Marko Rodin's vortex-based mathematics part 7 of 44

I see the point... that really makes sense... any effort that seeks to find truth without harming others is quite beneficial in my view... you are a good person... thanks for the chat,

2) just because some things can't be explained, it doesn't mean we can just impose the first explanation that jumps to our minds. ... it just means we have to investigate further. or that it can't be known, and we should accept that.

true. however:

1. math is not just about numbers... in fact, MOST of mathematics does not involve numbers. -- For example, a lot of mathematics is concerned with the study of logic: What makes sense? How do we prove that something makes sense? If two arguments both "seem" to make sense, how can we tell which one is the most logical? Can all true statements be shown to be true? can all false statements be shown to be false? etc. -- these are all mathematical questions.

Im not trying to be a math wizard.... just trying to make the point that EVERYTHING can NOT be explained with numbers... peace

our concept of math has *already* changed, hundreds of times in fact.

but these changes are brought about by very smart people who dedicated their lives to understanding mathematics, not random people who think they can go around making up crazy stuff or understand in one hour concepts that physicists and mathematicians spend years studying.

nobody "claimed" anything, Einstein *showed* that time is relative, so someone traveling fast enough appears to go slower to *outside observers*.

Then maybe our entire concept of math must change... sure it makes sense to our senses and logic... but does math exist in the unknown dimensions... many claim that time would cease to exist if you travelled fast enough... some say that the smaller you make things their elemental values change, almost making them appear to be in another dimension... Math could be more of a curse than a blessing. Maybe math is the answer... i dunno...

For example, if there's no 3, then what's 2+1?

is it 4? -- then 2+2 = 2+1? then two numbers can be the same?

Or is it an imaginary number like sqrt(-1^2)?

Will the number 30 exist? -- 30 is 10x3, which is not allowed; but it's also 15x2, which is allowed.

I could go on. and that would just be your "number theory" aspect of such a system.

I think you should think about learning real math first before you start thinking about going around changing it.

there already are different "mathematics" where the rules change slightly (for example, in non-euclidean geometry, two parallel lines can meet).

And the have changed our ideas about reality; but this doesn't men that you can just make up whatever you want.

Mathematics must always be a logically-self-contained system with clear laws.

If *you* think you can create a system where there is no number 3, then go for it. But right off the bat I can think of many inconsistencies in such a system..

thats kind of where I was going with the thought... maybe what we need is a TOTAL change of the number system... that may very well start to CHANGE us internally... it all seems like a prison... but then again... what is real?

"I" is only the 9th letter in our current alphabet and in the order we gave it. It only sounds like the word "eye" in modern English, so none of this would be close to relevant before the 1500's.

3 and 6 are abstract quantities. They are not "servants" of anything. What exactly have 3 and 6 done for 9?

If 3 were eliminated then I suppose all of mathematics would have to be rewritten because there'd be no number between larger than 4 and smaller than 5, and 12 would become a prime number.