Paradox of Number Progression: (x --> (1+x)) = (x --> (1+2x))

[Scott Mayers]

Look at set theory to understand the problem. You need to begin with some set defined. Then you create another set with what was defined and another distinct set. Then the third is composed of a set that contains the first member (doesn't matter what it is), along with a whole set that contains that first member and another member:

Ordered set: {0, {0, 1}} means that 0 can exist alone but that 1 can exist along with it. You don't actually need numbers. So this too represents the meaning of something 'ordered' in general using variables x and y:

{x, {x, y}}

I use this argument in kind:

Assume 'absolutely nothing'. If this were true, it would be literally ONE FACT, which contradicts its meaning unless they both coexisted. This is able to 'create' new realities in the same way as abstract concepts:

Fact 1: Nothing exists [ie, no Fact exists]
Fact 2: (therefore) Nothing exists AND Fact 1 exists
Fact 3: Nothing and Fact 1 and Fact 2 exist
...

If we stopped at Fact 4, for instance, we might demonstrate this in set theoretical terms reality 'constructing' the concept of an ordered reality as

Fact 4 = {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}, {Fact 1, {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}}}

(which can also be represented as {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}, {Fact 1, Fact 2, Fact3}} where Fact 3 = {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}} )

To be most generic:

Fact 4 = {Fact x, , {Fact x, Fact not-x}, {Fact x, Fact not-x, {Fact x, Fact not-x}}}

[I'm presenting this without building a set theory explanation as that itself is more depth than this allows for.]

[Eodnhoj7]

Look at set theory to understand the problem. You need to begin with some set defined. Then you create another set with what was defined and another distinct set. Then the third is composed of a set that contains the first member (doesn't matter what it is), along with a whole set that contains that first member and another member:

Ordered set: {0, {0, 1}} means that 0 can exist alone but that 1 can exist along with it. You don't actually need numbers. So this too represents the meaning of something 'ordered' in general using variables x and y:

{x, {x, y}}

I use this argument in kind:

Assume 'absolutely nothing'. If this were true, it would be literally ONE FACT, which contradicts its meaning unless they both coexisted. This is able to 'create' new realities in the same way as abstract concepts:

Fact 1: Nothing exists [ie, no Fact exists]
Fact 2: (therefore) Nothing exists AND Fact 1 exists
Fact 3: Nothing and Fact 1 and Fact 2 exist
...

If we stopped at Fact 4, for instance, we might demonstrate this in set theoretical terms reality 'constructing' the concept of an ordered reality as

Fact 4 = {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}, {Fact 1, {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}}}

(which can also be represented as {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}, {Fact 1, Fact 2, Fact3}} where Fact 3 = {Fact 1, {Fact 1, Fact 2}} )

To be most generic:

Fact 4 = {Fact x, , {Fact x, Fact not-x}, {Fact x, Fact not-x, {Fact x, Fact not-x}}}

[I'm presenting this without building a set theory explanation as that itself is more depth than this allows for.]

B and C would both be subsets of A, with A being subsets of itself through B and C.

Excuse the notation:

((A)B,C)
((B)A) ((C)A)

{({((A)B)a}C)a}

[nothing]

False, C and B are tautologies of A and A does not lose its self refernetial nature with the introduction of B. B is a tautiogiy of A. C is a tautology of B through A. The center point is origin.

C is emergent from AB, thus not a tautology of A, as C is AB.

A = 1
B = 2
*C = both(A+B) neither(A+B) not a new identity
_____________________________________________
*variable (+)/(-)

v = s/t
1/1 = unity
*A = 1/t, s/1
√A = √1/t, s/√1
√A = (+1/t, -1/t), (s/+1, s/-1)
viz. (+all, -not), (+causation, -cessation)
(alpha, omega), (beginning, end)

-B is C as C is not B.

Color spectrum B is blue, C is red, not blue is red.

-B is a constituency of *C, not = C

The rest has little directly to do with what I am saying.

Everything to do with, actually.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, C and B are tautologies of A and A does not lose its self refernetial nature with the introduction of B. B is a tautiogiy of A. C is a tautology of B through A. The center point is origin.

C is emergent from AB, thus not a tautology of A, as C is AB.

Uh no, c is a variation of A...it is A expressed in a new manner.

1 progressing to 2 is one progressing to 3.
1 progressing to 3 is one prgorresing to 4.

Etc.

It occurs simultaneously that while 1 is progressing to x it is also progressing to y, that is the paradox.

2 is a tautology of 1 --> 1.
3 is a tautology of 1-->1-->1.

3 requires AB, but 3 also observes just A.

In orogreesimg to 2 one progresses to 3.

A = 1
B = 2
*C = both(A+B) neither(A+B) not a new identity
_____________________________________________
*variable (+)/(-)

v = s/t
1/1 = unity
*A = 1/t, s/1
√A = √1/t, s/√1
√A = (+1/t, -1/t), (s/+1, s/-1)
viz. (+all, -not), (+causation, -cessation)
(alpha, omega), (beginning, end)

-B is C as C is not B.

Color spectrum B is blue, C is red, not blue is red.

-B is a constituency of *C, not = C

Not Blue is an isomorphism of Blue.

The rest has little directly to do with what I am saying.

Everything to do with, actually.

[nothing]

Uh no, c is a variation of A...it is A expressed in a new manner.

A→Ac ≠ A → C

1 progressing to 2 is one progressing to 3.
1 progressing to 3 is one prgorresing to 4.

Begin with 1/1 as unity c. 2/1 is a displacement(s)
whose displaced tautology is self-referencing as A.

It occurs simultaneously that while 1 is progressing to x it is also progressing to y, that is the paradox.

If A = 1, while A is progressing to c (which can not be 1 since A is a displacement) it is also progressing away from -c, thus no paradox exists less...

2 is a tautology of 1 --> 1.
3 is a tautology of 1-->1-->1.

...the paradox of your incessant need to quantify.

3 requires AB, but 3 also observes just A.

Mixing them now? What is next, colors?

In orogreesimg to 2 one progresses to 3.

WOW orogreesimg ? Is this a recently discovered phenomena?

Not Blue is an isomorphism of Blue.

Now colors !

[Eodnhoj7]

Uh no, c is a variation of A...it is A expressed in a new manner.

A→Ac ≠ A → C

(A-->(B<-->(A-->A)))-->C

1 progressing to 2 is one progressing to 3.
1 progressing to 3 is one prgorresing to 4.

Begin with 1/1 as unity c. 2/1 is a displacement(s)
whose displaced tautology is self-referencing as A.

False, 1 can be superpositioned.

It occurs simultaneously that while 1 is progressing to x it is also progressing to y, that is the paradox.

If A = 1, while A is progressing to c (which can not be 1 since A is a displacement) it is also progressing away from -c, thus no paradox exists less...

No, it is progressing to C through B. A progressing to B is A progressing to C.

2 is a tautology of 1 --> 1.
3 is a tautology of 1-->1-->1.

...the paradox of your incessant need to quantify.

Stop projecting.

3 requires AB, but 3 also observes just A.

Mixing them now? What is next, colors?

A can take the place of any quantity or quantity.

In orogreesimg to 2 one progresses to 3.

WOW orogreesimg ? Is this a recently discovered phenomena?
Typo from ipad.

Not Blue is an isomorphism of Blue.

Now colors !

[nothing]

(A-->(B<-->(A-->A)))-->C

√A = +A, -A
A → B
(B ↔((C))↔A)
(Understanding ↔ ((Crowned)) ↔ Wisdom)

Understanding begins with acknowledgement.
Acknowledgement begins with (con)science,
conscience(s) precedes C, thus not A or B,
but both/neither.

False, 1 can be superpositioned.

Superposition is not addition. You can not add unity to itself,
only subtract from it, causing (dis)placement(s) of all that is:
not unity. However, over unity is certainly a valid state,
thus c as the speed of light is locally finite
whose impedance(s) are gradation(s) from c.

If taking ((C)) as √A,
as √A → c, A is -A, whereas
as √A → -c, A is +A as
knowledge-based impetus negates
belief-based impedance ad infinitum.

A can take the place of any quantity or quantity.

What is the difference between these two?

Typo from ipad.

"It's this ipad that you gave me!"
"It gave me from the typo tree that I did eat!"

[Eodnhoj7]

(A-->(B<-->(A-->A)))-->C

√A = +A, -A
A → B
(B ↔((C))↔A)
(Understanding ↔ ((Crowned)) ↔ Wisdom)

Understanding begins with acknowledgement.
Acknowledgement begins with (con)science,
conscience(s) precedes C, thus not A or B,
but both/neither.

False, 1 can be superpositioned.

Superposition is not addition. You can not add unity to itself,
only subtract from it, causing (dis)placement(s) of all that is:
not unity. However, over unity is certainly a valid state,
thus c as the speed of light is locally finite
whose impedance(s) are gradation(s) from c.

If taking ((C)) as √A,
as √A → c, A is -A, whereas
as √A → -c, A is +A as
knowledge-based impetus negates
belief-based impedance ad infinitum.

A can take the place of any quantity or quantity.

What is the difference between these two?

Typo from ipad.

"It's this ipad that you gave me!"
"It gave me from the typo tree that I did eat!"

I really don't care, when I see other take your theory seriously then I will take it seriously. Why? I see no value in it and I need a third party to convince me otherwise. Good luck.