7 - Mathematics must also be a two-oneness...
Now the cube as third power of Đ1 as oerdimension of geometrics is identified as a static & immobile identity, the third power of the first oerdimension, the restored relation with Đ2 as oerdimension of dynamics did identify the cylinder as new unity of volume, a "dynamic volume". This also emphasizes the necessity to apply the principle of a two-oneness as exclusive building block of the process of creation etc. to “mathematics” as unification of (a static + a dynamic part), one can't exist without the other.
This “static part” is result of human impatience and believe that human creativity can exceed Nature when dynamics as main characteristic of Nature is denied & darkmooned and when a false interpretation of "symmetry" is leading to the invention of negative distances and hence negative numbers, not accepting the fact that negative unities don't exist in Nature. resulting in negative (static) mathematical operations like “subtractions”, “divisions” and “taking roots”.

          This also discloses a conflict with Leibniz’ “calculus” because his infinitisemal small 
          quantities which are "as close to zero but not equal to zero" are denying Ð1 as
          smallest possible unity of distance or length in Nature's process of creation, now
          inseparably related to smallest possible unity of Ð2 as oerdimension of dynamics
          and its period of thime..

When the oerprinicple of a two-oneness is not applied, the special role of number " 5 " 
can't be identified to be the first natural (counting) number which fails to be a two-oneness
even when its square root has been identified by the Franciscan monk and mathematician Luca Paciola [1445-1514CE] as "golden or divine ratio" because of its abundant appearance in Nature is shown by "regular pentagons of five sides or edges as line segments of equal length".  

This also necessitates to verify if various beta-symbols and affiliated alpha-words which were conceived in the past as part of what now is identified as static math to verify if they
are in accordance with all oerconditions, being unique & unambiguous. If not, they must be purified.

7.1 - Watching the power of powers
When Renée Descartes published his “Géometrie” he Introducing two straight D1- lines as  X- and Y- axes in a flat D2- plane, their directions must be perpendicular for reasons of  symmetry, choosing a local zero 0 as intersection as well as a unity of distance or length. 

This allows "to project" a point P in this flat D2- plane on the X- axis by a line which is parallel to the perpendicular Y- axis, its intersection with the X- axis now defines the distance to the common local zero of
X- and Y- axes, quantisizing the “x- coordinate” by " a "  unities. The projection of P on the Y- axis is similar, quantisizing the “y- coordinate” by " b " unities, the x- coordinate always first:

                                                                           P (x, y)  = a. x ¹ + b. y ¹

but although this seems a surprisingly simple method, it will create much confusion when the coordinate along the Y- axis as geometric identity will be changed to symbolise other physical dimensions as discovered and developed by mankind. Especially after the
invention of zero, 0 which did allow to extend “algebra” to the other side, defining “negative quantities”. Was the now positive + X- axis always going to the right side, in the  horizontal direction of reading which is standard in the Western part of the globe, the negative --X- axis is now going to the left-side, of course based on the same chosen unity of distance or length to avoid ambiguities, the positive +Y- axis going upwards in vertical direction. 

Further developments were leading to "negative operations" in static mathematics like “sub-tractions, divisions and taking roots”. But this did not explain the fundamental problem of “negative -- surfaces” as result of a positive +Y- coordinate multiplied with a negative --X- one, or the inverse, only -a  times  -a =  + a² .
The same problem arises when a “polar” system of coordinates was developed, P now laying on the circumference of a circle with O as origin or “pole”, its distance OP being the radius. The part of the D2- plane between the +X- axis and OP being the “angle” as unity of Chinese origin: they did note when six same identical “equilateral” triangles -which do have three sides of equal length- are sharing one point in common, they are surrounded by the circumference of a circle, the common point being its origin O, the length of a side being its radius. And because their hexagisemal system of numbers is based on the 
special role of number 1 and 2, the multiplication of 3 by 4  results in 12 and a repeating multiplication with the next number 5 results in 60. So each angle in each equilateral triangle was chosen to be 60 degrees, shown as “ 60º ” arriving at 360 degrees around the origin, their concept of “Yin and Yang” showing 180º each. 

Angles are usually symbolised by Greek names, here “theta” and its symbol “ θ “ allowing to invent geometric functions like “sines , cosines, tangents and co-tangents”. Subjected to Pythagoras’ formula which is mandatory in any flat D2- plane, the two coordinates a and b also quantisize c as radius of the circle on which circumference P is laying, so when c as acknowledged as twice the radius their second powers of the
beta-formula  x² + y² = z²  now show  a² + b² = c² = 2² = 4 ... 

        OP has not only a length but also a direction, as two characteristics which also define a flat
         D2- plane, this was later called to be a “vector”, symbolised by the point of an “arrow”. 
         By its definition it is not allowed to change neither the magnitude or length of a vector nor its
         direction, “hence a parallel movement is allowed”. But this actually is a breach with its origin O,
         predicting & announcing disasters when vectors aill be applied...

The final observation// conclusion must be that both methods to define & quantisize the location of  point P as D0- point of nothing in the flat D2- plane by two perpendicular
XY- axes and coordinates P(a, b) or P(x, y) actually define & quantisize a rectangular “surface”. And when polar coordinates are used, this surface is part of a circle defined & quantisized by that radius and angle.

 

The jump from a D2- plane into D3- space
Once the formula x² + y² = z²  has been discovered, making Pythagoras famous, the jump from a flat D2- plane to D3- space is easy when other D2- planes are perpendicular to this D2- plane, as well as to each other, now defining D3- space as “orthogonal” space of “right" angles of 90º.  This right angle allows  the repeating application of Pythagoras’ formula showing the three coordinates, hence

                          P(x, y, z)  = x² + y² + z²  = 1² = 1¹ = 1⁰ = 1

hence the length of the radius as unity in the flat D2- plane is now replaced by the length of the radial emphaszing that a radius is not a radial because a radius rotates in a flat
D2- plane. And when the repeating application of Pythagoras’ formula  is taken as origin of D3- space which will be spherical for reasons of symmetry, the presence of negative (counting) numbers on the three axes seems to be justified even when the third power of such negative (counting) number is negative -- , suggesting to quantisize a negative volume, a peculiarity in static math of humans which is usually denied & darkmooned. ... 

The new natural start of the beginning with nothing did show how a quantity of one unity is in perfect opposition to a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity, being one of the first inseparable two-onenesses. But the two-oneness of the verbs (defining + quantisizing) can't be completed because D3- space can’t be quantisized because all three X, Y and Z- axes are boundless, unlimited and infinite in “length, width and height”. In other words:
the origin of this spherical space can't be the origin of D3- space, being just some D0- point of nothing,  hiding a secret which requires more patience till you fully master the art of counting by watching the power of powers...

Another consequence of using alpha-letters in algebraic formulas in Euclid’s geometry of a flat D2- plane or in D3- space is the fact that powers were no longer limited to 3 even generalized the p^th power and when -in perfect opposition to natures second operation of “unifying by multiplying”- the mathematical operation of “dividing” leading to zero powers because x^{-- p} = 1 / x^{+ p}. And when the generalized definition shows “how the total power of a number of multiplications of the same base number x is just unified by adding”,
x ^p . x ^q . x ^r = x ^{p + q + r} , this also shows how the initial, inseparable relation with the third direction is broken and the multiplication of x^{-- p} . x^{+ p} = x⁰  = 1⁰ = 1¹ = 1...

Although Descartes and many other mathematicians did not accept the existence of negative distances in nature, further development of static mathematics by human beings did use Descartes’ notation of natural (counting) numbers or even alpha-letters the lifted position. Reading the generalized definition in alpha-words, shows how any dimension, characteristic, identity or entity etc. etc. which has lost all its identifying powers “will be unified with the one”, hence it could be said that this power is “almighty”...

 

7.2 - The Natural Start of the Beginning with Nothing is violated...
Now algebra as part of static human mathematics, has no limit to powers, this did cause a breach with the maximum power of three in the geometry of nature based on three independent and hence perpendicular directions. However next analyses of Descartes’ notation of powers or exponents in their lifted position does allow some peculiar observations and conclusions, showing how the oerconditions will guide to the third oerdimension, simply because the quantity of mass or matter of your body is proving how there must have been a “process of creation of some thing out of no thing”. So as result of the breach with the maximum power of three, simply watching the power of powers will restore the loss of unique & undeniable information:

0 -The power of the two-oneness a ⁰ + b ⁰ = c ⁰ results in the false beta-formula
1 + 1 = 1, a result which is just as false as the beta-formula 1 + 1 = 2, showing how both hints never were identified as “early warnings” not to breach the inseparable relation between  Ð1 as smallest possible unity of geometric distance or lengthnatural (counting) numbers and can never be broken...

1 - The jump to the first power shows the general formula a ¹ + b ¹ = c ¹, actually being the unification of “a unities of a chosen unity of D1- distance or length to a locally chosen non-natural number zero 0 + ( plus, as instruction to unify) “b unities of the same chosen unity of D1- distance or length to the same locally chosen non-natural number zero 0, now unifying the total D1- distance or length c to the same zero 0, and since there is nothing else since the Natural Start of the Beginning, this mathematical operation is exclusively related to this (straight) D1- line.

Now the chosen unity of D1- distance is defined & quantisized as smallest possible unity
of distance in the process of creation, Ð1  is the absolute first oerdimension, later disclosed to be inseparably related to Ð2  as oerdimension of dynamics.

So even when alpha-letters were introduced in algebra, this means that only those
D0- points of nothing on the straight D1- line of natural (counting) numbers are identified when they would have a whole natural (counting) number “times” as alpha-instruction to be multiplied with the same chosen unity of distance between number 1 and the special locally chosen non-natural (counting) number zero, 0. So when now a quantity of such unities is symbolised by a and another quantity of such unities is symbolised by b their unification will show  a + b = c which doesn’t change when their first powers are shown...
n other words: it is this unification of letters a ¹ + b ¹ which quantisize “ c ” as total
D1- distance to the non-natural number zero 0, this means that whatever alpha-letters are chosen, there is always an inseparable relation with a D1- or Ð1 as first oerdimension.

 

 

Although the application of alpha-letters might be hiding the chosen unity, the series of natural (counting) numbers is showing how the length of the D1- line of nothing is boundless, unlimited and infinite, also showing how there is a boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of solutions for the unification of two natural (counting) numbers a ¹ + b ¹ even when -by convention- it was decided not to mention first powers any more.

2 - The jump to the second power shows the general formula a ² + b ² = c ² which made Pythagoras famous, unifying two -and no more than two- terms as identities of second powers. Numerous proofs were found to “algebraic problems, using lines and areas for numbers and products” [G, p297].

Since a and b are always perpendicular to each other, at the “right angle”, the choice of intersection of X- axis and the Y- axis as origin is absolutely wrong: O as origin of the circumscribing circle is the only one, halfway the hypotenuse c of the triangle, its radius being ½ c. Hence c ² = 4 R ² is showing the surface of the square which encloses the circle...

The consequence is that any length of radius R -of course longer than Ð1- results in a: 

                                 “boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of solutions”

but these so called “triples” like 3, 4 and 5 or  5, 12 and 13 or  7, 24 and 25 or 9,
40 and 41... etc. etc. do showgaps, hence the total quantity of whole number solutions for a² + b² = c²  is less than the total quantity of whole number solutions for a¹ + b¹ = c¹...

This also shows how alpha-words like “boundless, unlimited and infinite” can’t be defined & quantisized, staying incomprehensible for ever and ever... contrary to what they might have told you.

 

3 - The jump from Pythagoras’ second powers to third powers took more than 2000 years till the French multi-lingual legal officer Pierre de Fermat [1606 -1655] displayed his
mathematical capacities in many fields of analytical geometry, number- and probability-
theories. In1637 CE he presented his statment in Latin  to Descartes “that there is no solution of whole natural numbers at all... and in addition to this he added: this conclusion is also valid for all similar equations of higher powers”. Unfortunately -as he wrote in the margin of the book he was reading- "the margin was too small to jot down the proof"...

But the suggestion that Descartes’ one and only Universe “had to be the addition
(= unification) of two parts” was reason “to call Fermat the greatest asshole on Earth”.
And the idea of what is now called a “boundless, unlimited and infinite” quantity could not be accepted as shown by Fermat’s correspondence with the British mathematician John Wallis [1616 -1708CE]. This was not successful either: Wallis’ vague description of “imaginary coordinates” are clear indications that he didn’t get hold of both subjects although he presented in 1685 a new symbol for infinity: a horizontal eight “ ∞ ” since 1865 CE known as “belt or strip of Möbius” which denies & darkmoones the fact that a flat strip which is manipulated this way, is no longer part of a flat D2- plane but part of D3- space.

     Apparently time wasn’t right to put the alpha-part right and accept that a "boundless, unlimited
     and infinite quantity” is not “whole” or even imaginary, since the new natural start with no thing
     characterised to be incomprehensible and un-imaginary, but ... something was dawning and
     “Fermat’s Last Theorem” of 1637CE became a famous challenge, motivating mathematicians to
     arrive at a “proof based on generally accepted, formalised, mathematical standards”, causing at
     least one suicide but also saving  one life, and although Fermat' latin description did not show a
     beta-formula his FLT accumulated international fame ever since.
     But now the new natural start of the beginning with nothing and dynamic  mathematics of Nature
     did restore the broken relations between the Ð1  as oerdimension of geometry and Ð2 as
     oerdimension wre restored, emphasizing the importance to watch the power of powers, the utterly
     simple solution can be understood by everybody living in one of the two parts of the Universe... 

In other words: just simple watching powers shows also how alpha-letters which are based on some darkmooned unity can not be transformed into natural (counting) numbers of beta-formulas, the zero^th powers in a ⁰ + b ⁰= c ⁰ = 1 + 1 = 1 being a first early warning...

The jump to the unifying two-oneness of first powers a ¹ + b ¹ = c ¹has a true “boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity” of solutions of whole natural (counting) numbers, but this quantity of boundless, unlimited and infinite quantity of solutions of whole natural (counting) numbers is decreasing to a lesser quantity for Pythagoras’ two-oneness of second powers a ² + b ² = c ²; arriving at “no solution at all ” for Fermat’s unifying
two-oneness of third powers even when he did not mention the beta-formula
a ³ + b ³ = c ³, all pointing to a same origin of a system of coordinates with the same zero as origin, not only identified as non-natural (counting) number but als hiding a secret... What more indications are necessary to show to be on the wrong path?

Since the new natural start of the beginning with nothing there are several fundamental remarks to be observed and accepted: static mathematics denies all relations with nature by darkmooning all geometric dimensions as well as classic time and -hence- the true nature of zero is not understood when it is passed,  accepting how a boundless, unlimited and infinite series of positive + (counting) numbers seems to be perfectly opposed to  a boundless, unlimited and infinite series of negative -- (counting) numbers and the three positive operations of unifying by adding, by muliplying and by powerlifting are opposed to the three “negative operations like subtracting, dividing and taking roots”, denying & darkmooning their un-natural identities as well as the non-natural identity of (counitng) number zero and its symbol " 0 ".
Secondly: the oer-principle of symmetry is denied & darkmooned.

When the consistent series of two-onenesses is respected, this also did disclose the inseparable relation with Ð2 as oerdimension of dynamics and its period in squared seconds, hence one could also expect that the same consistent series of two-onenesses based on Ð1& Ð2 must be leading to Ð3 showing how the empty volume of the cylinder must get its unity of content, unifying something + no thing...
 

7.3 - The zero^thpower identifies the centre of the Universe
As consequence of his own thinking and his Géometry, Descartes was convinced that negative distances did not exist in nature so his search “for that what would be contained in a volume of third powers” was leading to his statement “that a void (vacuum) can’t exist in nature, because he would always miss the necessary observations to say this with certainty”...arriving at the idea that space would be filled by three types of mass: “fine, medium and coarse”, eternally rotating in whirlpools or vortexes.
After he developed the present notation of “powers or exponents”, it was realized that the third power of the geometric unity would define all space there is, its Latin name being the “Universe” and as consequence of “symmetry” the shape of the Universe can only be a sphere, there is no more, although history shows that the basic idea of “infinity” was not properly understood and using even two additional alpha-words “boundless, unlimited” makes this not easier.

Now Fermat’s algebraic formula of 1637CE is identified as two-oneness which unifies two -and no more than two- terms of third powers, the broken relation between static and dynamic math must be purified to bring this formula in agreement with all oerconditions. Since the mathematical operation has no restricting conditions, each term of Fermat’s formula can be multiplied with the mysterious number pi and a constant 4/ 3, showing the unification of two spheres:

                                        4/ 3 π. a ³ + 4/ 3 π. b ³ = 4/ 3 π. c ³

This shows that the static cubes are transformed into dynamic spheres, did Fermat state how the unification of two -and no more than two- static cubes would have no solution of whole natural (counting) numbers, the unification of the two spheres at the left side of the “ = ” symbol shows how one of the two D0- centres at the left side is denied & darkmooned, whereas the unified sphere at the right side has one unique & unambiguous centre or origin, being a “very special” D0- point of nothing coined the “Oersprong”. But although it is seducing to show an image of two spheres on scale on paper, one of them is “boundless, unlimited and infinite large”, just as the unified sphere at the other side.

But Descartes’ one & only Universe must be a sphere for reasons of symmetry, as defined by the third power of one single radial in the required unique & unambiguous way. And even when this radial is boundless, unlimited and infinite long which makes it impossible to quantisize its volume, Fermat’s  purified formula shows how it must be a two-oneness, having a unique & unambiguous D0- point of nothing as Beginning, a very special
D0- point of nothing and now Ð1 and Ð2  are identified as first two oerdimensions, finally arriving at “ Ð0 “ the almighty power which unifies all that has lost all its identifying powers its zero power unifying that with theOne...

But even when you say this in Latin, it can be no surprise that there will be a collision with the ruling religion of that time, hence the necessary jump in thinking in mathematics could not be made... hence the struggle for truth continued. 

 

Next table shows the fundamental distinctions between static mathematics of human beings & dynamic mathematics of nature and its process of creation of mass, matter etc. etc.: 

 

.

.