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

[Eodnhoj7]

1) There is a single point.

2) This one point progresses to two points and in doing so this one point progresses to two:

1 --> 2

3) Paraodoxically one progressing to two results in three total points as one point divided into two further points results in both the cause (1 point) and effect (2 points) as a total of three points.

(1-->2) --> (1-->3)

4) This paradox continues with the progression of numbers resulting in this simple equation:

(x-->(1+x)) = (x --> (1+2x))

[nothing]

1-3)

A → B
*C (condition) = AB "both"

C is a condition whose constituency relies only on two: A and B, thus has no particular body,
thus condition C is implicit with any co-existence of A and B: "both" as condition C.

eg.
A = alpha Α
B = omega Ω
*C = +both (and/or -neither) ΑΩ
___________________
*variable

A = to breathe in (+)
B = to breathe out (-)
*C = breathing? *yes/no
___________________
*variable

To exist is to be subject to/of centripetal "in" / centrifugal "out" motion(s),
as existence entails (being, in) motion by necessity,
satisfying "both" AB implying C by necessity.

viz. no paradox

4) (x-->(1+x)) = (x --> (1+2x)) X

i. C is not a quantity to be plotted into any equation, as
ii. the depth of this logic precedes quantification entirely

.{+C}. = {+both AB}
...↑........↓
A → B → C...
...↓........↑
.{-C}. = {-neither AB}

C is equivalent to any null point in space between two related bodies.
If A but no B, then no C.
If A and B, necessitates C.

A → C ← B

Two bodies suspended in space do not move towards one another,
as this is merely descriptive, and not explanatory. The explanation is
their movement is in relation to a shared null point in space. This null point "C"
represents the shared center of mass of-and-between both bodies "A" and "B".

As with any two bodies in space, A and B implies C by necessity.

[Eodnhoj7]

1-3)

A → B
*C (condition) = AB "both"

C is a condition whose constituency relies only on two: A and B, thus has no particular body,
thus condition C is implicit with any co-existence of A and B: "both" as condition C.

eg.
A = alpha Α
B = omega Ω
*C = +both (and/or -neither) ΑΩ
___________________
*variable

A = to breathe in (+)
B = to breathe out (-)
*C = breathing? *yes/no
___________________
*variable

To exist is to be subject to/of centripetal "in" / centrifugal "out" motion(s),
as existence entails (being, in) motion by necessity,
satisfying "both" AB implying C by necessity.

viz. no paradox

4) (x-->(1+x)) = (x --> (1+2x)) X

i. C is not a quantity to be plotted into any equation, as
ii. the depth of this logic precedes quantification entirely

.{+C}. = {+both AB}
...↑........↓
A → B → C...
...↓........↑
.{-C}. = {-neither AB}

C is equivalent to any null point in space between two related bodies.
If A but no B, then no C.
If A and B, necessitates C.

A → C ← B

Two bodies suspended in space do not move towards one another,

False, two bodies in space, as two point particles always expand and contract relative to eachother in a vacuum.

as this is merely descriptive, and not explanatory. The explanation is
their movement is in relation to a shared null point in space. This null point "C"
represents the shared center of mass of-and-between both bodies "A" and "B".

As with any two bodies in space, A and B implies C by necessity.

As to the rest it is off topic.

The thread is how number progression has a dualistic approach.

To observe A progressing to B is to simultaneously observe A progressing to C. Thus A progresses to B and C simultaneously.

[nothing]

False, two bodies in space, as two point particles always expand and contract relative to eachother in a vacuum.

The "relative" in any such relationship requires a common ground: C.

As to the rest it is off topic.

The thread is how number progression has a dualistic approach.

To observe A progressing to B is to simultaneously observe A progressing to C. Thus A progresses to B and C simultaneously.

The problem is: it has nothing to do with numbers (!)

Your last statement is correct (!)

[Eodnhoj7]

False, two bodies in space, as two point particles always expand and contract relative to eachother in a vacuum.

The "relative" in any such relationship requires a common ground: C.

And in a vaccuum, void acts as a quantum medium. It is only observed through A and B.

As to the rest it is off topic.

The thread is how number progression has a dualistic approach.

To observe A progressing to B is to simultaneously observe A progressing to C. Thus A progresses to B and C simultaneously.

The problem is: it has nothing to do with numbers (!)

Your last statement is correct (!)

Actually it is not limited to numbers.

[nothing]

And in a vaccuum, void acts as a quantum medium. It is only observed through A and B.

I have no idea what you mean by "void acts as a quantum medium" and would be surprised if anyone else did.
Space is not a true vacuum - it contains "stuff" viz. what Western "scientists" designate "quantum fluctuations"
thus they describe space as being permeated with, what they (hilariously) call, "quantum foam". It's the ether.

You place A in foam - it generates a fluctuation signature according to its own center of gravity/mass.
You place B in foam - it generates a fluctuation signature according to its own center of gravity/mass.
C emerges upon the introduction of B as the shared center of mass to which the mass of both moves/resides,
thus their (new) center of mass now resides in/as a null point in space between them.
This point is C, and only requires A and B to simply exist. The nature of the ether mandates C.

Actually it is not limited to numbers.

Actually it is limited by numbers - this phenomena precedes their practical utility.

You can not quantify an emergent of A and B as if an unrelated artifact. A and B intrinsically implies C,
thus if you had stuck with alpha instead of bringing numerals/equations in, it would be entirely sound.
Alpha is preferred before numerals - the latter should only be used if absolutely necessary.

[Eodnhoj7]

And in a vaccuum, void acts as a quantum medium. It is only observed through A and B.

I have no idea what you mean by "void acts as a quantum medium" and would be surprised if anyone else did.

Two particles in a vaccuum instantly mirror eachother in light of these two particles being the only reference point of movement. No matter how they move they are always pulling or pushing away from eachother considering they are the only standards of distance.

Considering particles are the only contexts in the vaccuum, they effect eachother instantly considering they are not just symmetrical but position relative only to eachother.


Space is not a true vacuum - it contains "stuff" viz. what Western "scientists" designate "quantum fluctuations"
thus they describe space as being permeated with, what they (hilariously) call, "quantum foam". It's the ether.

You place A in foam - it generates a fluctuation signature according to its own center of gravity/mass.
You place B in foam - it generates a fluctuation signature according to its own center of gravity/mass.
C emerges upon the introduction of B as the shared center of mass to which the mass of both moves/resides,
thus their (new) center of mass now resides in/as a null point in space between them.
This point is C, and only requires A and B to simply exist. The nature of the ether mandates C.

This is off topic from the above. A Progresses to B and C instantaneously making A mandated.

Actually it is not limited to numbers.

Actually it is limited by numbers - this phenomena precedes their practical utility.

False, the progression of A to B and C necessitates A as having a center role.
This is mirrored further in numbers where 1 becomes and inherent middle simultaneously present across all numbers.

You can not quantify an emergent of A and B as if an unrelated artifact.

False, A is self referencing through B and C simultaneously as a medium.

A and B intrinsically implies C,
thus if you had stuck with alpha instead of bringing numerals/equations in, it would be entirely sound.
Alpha is preferred before numerals - the latter should only be used if absolutely necessary.

[nothing]

Two particles in a vaccuum instantly mirror eachother in light of these two particles being the only reference point of movement. No matter how they move they are always pulling or pushing away from eachother considering they are the only standards of distance.

Considering particles are the only contexts in the vaccuum, they effect eachother instantly considering they are not just symmetrical but position relative only to eachother.

Whence paradox, and need for number progression?

Approaching why A ≠ A
(+)/(-) = push/pull, in/out
as an intrinsic property
of all existential phenomena.

A = A is motionless
A = *A is motioning
________________
*variability (+)/(-) as in
to breath in / breath out.

This is off topic from the above. A Progresses to B and C instantaneously making A mandated.

Making C mandated.

False, the progression of A to B and C necessitates A as having a center role.
This is mirrored further in numbers where 1 becomes and inherent middle simultaneously present across all numbers.

A has no more of a center role then B does with regards to C. The constituency of C relies on AB.
One can use AB to infer C, or use C to infer AB. Again: no need for numbers as even √1 = +1, -1
wherein +1 is static and -1 is dynamic.

False, A is self referencing through B and C simultaneously as a medium.

A can not be self-referencing unless isolated, in which case it has it's own local center of gravity and mass.
Introducing B shifts the center of mass to C shared by A and B. If anything, C is 1, AB are 2 whose union is C.

[Eodnhoj7]

Two particles in a vaccuum instantly mirror eachother in light of these two particles being the only reference point of movement. No matter how they move they are always pulling or pushing away from eachother considering they are the only standards of distance.

Considering particles are the only contexts in the vaccuum, they effect eachother instantly considering they are not just symmetrical but position relative only to eachother.

Whence paradox, and need for number progression?

Approaching why A ≠ A
(+)/(-) = push/pull, in/out
as an intrinsic property
of all existential phenomena.

A = A is motionless
A = *A is motioning
________________
*variability (+)/(-) as in
to breath in / breath out.

This is off topic from the above. A Progresses to B and C instantaneously making A mandated.

Making C mandated.

A,B and C are mandated, specifically A, as they are tautological

False, the progression of A to B and C necessitates A as having a center role.
This is mirrored further in numbers where 1 becomes and inherent middle simultaneously present across all numbers.

A has no more of a center role then B does with regards to C. The constituency of C relies on AB.
One can use AB to infer C, or use C to infer AB. Again: no need for numbers as even √1 = +1, -1
wherein +1 is static and -1 is dynamic.

C is a variation of A.

False, A is self referencing through B and C simultaneously as a medium.

A can not be self-referencing unless isolated, in which case it has it's own local center of gravity and mass.
Introducing B shifts the center of mass to C shared by A and B. If anything, C is 1, AB are 2 whose union is C.

False, it is self referenced due to all of the other tautologies.

[nothing]

A,B and C are mandated, specifically A, as they are tautological

A is not intrinsically mandated.
√A is intrinsically mandated.

C is a variation of A.

C is an emergent of AB, but not one (or the other).

False, it is self referenced due to all of the other tautologies.

False tautologies self-reference their own false root.

[Eodnhoj7]

A,B and C are mandated, specifically A, as they are tautological

A is not intrinsically mandated.
√A is intrinsically mandated.

False as the root of C and B is A.

C is a variation of A.

C is an emergent of AB, but not one (or the other).

False, B and C are emergent from A.

False, it is self referenced due to all of the other tautologies.

False tautologies self-reference their own false root.

False, a tautology is a root stemming from a central variable.

[nothing]

False as the root of C and B is A.

A must have a root: √A,
+A, -A
B must also have a root √B
+B, -B
C is not a new entity, but √(AB)
+AB, -AB

..+C..
*A ↔ *B
..-C..

To be,
or not
to be: this
is the question
(and answer).

Apply to suffering.
Begin locally with *A
allowing both all causation (+) of suffering to exist
(ie. requires acknowledgement of the same, if present)
and all cessation (-) of suffering thus not to exist.

False, B and C are emergent from A.

A mandates not B, whereas
AB mandates C.

False, a tautology is a root stemming from a central variable.

Roots are both/either real or imaginary.
If real, rooted in reality.
If false, rooted in imagination.

[Eodnhoj7]

False as the root of C and B is A.

A must have a root: √A,
+A, -A
B must also have a root √B
+B, -B
C is not a new entity, but √(AB)
+AB, -AB
C and B are tautologies from A, the tautology of A into B and C simultaneously is a meta-tautology.


..+C..
*A ↔ *B
..-C..

To be,
or not
to be: this
is the question
(and answer).

Apply to suffering.
Begin locally with *A
allowing both all causation (+) of suffering to exist
(ie. requires acknowledgement of the same, if present)
and all cessation (-) of suffering thus not to exist.

False, B and C are emergent from A.

A mandates not B, whereas
AB mandates C.

False it, mandates both B and -B as B and C.

False, a tautology is a root stemming from a central variable.

Roots are both/either real or imaginary.
If real, rooted in reality.
If false, rooted in imagination.

Roots are real as functions.

[nothing]

C and B are tautologies from A, the tautology of A into B and C simultaneously is a meta-tautology.

C is a tautology of AB whose constituency is of equivalence, only displaced.
A, if alone, only has its own self-referencing tautology.
B, "
thus A and B are inter-changeable,
whereas AB / BA together mandates C, C and B are not tautologies of A
as A forfeits its own self-referencing tautology upon introduction of B
for a shared one as their shared nature invariably mandates C.

False it, mandates both B and -B as B and C.

-B ≠ C

Roots are real as functions.

So are the operators which discerns real from imaginary.

motion (as: speed) measures space over time
v = s/t
*A = s/t

Let 1/1 be 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)

[Eodnhoj7]

C and B are tautologies from A, the tautology of A into B and C simultaneously is a meta-tautology.

C is a tautology of AB whose constituency is of equivalence, only displaced.
A, if alone, only has its own self-referencing tautology.
B, "
thus A and B are inter-changeable,
whereas AB / BA together mandates C, C and B are not tautologies of A
as A forfeits its own self-referencing tautology upon introduction of B
for a shared one as their shared nature invariably mandates C.

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.

A = 1
B = 2
C = 3

(1-->1) -->2
(1 --> 2) --> 3
(1 --> 3) --> 4
(1 --> (2 -->3)) -->6

False it, mandates both B and -B as B and C.

-B ≠ C

-B is C as C is not B.

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

Roots are real as functions.

So are the operators which discerns real from imaginary.

motion (as: speed) measures space over time
v = s/t
*A = s/t

Let 1/1 be 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)

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