“ZERO is our problem?”

zero was never a problem for the Mayans, they knew that 0 was 20…

wp-1457784219026.jpg

Every new cycle began after number 20. I found 0 twenty times within the magic 216 decimals of π but I doubt that the Mayans had the ability to found it by themselves… They got help! 🙂

 

wp-1458570355333.jpg

I’ve got the numerical evidence to prove it. Let’s begin by analyzing our regular numbers:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  

Adding them up we’ll look like this: 

0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 45! 4 + 5 = 9! 

As you can see zero doesn’t count and the sum of the countable integers is 45 not 55!

To make sense, we have to start with 1 and end with 10:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 55! [Obviously 55-45 = 10]

Let’s see what π had to say about that:

According to the times each of those integers repeat within the 216 decimals of Pi and adding up the decimal root after it we obtain:

0 [20 times] = (2), 1 [20 times plus root 21] = (3), 2 [ 25 times] = (7), 3 [21 times] = (3), 4 [25 times plus root 26] = (8), 5 [22 times] = (4), 6 [18 times] = (8), 7 [13 times] = (4), 8 [27 times] = (9) and 9 [25 times] = (7).

2 + 3 + 7 + 3 + 8 + 4 + 9 + 4 + 9 + 7 = 56! 5+6 = 11!

Pi doesn’t recognize number 10 or any combination of integers…simply defined the proper values each of the 10 basic [elemental] digits must represent to be referred to their universal context.

The concept of INFINITE is still valid for Pi since implying the result 55 we get [4] + [4] = 8 and we know that the implied value of 8 is 27 which reduced is simply 9 [2+7=9].

An alternative way to reach the same conclusion is by substituting 55 by the longer equivalence (22)… 55 = [22] + [22] = 44! Since 4 = 26 then [26 + 26] = 52 where 5+2 = 7. We know that 9 is 2+5 = 7! [at least according to Pi] 🙂

There is only one number with the ‘unique value’ of TWO. The rest of our integers are paired with ‘equal values’ and ‘equal net values’, those are 1 and 3 with the equal value of THREE, 2 and 9 with the ‘equal values’ of SEVEN, 4 with the ‘unique value’ of EIGHT, 6 and 8 with ‘equal net value’ of NINE, and 5 and 7 with ‘equal net values’ of FOUR.

If we added up ZERO’s implied value and EIGHT or Six’s implied values, we would have gotten the repeating interpretation of the entire decimal tail of π:  2+9= 11!

Why is this issue a reason for concern? Well… Take a closer look at Pi’s irrational and infinite tail of its decimals and you see plenty of zeros there. To me the concern is limited to the first 216 decimals and there were 20 to take into serious consideration. 

For you maybe “no problema, baby” but for those like me who find Numerology an important tool in calculations, it’s a real pain in the butt! You can’t simply disregard the value of zero and I’m sure the universe didn’t either. Take this factor into consideration, please. We came up with the methods to multiply numbers and while “carrying a value” during the operation, we assigned a place a zero when the sum reaches 10. The universe doesn’t ‘compute’ in that way! When It deals with patterns every number counts and the final result will always “carry” the value no matter how you do it. Proof of that is that when I chose the 216 decimals of Pi, I left (for obvious reasons)  the first two decimals [14] out. I considered [14] part of the Root of the constant. However I realized that I had to sum those two digits to the number of times both numbers one and four repeated within the 216 frame. At the end I added up the values obtained for each basic integer and obtained the implied value of 10!.Unlike us, the universe always “manage” to ‘play with the patterns smartly. 

20+21+25+21+26+22+18+13+27+25= [217] = 2+1+7 = 11!

0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 45! 4 + 5 = 9!  [Implying 9 = 2+ 5 = 7] This is flawed! I see no TEN any way around!

To obtain the number 10 [ten] you must ignore zero as the first integer which then cause a problem when you deal with real numbers. From -1 to +1 you have a zero in between…am I right or am I wrong?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)

Zero has a “positional notation” as part of its particular interpretation 🙂

Computing systems use [what in my personal opinion resembles more what the universe employs than the original one originated in India], Is called ‘Balanced Ternary’. is a non-standard positional numeral system [balanced form], a base of 3 {1,0,1} instead of {0,1,2}. 

In a way…That’s precisely what I’m proposing here, a way to obtained not just a balanced result but an universal one. I believe that the same way I had presented my work to you within the frame of the first 216 decimals of Pi, a smart computer programmer could figure out the way to make it work just as effectively as the system they’re employing presently. That would report the advantage of a more ‘balanced ternary system’ and a needed compatibility with our reality.

You may want to click on those links and see the dilemma yourselves.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/coppel1.2.98.html

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/coppel1.2.98.html

The way I see it, the fundamental problem derives from the lack of a context (a real one). We use numbers to calculate physically real elements, represented by magnitudes (quantities in existence) and units or dimensions (relativistic existence). Zero taken in this frameless context, represents the “absence” or “void” of the previous two. Example, 0 pound means nothing, 0 books means no books, etc. Nothing could be more realistic and physically universal than a point in space! It could go so small than it may seems to have disappeared from existence… But do not foul yourselves…it’s there for ever. The link also mentions the “field” factor. We know that physically speaking, lines areas and volume are subject to bending in spacetime. [Einstein’s General Relativity] so, we need such a context (to refer our numbers) that must be impervious to those variables and physical effects if we really hope to count with a solid numerical system to be applied at universal scales.

 

Thanks!

 

The Wizard of π

 

Advertisements