# 2 is the only number in existence

#### VoidSet

Registered Senior Member
previously I thought 0 took this spot, but I realized in fact it was 2.

If not 2, then it may take the form of something like this: There is a finite set of natural numbers that are used in describing truths in mathematics (including "logic") and those are the only natural numbers in existence.

If not 2, then it may take the form of something like this: There is a finite set of natural numbers that are used in describing truths in mathematics (including "logic") and those are the only natural numbers in existence.
Why?

Huh?

*hides from Godel*

No matter where I look for definitions in mathematics, the fundamental idea stems from a duality, or a twoness. examples would include inverse, anything that is an operation, transformation, or action, in topology for any space there is a mirror space, all circular things can be defined by being contrast with hyperbolic things, etc. even the definition of infinity relies upon its duality with zero, and the definition of zero relies upon its duality with infinity.

*hides from Godel*

No matter where I look for definitions in mathematics, the fundamental idea stems from a duality, or a twoness. examples would include inverse, anything that is an operation, transformation, or action, in topology for any space there is a mirror space, all circular things can be defined by being contrast with hyperbolic things, etc. even the definition of infinity relies upon its duality with zero, and the definition of zero relies upon its duality with infinity.

Except that numbers are not natural. They are man made so we could have made them any way.

also, I can no longer create new threads, I hit post, and then i get a blank white screen , to infinity. of course, i cant create a thread asking for help. any tips?

Except that numbers are not natural. They are man made so we could have made them any way.
I disagree. They may have a certain definition, or postulates and rules (see Peano's axioms) made by us but you still need to comply with those rules. If you want to define "number" somehow differently, then my definition of "number" did not refer to it.

How many fingers?

Five.

previously I thought 0 took this spot, but I realized in fact it was 2.

No Not

How many fingers?

"3" which is defined by recursion of the dual reversible operation of addition which from which you can define a measure or "Counting" of its recursion.

the definition still runs from 2

You guys are to much ! You shouldn't have . The Three and the 5 back to back . I feel special . I love you guys too

I probably should have used this pic instead:

since it was most likely the source of this hypothesis.

I disagree. They may have a certain definition, or postulates and rules (see Peano's axioms) made by us but you still need to comply with those rules. If you want to define "number" somehow differently, then my definition of "number" did not refer to it.

I will read the Axioms, i glanced through it but idk...what rules are you referring to?

Seems to me we could have made numbers and counting any way we anted to. The only rule i am aware of is singular addition and subtraction but even multiplication and division are based on that. Everything else is just made up.

The way i know this is: tkae one object and add another object. That means there are two objects.

Can you explain these laws?

I disagree. They may have a certain definition, or postulates and rules (see Peano's axioms) made by us but you still need to comply with those rules. If you want to define "number" somehow differently, then my definition of "number" did not refer to it.

You might say all odd numbers are the equivalent of factors of 2 plus one , but me I like to think that even numbers are odd minus 1 so 1 is the loneliest number. One is the loneliest number. 2 is real just 1 and a 1 .
11 has the same characteristics as a 2 in some respects . Lets see if I can show it to be true by reduction math . O.K. take 2 X 2 = 4 now take 11X11= 121 now reduce using reduction math

1+1=2 1+1=2 and 1+2+1= 4

O.K. lets try it with any number that reduces to 2 and see what we get

1253 + 191= what
reduce it and see , 1+2+5+3=11 which is a 2 and 1+9+1=11 which is 2 so what ever the answer is for what will reduce to a 4 . "What" will be 4
Get your calculator and check it

Mikey Math

I probably should have used this pic instead:

since it was most likely the source of this hypothesis.

Kill bud , Pass the pipe

"3" which is defined by recursion of the dual reversible operation of addition which from which you can define a measure or "Counting" of its recursion.

the definition still runs from 2

2 runs from one and all prime numbers are factors of one not 2

I probably should have used this pic instead:

since it was most likely the source of this hypothesis.
Are you going to give me a real criticism of my idea with detailed examples, or just post unintelligent jokes?

You don't know me very well...do you?

...and I did post a detailed example of why you are wrong. There are 3 buds of pot in that picture. 3 is a number...which proves your assertion that "2 is the only number in existence" wrong.

Last edited: