13 July 2009

With a nod to the set theorists

All numbers arise from 0, from which spills forth equally number and numeration.

From 0 comes 1, unity, which comes from the placement of 0 within a context.

1 = 1 = 2, or, to put it better, {0, {0}} = 2. Though since 1 x 2 = 2, it may seem that 2 is higher than 1, the existence of 2 depends entirely upon 1 and without 1 it would be nothing at all.

2 comes into being immediately upon the definition of 1. This same movement makes possible the emergence of 3. The motion towards 1 (present in all numbers) in 2 impels the separation of 2 into both itself and that of itself that turns back towards one. Thus,

2 = (1 = 1)
2 = {0, {0}}

However, these two formulations are not strictly the same, for the first stresses the unity towards 1 in 2 while the second stresses the manner in which 2 is spun forth from 1. The dissimilarity-within-itself of 2 gives rise to three, since

2 = (1 = 1) = 1
1 + {0, {0}} = 1 + 2 = 3

2 comments:

Lykos the Myrmidon said...

We are of course playing off the apparently disjoint meanings of the = sign. In one sense, to say "=" is to express identity, while in another sense it is to express the passing-into-completion that is characteristic of dialectic.

Amos Johannes Hunt said...

a play which is perfectly at home on the internet, which seems aswarm with the __+__=__ meme these days.