There's a critical fault in our mathematics system.

The concept that 1 x 0 or 0 x 1 = 0.

People say that it proves itself when you try to divide a whole number or zero by zero or another whole number.

However, this is incorrect.

Example:

Lets say you have a box of nothing. It's completely empty. Someone came along and said they would multiply the contents of your box by two.

Now you would think, 2 x 0 = 0.

But you are wrong. What you have instead of 0, is you have 2 boxes that are filled with absolutely nothing.

Now you turn to me and say: But, you're multiplying boxes not nothing.

I turn to you and say: but, you would not have the boxes if it weren't for the fact you had nothing to begin with.

No I'm not being jocular, I'm dead serious.

If you had a box of apples, and the man who had a box of nothing came along, he would not give you another box. It was the emptiness of the box that initiated that trade.

"But Kevin," you say, "That's the most idiotic idea I've ever heard. Why would someone double your nothing by giving you a box which contained nothing to begin with? You still wind up with nothing!"

"But, you forget," I say, "nothingness is not necessarily nothing to begin with. Besides the philosophical abstract of the meaning of nothingness, scientific exploration would not be possible without the absence of everything else! It's called the control factor."

"Wow, dude you're getting a little overboard. I don't know if you're a genius, stupid, or insane." You might say to me.

My response is, "Ok, well prove to me you cannot multiply nothing by something to equal more of nothing!"

And you say, "Divide nothing by something or something by nothing, you always wind up with 0!"

I say, "That is incorrect."

For example:

5 divided by 0 does not = 0.

How many times does 0 go into five? Zero has no abstract, no dimension, it literally is nothingness, however, there is still a 5.

The number 5 can hold 5 whole values of 1. So that means, that if 0 lacks value of dimension, then 5 can hold 5 infinite values of nothingness.

So in essence, 5 divided by 0 is not 0. But rather, 5 divided by 0 = 5∞ 0

Or, 5 whole infinite values of Nothing.

"But, Kevin -- YOU'RE MAKING MY BRAIN HURT!"

my response is:

"Calculate the value of infinity and your brain will no longer hurt. Do you honestly think that it is a coincidence that the value of infinity resembles the value of nothing? Nothingness and Infinity both require the same amount of contemplative understanding. Infinity is all encompassing, and Nothingness is all exclusive. But both exist.

How can infinity exist without the existence of something which doesn't?

It's matter/anti-matter.

Yin and Yang.

It is physical and immaterial.

They are both values.

And despite the fact that Nothingness has no value, it clearly must have a value to be designated and identified as nothingness. In which case, it is infinite and finite in its own design. You can have 1 Whole value of Nothing, as well as 5 whole values of Nothing. And if you can have 5 whole values of nothing, that means you can have infinite values of nothing."

"But, Kevin, nothing is still nothing no matter how much nothing you might have!"

"How do you know this? Do you have more than 1 of nothing? This is not a philosophical question, this is a literal designation. How much nothing is a value of nothing without becoming something else? All of Nothing is Nothing, but Nothing still occupies space and time. Without Nothing there cannot be a whole of something to fill the void. There must be void in order for there to be a 3 dimensional existence.

Especially when you work in advanced fields of physics. Not everything is something. Much of what is out there in the cosmos is literally nothing. But, each nothing is different nothing and in different quantities."

Basically the concept of nothing as a value is extremely high levels of physics. Nothing exists between a proton and a neutron, it has to exist. So when you're calculating a value of nothing against a value of something, you're calculating the need for an amount of nothing required to make something else exist. Nothing being the important value between two somethings.

That entire concept is what drives chemistry and atomic weight. You have to have nothing between the atoms in order to determine the type of substance those atoms create. Nothing is of intrinsic value to the entire mathematical system. By implementing this method of calculating (dividing and multiplying nothing) you are adding an extra dimension into the calculations of whatever something must be near the nothing that is calculated.

i.e. if I calculate the available space between plants (which is NOTHING) I can determine how many plants must exist (providing I can't see them in the first place). It's an incredible amount of importance physics speaking that nothing is recognized on this scale.

^_^

Below are exerpts from further discussions I've had with people since I first posted this on my original blog:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Nothing must always be nothing, the fact that you have limited Nothing means there's a something surrounding it.

It's like how we measure black holes. We don't actually measure black holes, but rather, the event horizon. Let's pretend you cannot see the entirety of the event horizon, but you are capable of measuring the nothingness and the dimensions of the closest area around the event horizon. Divide the measurement by nothingness and compare it to the event horizon, then you can calculate the amount of actual invisible matter within the nothingness, as well as the amount of nothingness in units there has to be between the invisible matter and the visible event horizon.

Basically current math refuses to allow you to divide or multiply by 0. That's just an inherent falsehood.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My friend posted this on my facebook site, so I'm copying his post exactly:

Jeremy Billadeau said-

Something interesting that crossed my mind on this and seems to give further weight to your article here, is the addition of zero's when values increase to tens, hundreds, thousands etc. 10, 100, 1000... Cartainly the addition of these 0's change the value of any number proceeding it in representation, but does it change the value of the 0 in any way and if so to what? What new form does it take, because ascribing it to this form certainly confines its value in that it ceases to have any possable infinitive value and would only have a scope of 1 - 9 in it's bracket. Of course some of the profoundity of zero's being a surrogate for nothingness is already displaced in that 0 is just an avatar. But it certainly changes into something other than, that possable 'nothingness' the instant it is represented behind a number in support of greater values... What do you think Kevin?...

I replied:

That is true. I don't think I even considered this as an addition to my explanation. I will promptly steal it and add its distinctiveness to my own.

Your idea has now been assimilated :D

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Comments