No quantity divided “31” times is still no quantity …
Maybe you can be kind and call the latter a virtual or imaginary number to your stance. Regardless, dividing a lack of quantity 31 times does not create a quantity, not an undefined
You present a false challenge, as Dyad would also be One via two monads as well, so doesn’t possess exclusivity in being stated as a potential whole, which is exactly my point, it is potentiality we are discussing.
Two can be specified as all, such as the Matter-Antimatter universe, without conception of a third intrinsically necessary for total wholeness. An Egg and a Ovary can be whole.
Two, Dyad, is a serialization of One, Monad, a further specification upon Monism, with characteristic.
If I make a statement Horse, it is by default Dyad at least, but you can’t prove it is Triad without syllogistic examination. Is it a “white horse” as a further possibility isn’t under consideration, as the sibject-object consideration isn’t under consideration, it may be albino, or in the dark, viewed in ultraviolet, or the “observer” may be blind, studying it via tactile senses. We are only certain of Dyad, not Triad.
This is the basic underlining of syllogism, all syllogistic structures must follow, and so is built into every proof, and therefore cannot be disptiven, as it is part and parcel to every proof. What is not part and parcel is your own flight of fancy regarding Triadism. It can be, but isn’t ever assertain. Is one ever certain if The Son, The Son, and the Spirit as same qualities experienced at any given time, or are they experienced in degrees separately? Are we engaging the Subject-Object sceptism in rationalization that differently experienced parts are a holistic whole? How can we ever be certain, given human fallacy? I hold to the trinitarian creed but am also a Doubting Thomas in all things.
It’s not what’s to say, but saying it dear Watson, that is the differential presumption that gives rise to Dyad. Dyad isn’t mnemonic. It is a condition for categorical differation, of saying “to know more, one must Orient and Observe further”.
I accept your admittance to defeat. I now kind myself as the king of all Mathematics.
Nonsense is still something, a state of incoherent being, chaos of the thing in itself.
It is a state if being, a prerequisite of “Thingness”, of myriad calculation, and so isn’t without part in the serialization of things, however real or abstract they are in formulaic thought.
As even Phyllo’s minimalistic syllogism shows, something more than nothing is left over. Is it “1” is incorrect, but so is any decimalization, as being has no quanta to be serialized.
One must either abandon Being and Becoming, as well as Past, Present, and Future, to get around this issue- which would be highly traumatic to modern number theory, or embrace a aspect on numbers exist on the De Dicto and De Re expanse, imbedded in syllogistic expression of formulaic expression, that goes very much counter to modern presumptions on the nature of Zero, as it is found not to behave as we always believed prior to how it was supposed to “be”.
Perhaps we both read them, but between us, only I understood them.
One irrespective isn’t a number, but it is a component of metrics under Dyad. 1 & 2 are metrics. 3 is a number, but it is also serialized, and dependent upon 1 and 2 which are likewise serialized, in fact, a reason 3 is a number, serialized,us because of the proceeding metricfication that goes on to infinity. Being is inherent in Two and Three, and in less than One, as well as Infinity, despite infinity being nonesensical save for when it is axoimatically particular.
Paradox is the root of all knowledge, every idea is reducible to this.
2 pieces??
Do you want to think about that some more?
You’re getting confused because you want to visualize division as some kind of physical process. That makes sense for some numbers but not for the majority of numbers. That does it mean to divide 31 by pi (3.14) in terms of pieces? Or dividing 31 by one quarter (1/4) in terms of pieces? Dividing by zero is even more “physically” nonsensical.