Thank you, Brian, for giving me this feedback. I am glad you are going here, because it makes the information more interesting.
— -
With your first remark, however, I do not see much to comment on; we seem to be agreeing here (or the point you are making needs further explanation).
— -
For your second remark and question, I was able to use ‘Director’ which is a rather old computer program (I did this in 2000 or so) in which I was able to create a computer mechanism that produces all prime numbers. If I remember correctly 12 numbers was the maximum allowable number, so all prime numbers below 999,999,999,999 were correctly produced. It may have been 8 numbers, but I thought it was 12.
Yes, I tried to patent the mechanism, and the patent office did really difficult. I didn’t want to get an attorney to help me with this (as they suggested) and after two years of continuously receiving rejections I gave up. Yes, a lot of money is involved with prime numbers and security, but I am not complaining. I didn’t want the patent for the money, but I guess my ego wanted it. Still, the more exciting part was that we have to use zero to explain one step in the pattern. I was able to not let my ego get in the way. I live a decent happy life.
Then, Agrawal, c.s. came out with their prime number sequencing (somewhere 2001 or 2002) and though I tried to communicate with them (a few years later) about my findings, I did not receive a reply from them.
Once one sees what the prime numbers are, it isn’t that exciting anymore and I simply moved on with my work, involving zero and helping people to understand that there is a function. An empty wallet, for instance, is a good reason to get out of bed in the morning. If the amount of dollars earned that day is divisible just by itself and no other number? That is really all not that exciting when hungry or thirsty.
— -
For your third remark, it looks like you are overstating the induction.
I am literally adding nothing at the beginning, so your half a cell example (kudos by the way, because your brain works well) does not apply. Nothing is created or stated that is not already there. The readers need to look at what is there, mull it over, and make up their own minds.
[I added this later:
The zero is that of zero materialization. Prior to matter, I am not claiming there was 0. Far from. Rather, transformation took place from that what was prior to becoming matter. The zero of zero matter is therefore placed squarely on top of what existed prior. Apologies for not making that clear because it is rather simple.
In this table, you can see the setup. Most scientists today try to tell everything in one, green storyline. In the Big Whisper model, there are two story lines. The grey storyline ended and made the green one start, through transformation.]
— -
But I do see that I need to clear this up:
The pattern belongs to 1. The pattern does not belong to 0.
The setup is the six pack of numbers.
Yes, 2 and 3 were already taken out of the equation. The six pack was simply the setup with the most logical and abundant perspectives on the prime numbers.
The pattern is found among the first-and-five locations in the six packs and it is based on all first-and-five-location numbers. All these numbers are involved (hence, zero is not part of that setup because it is not in one of those spots).
1 is the first number, and to get to 5 there are zero steps down. It is found on the same line.
All following parts of the pattern involve steps taking down the six-pack ladder. But for 1, there are always two steps per line, and the pattern is
(1 + 0). First placement (1), zero steps down (5), one step down (7), zero steps down (11), one step down (13), cetera et cetera.
1 is a funny number in light of prime numbers. We can say that, because of 1, there are actually always two numbers that can be used to divide a prime number: the number itself and 1. That would make the definition less strong, because prime numbers are then numbers that can be divided by two numbers, not just one.
But we might as well say that the information is moot. Five oranges divided by 1 are still the same five oranges. The division is moot; there is zero effect. But that is basically what is shown in the last table in the article: all these numbers in first-and-fifth places can indeed be divided by 1. (Yes, as can all numbers, even zero.)
The action of dividing all these numbers by 1 is real. However, the effect is zero.
— -
The conclusion one has to come to is that having to use zero while working only with the natural numbers, even when declaring something totally unimportant like taking zero steps down, then zero must be a natural number, too.
In a translation of this setup: one can say that ‘nothing’ is an English word. You probably agree with me. But in this analogy, many folks are saying that the word is not part of the English language. They say that it is a word, but it is not English.
— -
If you say that what is found is unimportant, then that would be in agreement with what is found.
Zero is the number to use with the action of making something unimportant.
Making something unimportant is natural.
Zero is a natural number because it embodies (sic) that annulling action. By annulling the step down, there are two numbers ‘in play’ per six pack.
— -
Thank you again, Brian, for looking at this pesky information and sharing your view with me. Yes, if you do not agree with me, please let me know. Or if you have further observations, please share with me. I appreciate it much.
