OP seems legit crazy so I usually don't read what he writes but what johnsorrow wrote is a legit point.

I repeat the foundation of your math/choice of your axion is subjective

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

i would say 95% of regular people into math do not even know this and that is alarming.

to not first learn this is generating bias on a mass scale, we are literally in a mass psychosis

You posted a thread where you claimed 1 x 0 =1

I got one wrong on my algebra regents and aced trig ,calculus and geometry

It seems you are the one that doesn't know simple math AND has something else wrong

No further interaction is needed

I understand that. I feel like I’m focused on the idea of this being a new axiom- so I guess I’m entertaining the idea a bit lol. My best analogy is that if our math was a road system he would be removing all bridges because they have air under them(best I’ve got) despite the fact that we need the bridges for travel. He will then do something with the left over roads to create something new or put them somewhere else where they can operate without the bridges but at what point in my analogy do they believe that the new axiom exists? Is it the part where he removed all the bridges? Does he think he can build a tunnel instead and that’s the new axiom? Or does he think there’s a new underground system that he will find once he digs the tunnels - and if that’s the case there’d just be two systems and unless our system ever needed something from the underground system it would basically be obsolete. Interesting stuff if I’m understanding it correctly . 😂


Edit- I think I figured it out with my analogy. Terrence thinks that bridges were built to make things function but they are abstract so it’s making everything that relies on them wrong.

I’m discussing it with you. I had and have a couple questions

1. Is this new axiom creating a system that will work with the existing system or is it going to completely replace it? I don’t think they would typically replace a system but it sounds like that is the goal so I’m trying to make sure I understand that correctly.

2. Read my analogy and tell me where parts are oversimplified or if it doesn’t fit.

3. What is the actual axiom. Is it just removing an aspect of our current math that makes it work and saying that we just made it up to make it work?

3 is bs. As utility is subjective

2 it is consistent within his current axiom

1 this rule is bs lol and subjective. Not to mention there are massive linguistic filters/censorships you have to bypass to convey these things(but it still gets conveyed)

where can i go to get it conveyed to me. I think it probably makes sense but it doesnt seem like you completely understand it because you cant figure out ways to simplify it or describe it without using 3-5 of the same arguments. I'm assuming theres people that have better explanations for Terrence's framework. "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" Unless thats also not true under terrences axiom

Simple way to visually describe it

https://ibb.co/hp7VMK6

Left box is standard math axiom, right box is terryology

Everything black in the pic is concrete

Everything white in the pic is abstract

Notice how inside of terryology axiom it’s black, and there is a opening

Also notice how the background of the picture is black(concrete)

Many people are stuck inside the left box from years of indoctrination. They can’t even step out of it to view from outside the box. They are literally in a boxed in maze

I don’t claim to be the carpenter. I’m only in concrete reality outside the subjective abstract system looking at it from outside and pointing this out

No, read again, I was not critiquing "Terryology".

It is a historical fact, not my opinion, that mathematical ideas have typically followed steps 1-3 in order to achieve wide adoption.

For example, Newton introduced calculus in the 1700s. For its time, it was clearly stated (1) and internally consistent (2). However, it only gained widespread popularity once Newton demonstrated its utility (3), such as by calculating planetary orbits and explaining gravity, tides, and other phenomena.