Unedited print below.
Standardising the Unit Means Rewriting the Equation. Can Math as we know it die too?
Math, as we use it, pretends the unit is neutral. Fixed. Silent.
A “1” sits there like it owes nothing to anything else.
But the moment you touch it, divide it, observe it, or compare it, that illusion collapses.
Because a unit is not a thing—it is a relationship waiting to be activated.
The moment you act on one, it becomes two
We’ve been taught:
- 1 ÷ 1 = 1
- 1 × 1 = 1
Contained. Circular. Self-referencing.
But that only holds if “1” is allowed to remain untouched—unobserved, unengaged, unreal.
The second you divide one, you introduce:
- a divider
- a divided
- a before
- an after
You’ve entered polarity.
So in lived reality:
1 : 1 = 2 (because division introduces duality)
1 × 1 = 2 (because interaction requires two positions)
Not as a rejection of arithmetic—but as a refusal to ignore what the operation does to the unit.
Every one is already holding its two
This is not invention. It’s structure.
- Yin / Yang
- Up / Down
- Left / Right
- Inhale / Exhale
You cannot define one without invoking the other.
Even language betrays this.
To say “this” implies “not that.”
To say “one” implies “another.”
So the idea of a pure, isolated “one” is not reality—it is a convenience of notation.
Mirrors prove it without asking permission
Place two mirrors facing each other.
They don’t negotiate.
They don’t check conditions.
They mirror regardless.
Because reflection is not about the mirror—it is about the relationship between two surfaces.
One mirror alone reflects once.
Two mirrors create recursion.
Infinity appears not from the object—but from the duality of interaction.
The body already operates on dual coherence
We breathe without thinking.
The body runs the function.
But we can think to breathe.
The mind enters the function.
Now we have:
- automatic breath
- conscious breath
Same system. Two layers.
The mind and the body are not the same.
But they coexist. Influence. Override. Support.
They are not one. They are not separate.
They are two in coherence.
Division is not a result—it is a conversation
Take one whole and introduce three cuts.
Now we ask: what is the answer?
There isn’t one.
Because you haven’t defined what you’re measuring.
1) 4 — by three forces
One whole, acted on by three cutting forces:
= 4 participants in the interaction
The whole is not alone anymore.
The cuts are not neutral.
They are part of the system.
2) Mass is not untouched by process
We say the mass remains one.
But we ignore:
- the energy of the cut
- the nature of the cutting agent
- the way the division occurs
Clean cut? Tear? Compression? Heat?
The process leaves a signature.
So to speak of “1” as unchanged is to ignore the history of interaction embedded in it.
3) 3 — if divided into 3 pieces
If the intention is to divide into three:
= 3 outcomes
But this is not the same as cutting by three.
“By 3” and “into 3” are not interchangeable—they describe different realities.
Three answers. One event.
- 4 (forces)
- 4 (pieces, if cut by 3)
- 3 (pieces, if divided into 3)
All correct.
Because the question was never singular.
So if we standardise units, math must evolve
If we define a unit not as an isolated block, but as:
a container of relational potential
Then math cannot remain purely static.
It must account for:
- interaction
- polarity
- process
- perspective
Because numbers are not just values.
They are positions within a system of relationships.
Final line
Every “one” you write already carries its “other.”
Not because it was split.
But because the moment it exists—
it can be met.
and the moment it is met—
it becomes two.
Write a piece essay on it. If we standardise units, we must change the math, as 1:1=2, just like 1×1=2 thanks to Terrence Howard. And it’d make sense the two mirrors would mirror each other regardless of conditions. 1+1=2 and -1-1=-2. Every one is a two and that stands, by polarity, yin and yang, up n down, left n right. There cannot be one in observation of another or comparison of another without another. Our body uses our mind and vicerversa, the two aren’t the same and can coexist irregardless. We breath without thinking, but we can think to breath and that changes the breath style as we enter the conversation with the mind which carries its own field and energy.
One separated by another, means there’s two in the conversation. Separated by 3, means there’s 4 in the conversation, those doing the cutting and the one being cut. It’s 4 forces diving 1, are we counting how many forces are in the conversations, the value of the fragments’ size if equal where by 3 cut one into 4 slices, or the amount of pieces, cause that,’s three different answers, also by 3 and in 3 is two different answers.
- 4 aka by three forces
- we need to know the mass of one whole, the mass of the cutting agent and way of cutting
- 3 aka into 3 pieces
1-1: are we looking at the position, like going back of one, yet when we multiply 1×1 and we go with position it equals 2. This incoherence doesn’t work. If we look at units, like aa circle and its slices, something outside and visual and do the experiement oureves, we’ll see the true laws of nature. If you cut something there’s 2 now(I got inspired by a cute carrot), if you try and remove one thing, it’s one thing, as progression and result it equals zero 1-, but 1-1, means there’s two elements, and we chose one for it to equal 1, but two are never the same, so how can these 1s weight the same, if context changes them? One person minus one other isn, the same as one people and one is chosen out of the two or 1-1=2 coherent to whatever sign you use in the relationship of 1 and 1, it’s two. There’s obviously two entities called 1 and mimicking esch other. They’re separate not the same, but seem similar.
We should revamp our maths and look at either position linearly or units, mix and match is not supposed to exist in maths. Everything should pan out and be coherent with everything else. So if this is wrong, imagine this maw taken to a systematical level and everything built around confusion,… is it really progress, if it goes in the opposite direction?!
If infinity is the universe in which we live in, shouldn’t everything reflect it?
DIVIDING, actually multiplies, it is the hoax of a century. If you cut 8 by 4, it could mean cut every piece of 8 into 4 and thats 32. There’s no reality where we cut something by something and there’s less. That’s why when water part, there’s two sides reflecting to each whatever was on that side of the sea, showing their bellies. Watch closely.
or cut a block of 8cm into four pieces, there would be 4 pieces of 2 cm
Context always matters.
Leave a Reply