A) 1=0

(0) = 1( )

B) 1=2

(1(0)) = 1( )1( )

(2) = 1( )

b) 0=2

(0(0)) = 1( )1( )

C) 2=3

((1)(1)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c) 0=3

((0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )

c1) 1 = 3

(3) = 1( )

D) 4=3

((2)(2)) = 1( )1( )1( )

d) 0=4

((0)(0)(0)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

d1) 1=4

(4) = 1( )

d2) 2=4

((2/3)(2/3)(2/3)) = 1( )1( )1( )1( )

## Meta Relativistic Contexts Allow for Equivocation with No Contradiction; ie "3=4"

### Re: Meta Relativistic Contexts Allow for Equivocation with No Contradiction; ie "3=4"

The quantifiabilty of numbers as contexts equates to numbers in and of themselves, where a number is equal to it's own quantity.

The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it, with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise.

The quantification of the sets of numbers which compose the number causes one set of numbers to equate to another, thus seemingly different numbers equate through the contexts by which they are composed. The number is equal to the number of contexts which forms it, with the totality of contexts being a context itself.

A number is equal to the number of numbers which compose it as both the number, and the numbers which compose it, are contexts. Seemingly different numbers can equivocate through the contexts which form them. The common underlying median between percievably different numbers are contexts. Context equal to context, allows equivocation through context

An empirical example of this would be a red brick and red car, equivocating to eachother through red. They are equal through red, but unequal otherwise.