- #1
ChandlerBaker
- 1
- 0
So I just want to give a little background. I'm Chandler Baker and love all there is to life: philosophy, etc... I think some times too much; have suffered from severe mania, other mental health issues, and have been on some crazy thought journeys. As far as actual school classes go, I've only gotten to stat's; although I study Calc., Lin. Alg., and others with friends. I've been recently studying abstract algebra with a few teachers I had, and developed some free form ideas using some form of naive set theory. Because of my lesser algebra vocabulary skills, my thoughts are kind of a mess of wording. This garble that I'm going to write, came from my fascination with placement theory and the creation of numbers.
I need help explaining what I'm trying to explain, where I'm at, and where I'm trying to go (If that makes any sense). So here are my written thoughts.
""'nothing is then nothing was', the inverse fallows by the givin 'something is' and if then 'something was', and if that was so 'nothing never was' for 'something was'. Nothing being auto-logical, and thus can not coexist if it being 'was' or 'is'. So here comes the bunder: if 0 doesn't represent a placement, then 1 must 'be' but givin there is an 'is' then 0 must hold a placement for there is a 'was' and thus 'nothing never was' but 'nothing is' givin there is a ratio and 0 placement, now if 'nothing never was' then 'nothing never is' yet 'nothing is' thus 'nothing be something', thus 0=1, but 'something is' and 'something was' and 'something is something' but 'something is not nothing' givin there is something. Now if 0=1 and 1=/0 then 0+1=2, and now givin 'nothing is something' then 0+2=3 and thus perhaps is the infinite complex...""
I need help explaining what I'm trying to explain, where I'm at, and where I'm trying to go (If that makes any sense). So here are my written thoughts.
""'nothing is then nothing was', the inverse fallows by the givin 'something is' and if then 'something was', and if that was so 'nothing never was' for 'something was'. Nothing being auto-logical, and thus can not coexist if it being 'was' or 'is'. So here comes the bunder: if 0 doesn't represent a placement, then 1 must 'be' but givin there is an 'is' then 0 must hold a placement for there is a 'was' and thus 'nothing never was' but 'nothing is' givin there is a ratio and 0 placement, now if 'nothing never was' then 'nothing never is' yet 'nothing is' thus 'nothing be something', thus 0=1, but 'something is' and 'something was' and 'something is something' but 'something is not nothing' givin there is something. Now if 0=1 and 1=/0 then 0+1=2, and now givin 'nothing is something' then 0+2=3 and thus perhaps is the infinite complex...""