For Anthony Corkern who asked me to define Zen.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THIS STATEMENT {'MATHEMATICAL ABSOLUTES EXIST'} IS TRUE. WELL TO START MATHEMATICS ITSELF DOES NOT EXIST. SPECIFICALLY OBVIOUSLY MATHEMATICAL ABSOLUTES DON'T EXIST. THERE IS NO ZERO OR INFINITY OR EVEN A PERFECT UNIT DEFINITION OF ONE BEYOND THE REALM OF MATHEMATICS.YET WITHIN MATHEMATICS WE PRESUME PROOFS CAN BE MADE REGARDING ABSOLUTES. APPARENTLY THEN THE THEOREM MIGHT BE ILL FORMED. {'MATHEMATICAL IN-ABSOLUTES DO NOT EXIST'} SEEMS TO BE ALL THAT WE MIGHT ACCOMPLISH. THIS IS AS ALSO ACTUALLY NOT QUITE THERE. THAT IS FROM WITHIN MATHS ABSOLUTES ARE AXIOMATIC. AND FROM WITHOUT THEY ARE IN-EXISTANT. SO THE RESTATE THEOREM SIMPLY ADMITS THAT OUTSIDE OF MATHS THERE ARE IN- ABSOLUTE CONCEPTS. YET MATHS CAN NOT THEORIZE ABOUT NON- MATHS.THAT IS THE RESTATE SIMPLY SAYS {'NON-MATHEMATICAL IN- ABSOLUTES DO EXIST'} IF THESE TWO RESTATINGS WERE LOGICAL PROVINESS THEN {"NON-MATHEMATICAL IN- ABSOLUTES"↦"MATHEMATICAL ABSOLUTES"} YET OF COURSE IS NOT BE CAUSE OF CONSTRUCTIVENESS CONCERN. AND ALSO JUST SILLY. HOWEVER IF WE LOOK AT CERTAIN ABSOLUTES MAYBE SOME GET AROUND CONSTRUCTIVE CONCERNS AND OTHERS DO NOT. AND ONE IN PARTICULAR MIGHT GET AROUND ABSOLUTE-GET-AROUNDS VS ABSOLUTE-NOT-GET-AROUNDS EQUIVALENTLY. {"NON-MATHEMATICAL ABSENCES IN-EXISTING"↦"MATHEMATICAL ABSENCES"} THAT IS DOES MATHEMATICS ITSELF NOT EXISTING FROM A NON-MATHS VIEWPOINT IMPLY THE EXISTANCE OF ABSOLUTES LIKE ZERO FROM WITHIN MATHS. THIS IS PARADOXICALLY DEFINING ZERO IN A WAY WE CAN THINK OF AS NEGATIVE ZERO. IF ZERO IS IMPLIED WITHIN MATHS BY MATHS OWN IN-EXISTANCE THEN CLEARLY THERE IS A RECURSION {(-0)=(-0)^∞}. UN-FORTUNETELY THEN TO 'RECONSTITUTE ZERO' REQUIRES {(-0)^∞^0=0}. THERE CAN BE NO RATIO OF ZERO WITHIN MATHS TO ZERO WITHOUT IF THE LATER IS A FUNCTION OF TH FORMER. SO THERE CAN BE NO RATIO EITHER. NOR CLEARLY A SIMPLE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE NO {0=0-0} IS DEFINED AT ALL YET. A GOOSE CHASE. HOWEVER WHAT ABOUT GRANDLY {"NON MATHEMATICAL NON-SENSE"↦"MATHEMATICAL SENSE"} HERE WE ARE CLAIMING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE INEXISTENCE OF MATHEMATICS FROM AN OUTSIDERS VIEW ALSO IT'S UN-INTELLIGEBILILTY. THIS SPEAKS TO THE PROPERTY OF ABSOLUTES MORE CLEARLY. MATHS IS RATHER NONSENSICAL TO FINITE BEINGS AS REGARDS FOR EXAMPLE INFINITE PROPERTIES. YET IS THIS MORE CONSTRUCTIVE. PERHAPS THE VERY FACT THAT AXIOMATIC ZERO APPEARS AS AXIOMATIC NEGATIVE ZERO MATTERS NOW. WE'VE SHOWN THAT NEGATIVE ZERO CANNOT DEFINE ZERO. DENYING THE UTILITY OF MINUS ZERO WOULD STOP RECURSION. SO IF F(0)≠0 BECAUSE G(-0)≠(-0) IS CLAIMED AS AXIOMATIC WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PERCEPTION OF SENSICALITY. WELL {"MATHEMATICAL NON-SENSE"¬↦"MATHEMATICAL SENSE"} WAS STANDARD STATE WITHOUT CONSTRAINT FROM THE RECURSION WITHIN MATHS. IE (-0)=(0). AND NOW THE NEGATION OF THAT WITH OUR DISAXIOMATIZING OF ZERO? WE NEED TO TAKE THE NOTION OF NEGATIVE ABSENCE SERIOUSLY FROM WITHOUT. THAT IS STOPPING RECURSION FROM WITHIN AS 'NO MINUS ZERO' CAN RELAX OUR ABSENCE VIEWING WITHOUT TO,LITERAL {"MATHS IS NEGATIVE ZERO'}. THIS HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT ON ITS SENSELESS APPRECIATION. {'MATHS IS SENSELESS ONLY TO THE DEGREE THAT NEGATIVE ZERO IS RECURSIVE"} IN OTHERVWORDS ALLOWING {'THIS STATEMENTING IS FALSE"↔"ALL MATHS IS FALSE"} IS NOW DISALLOWED. WE CANNOT MAKE PARADOXES THAT RELY ON A NOT OPERATOR. WE CAN ONLY PARADOXICALLY SAY THING THAT ARE AXIOMATIZED FROM WITHOUT AS NON LOGIC. SO {A LITERAL STATING OF ZENO'S PARADOX IS POSSIBLE AS FAR AS IT'S OWN METAPHORICAL APPROACH TO A MEANINGFUL LITERALLLISM OF ITSELF"}. THAT IS GOO YETBIS REALLY A STATEMENT ANALOG OF THIS QUESTION BLOCK: {'IS THIS A MEANINGFUL QUESTION'↠'YES'¬↠'NO'}. A QUESTION BLOCK TELLS US IF THIS WERE RECURSED WHAT WE COULD NOT DO AS FAR AS STATEMENTING MORE SUCCINCTLY. SO NOW INFINITE SENSELESSNESS FROM WITHOUT CAN LEAD TO ITS DECONSTRUCTION FROM WITHIN MATHS PROVINESS! WHAT INEXISTS SENSELESSLY OUTSIDE OF MATHSS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IS THE GROUND STATE OF DISINFORMATION. AN INFORMATIONLESS ENDLESS, SPECIFICALLY POSITIVE ENDLESS STRINGS OF IS WHAT MUSTED BE DELICATELY HANDLED WITH PIN MATHS. IF E^0=Π^0 ITS RATHER EASY TO DERIVE THIS WAY. {(((∞+1)/(∞))^∞)*(Π)=(((∞+1)/ (∞))^∞)*(Π)} TAKING INFINITE ROOT [AND NOT REVEALING PLAY REGARDING OVER-INFINITE POWERS OF IMAGINARIES HERE, NOW] {(∞+1)/(∞)*(E+(1/∞))=(((∞+1)/(∞))^∞)*(E+(1/∞))} REWRITING. {(∞)/(∞-1)*(E+(1/∞))=(((∞)/(∞-1))^∞)*(E+(1/∞))} AND CHANGING SIDES {(∞-1)/(∞)*(E+(1/∞))=(((∞-1)/(∞))^∞)*(E+(1/∞))} CALL THAT $ IN A PERHAPS UNFORGIVABLE CO-OPT. SAY 'RAVENOUS'. {$*(E+(1/∞)-(1∞))=$*E} NOW TAKE {(1/∞)}=$/∞}, {$*E*∞+$+$=E*(∞-1)} WHERE {$/∞+$/∞=$/∞} SO {$*E*∞+$=E*∞-E} OMG {$*E*(∞+1)=E*(∞-1)} AND {$=E*(∞-1)/E*(∞+1)} YET THE RAVENOUS NUMBER IS THE NEGATIVE MEANINGLESS NUMBER THAT CAN BE ALLOWED IN-MATH SO TRUST US THAT {$=((1/∞)-1)=E^0} THE VENOMOUS NUMBER THAT IS THE SENSELESS NUMBER THAT CAN ONLY EXIST OUT-MATH [SORRY MORE ANNOYINGEST CO-OPTING] IS {¥=(1-(1/∞)=√N)^0}. ANYONE CAN 'HAVE A GO' AT PROVING THE RATIO DIAGONALS OF DIAGONALS OF A SQUARE IN-MATH MUST DIFFER FROM OUT-MATHS BECAUSE IS A MEANINGLESS MODIFICATION TO A UNIT VALUE. SIMPLY PROVED ABSTRACTLY AN INFINITE SQUARE CAN EXIST ABSTRACTLY THOUGH NOT CONCRETELY. IF WE PRESUME AN AVERAGE RHOMBUS EXISTING IN- MATH AND OUT-MATH. BUT THE SAY 90 DEGREE TURN DISPLACES BETWEEN MATH NON-CENTIRC AND MATH CENTRIC? THEN INCONSISTENCY IS PRESERVED AND... AND INCOMPLETENESS WHICH MAY BE THE TYPICALLY UNCONSIDERED GODELIAN OPTION. INCONSISTENT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY QUADRANTS CANNOT JUST BE ROTATED HOWEVER. AND INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THE VENOMOUS NUMBER AKA ¥ MUST NEVER BE UTILIZED AS SUCH. BEST CONVERTED MOST GENERALLY A FUNCTION OF THE GOLDEN AND/OR SILVER RATIO'S.