People create notations and ontologies. Usefulness through consistency is required for anyone else to use it. The notation system belongs to whoever created it.
A notation system is not a matter of truth but of standard use. Ecmandu doesn’t create the standard. And no, it is of no great burden to prove that the standard in use is contrary to what he proposes as a standard (not to mention that his version would be useless).
Units do matter in that they must remain consistent throughout.
We create nptational symbology but do not create Ontologies, we use Ontological directives that already are inherent in us. Tat Tvam Asi is a case of this, and the Ontological presumptions follow a ridged epistemic closure.
If you assume 1/Monad is Whole, and that Dyad/Duality is illusion, based on misconception of true nature like Shankara did, it morphs the nature of casual inference and numerical succession significantly, Buddhism and Advaita are largely at odds with one another in mathematics, while oddly shadowing one another in key concepts. The Ontology already existed, isn’t dependent on name and notion, it is how we process and think of self and otherness, it’s uniqueness of information is a non issue, as the awareness of processing is what makes a “thing” a unique experience. In a situational context, more so.
As a Cognitive Non-Dualist, it us easy for me to ply through the various schools of Non-Duality, as it is all mathematically based on processing Subject-Object presumptions. I have considerable success at it. You can see what I mean in this English Subtitled movie in Sanskrit of Shankara developing a Monistic model of mathematics that defies everyone’s presumptions in this thread, especially James and Phyllo’s further reasoning. When Ontology and Epistemology starts running up together, logic yields to neurology.
Yes, we do: e.g. RM:Affectance Ontology
All of classical physics is an ontology. Relativity is another ontology. Quantum Physics is yet another (as ridiculous as it is). The Abramic religions stem from yet another. The I Ching, still another.
What we use to do it is another issue. But at least you made it clear that we do create ontologies.
We also create notations; mathematics, languages, symbologies. Ecmandu can claim that a square “actually has” three sides and give some argument concerning it. But Ecmandu doesn’t dictate the standards for the language. The same is true for the notations in mathematics. The division symbol doesn’t mean what he says or thinks, except in his own personal misunderstood version.
I often say to people that some of the smartest people are people who don’t understand something because there’s nothing to understand.
There’s the issue of simply dividing which is a branch of math that’s only in my notebooks right now, and there’s dividing EQUALLY, which is the standard you’re all used to.
Even if you use the latter standard…
You are effectively dividing zero 31 times, or dividing zero into 31, or dividing 31 zero times, or dividing 31 into zero…
My logic is infallible …
You all understand something in a combination of words which cannot actually be understood
If you have a rectangular piece of land, the area cannot be different when multiplying length times width versus multiplying width times length.
However, you are saying the area of a strip of land which 0 feet by 31 feet has two areas depending on the how you do the multiplication … either 0 square feet or 31 square feet.
If you stipulate 31 feet exist without width, can it exist?
The issue here is that in order to first establish 31 feet, it has to exist in some way, so width is implied in the initial formulation, not matter how minuscule …
What happens with order of operations…
If you start with multiplying nothing, it stays nothing.
If you multiply a length first, even by nothing, it squares at it’s own length … The zero flips to the only other variable. It can’t be zero, because it’s an existent.
This is declared immediately when you start off “31 feet times x”
The 31 feet already exist in order of operations, the logical multiplier is 31 feet
Order of operations is that of you initially establish a quantity, it has to remain quantified for the purpose of the next operation. If the next operation is zero, the quantity remains …
When dealing with multiplication, there is a squaring of the line to keep it’s identity (only variable there is)
Divided by, leaves the initial quantity, but it must also be squared to keep it’s initial existential form.
It’s an order of operations procedure that only applies to zero
It’s implied that if 7 feet exist in one direction, that 7 feet must exist in the other direction in order for it to be quantified as an initial presentation.
If the initial presentation is zero, then zero is the multiplicative sum
Again, still, you are merely reading it in a convoluted way.
It is how many TIMES the 31 is taken. The 31 is taken 0 times, and thus 31 * 0 = 0, because no 31 is taken into the final sum.
By the associative property, also 0 * 31 = 0, but because 0 taken 31 times still sums to zero.
In one case, you have NO 31’s. And in the other case, you have 31 zeros.
It is THEIR language. Learn to read what THEY mean by THEIR notation. The fact that you can distort it to read something different is irrelevant. You can do the same with any language.