The nature of number

[jonb]

Further to my post on this thread no 34, I am I know over eager, and want to get this off my desk.

So I will presume there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of a set of '0's as it is mentioned in places in the links mentioned on this thread.
There is a second feature in the graph I am using.


If we line up the origial series (A) and the resulting series (B) there is a field between the two that if we move what I have termed the function about in, we alter which part of series (B) we are examining. So for each position in the field we seem to have a distinct function, yet all of these functions relate to each other in what seems to be a consistent way.



As far as I can see this is logical and consistent, and allows me to examine not just individual numbers, but also sets in the series. So if I take two series of unrestricted length and line them up at their neutral '0' point and multiply a given set in series (A) by '0' we get this graph.



At first sight this seems to break down, with the function seeming to be in the same place as the result. The '0' of the function being the same as the '0' of the result, but as we have I think established that cannot be the same. Also if we think of this in geometric terms the function and the result have to be in different places. Also as mentioned on this thread by apophenia in geometry a distance '0' is still a distance so I would contend that the following graph seems consistent.



Now this I think depicts that the series is not just composed of numbers of gradually increasing/decreasing value, but within it are numbers that are of the same value. I have done lots of speculating about this, but I really need some feed back, even if that is to tell me I am as thick as two short planks, and didn't you notice this?