This highlights a fundamental question of how we conceive reality. Is zero a state unto itself - does the absence of an object exist? If so, then zero acquiring the practical value of -1 (as in the "above" assignment of between) seems to be an accurate reflection of reality.

I'm going to offer this up on Quora for inspiration...

Don't forget to help out by leaving your COMMENTS, g+1 (assuming you like this stuff), and SUBSCRIBING! Thanks for reading!

## No comments:

## Post a Comment