The Lawsin Red Herring Paradox

The Lawsin Red Herring is a mathematical paradox that involves diverting a question or solution toward a multiple different correct logical answers or valid conclusions. It is an inscriptional technique or strategy used to find alternatives or new ways of solving problems and correcting "undefined" concepts in the world of numbers, orders, and dimensions. It is designed to develop critical thinking, problem solving skills, and explore new unconventional ideas like the "Axiom of X" and "Rules of Zero" developed by Joey Lawsin.

In philosophy, the purpose of a red herring is to mislead the attention of an argument toward a false conclusion. However, in inscriptional physics, a red herring is used  to formulate an equation or solution with multiple different unique valid answers or conclusions that defy logic based on diversion.

By definition, an equation is a mathematical statement where both sides of the expressions are equal in forms, dimensions, and units of measurement.

For example, the equation x + 2 = 5 tells us that the sum of x and 2 is equal to 5. The variable x can be solved by subtracting 2 from both sides of the equation, which gives x = 3. 

Thus, since x = 3, then x+2=5 is equal to 3+2=5 or 5=5. The conclusion tells us that both sides of the equation is correct.

Inscriptional Physics is a field that deals with the natural equations or set of instructions embedded in every object, from the smallest particle to the massive matter in the universe. Its main goal is to find the mother of all equations, the grand inscription, that governs everything. It also seeks every inherent equation owned by every object, from non-living to living things, sensations to occurrences, existence to no-existence, and everything in between.

In the previous article, we tackled the Codexation Dilemma of the existence of non-existence of numbers, one of the Lawsin Conjectures or Paradox. Here, we will tweak some of the glitches, also known as mathematical red herrings, that should have been corrected way back beforehand.

One of them is the units of measurement. Like numbers, units also follow the same four basic operations of mathematics: such as addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. Other mathematical rules need to be reconsidered. First, let me introduce the rules of zeroes.

The Rules of Zeroes state that::

0 + 0 = (1+1)*(0) = 2 * 0 = 0

0 - 0 = (1-1)*(0) = 0*0 = 0

0 * 0 = 0^1 * 0^1 = 0 ^(1+1) = 0^2 = 0

0 / 0 = 1*0/1*0 = 1/1*0/0 = 1*0 = 0

         = (0/1)*(1/0) = 0*1/1*0 = 0/0 = 0   ???

1 + 0 = 1 ~

1 - 0 = 1 ~

1 * 0 = 1 ~

1 / 0 = 1 ~

1 / 1 = 1 ~

0 + 1 = 1 ~

0 - 1 = -1 ~

0 * 1 = 1 ~

0 / 1 = 1 

Since the proofs are evidently valid without contradictions, we can apply such rules now with variables such as the letter X. Let us call these rules the Axioms of X.,

 x + x = 2x.

x - x = 0x.

x * x = x^2

x / x = x

x / 0 = x

We were told that a variable, number, expression, or object,  when divided by itself, is always equal to one.  This rule seems true but if you examine it once again, there is actually a glitch. For example:

6 kg + 2 kg = 8 kg.

6 C - 2 C = 4 C.

6 m * 2 m = 12 m^2.

6 s / 2 s = 3 s/s = 3s

By following the rule x/x =1, we notice that the fourth statement is obviously wrong. People commonly think that the answer is 3 seconds. But the result should be stated correctly as 3 sec/sec or simply 3 without a unit But because of the rule x/x=1, the right answer should be 3 and no unit of measure (unitless) at all. However, to preserve the prescribed correct unit of the equation, and to correct this glitch dilemma, I introduced the superscript degrees symbol (^0), since anything raised to the power of zero is always equal to one. This is represented as X^0=1.

Thus, in our example, instead of using s/s, we can preserve the unit second(s) by raising the unit to the power of zero. In this case, the s/s can now be notated as (s/s)^0 or s^0. The s^0 preserves the integrity of the unit, which is the unit second. And since s/s = 1, and s^0=1 as well, then the result of the equation is not disturbed at all. 

Therefore, to rewrite the fourth equation with the correct unit:

6 s / 2 s = (6/2)(s/s) = (6/2)(s^0) = 3s^0 (3*1 = 3). 

The unit can now be both visible and invisible depending on one’s preferences. However, rationally and mathematically, this division by itself can be co completely altered based on the rules of zeroes and the axioms of x. If we follow them, the fourth equation’s unit will no longer be unitless since the unit second(s) is now visible.

Therefore, to rewrite the rule of division by itself, we can now say that when a variable, number, expression, or object is divided by itself, the result is always equal to itself.

Also, following the rules of zeroes, we can now have a multiplicative inverse for zero. When we divide 0/0, it can also be expanded to (0/1)*(1/0). Notice that 1/0 is the reciprocal of zero. Since 0 has now a reciprocal, then (0)*(1/0) or 0*1/1*0 = 0/0 = 0.

Thus in summary, when 0/0=0, then we can now rationally and mathematically correct three major problems in math: namely, the unit of measurement by division, division by zero, and division by itself.

On the other hand, the Lawsin Conjecture, also known as the Paradox of the Non-existence of Existence, is a self-contradictory statement based on the Codexation Dilemma in relation to the Single Theory of Everything. In simple terms, the conjecture asserts that everything both exists and never exists at all.

For instance, the ideas of Zero and One are abstract constructs. They don’t exist. They never had any existence. They are not real. They are neither material nor physical objects. They solely exist in the mind by assumption. In Mathematics, they are known as Numerals. 

When Zero is represented by the symbol 0 and One with 1 by association or definition, we technically label the symbols or words as Numbers. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of abstract numerals. Through symbolic representation, the 2 digits 0 & 1 are now materially created outside the mind - the physical world; the world outside of ourselves, the inherent world that existed a long time ago before the evolution of the mind. 

If definition, representation, association, or assumption materially created the abstract ideas of Zero & One, does this mean they are now real, like physically real? 

If I write 0 and 1 on a paper, does this mean they are now materially or physically real? Does this mean they exist physically, now? Are these written symbols proof of their existence? If the idea of 0 and 1 becomes materially 0 and 1 on paper, are they real concrete objects, living in existence now, or still abstract, imaginary, or imagined? 

Another glitch that needs to be corrected is the Mathematical Order of Operations known as PEMDAS or BODMAS. These orders should be revised due to the five collaborating pieces of evidence that I have deduced while working on my single theory. They are: 

Proof #1. The operators, plus (+), minus(-), cross(x), obelus(/), and exponent(^e)  can produce answers or results. They can add, subtract, multiply, divide, and raise numbers, respectively. When engaged mathematically, they provide some fixed answers. However, a parenthesis does not produce any answer or result, at all. It acts only as a simple holder of numbers, and variables, inside its brackets.

For example, 4 + 5 = 9, 9 - 8 = 1, 8 / 4 = 2, 7 x 3 = 21, and 6 ^2 = 36. All the operands on these notations or expressions produce some kind of result or answer. But when we put a number inside a bracket, like (4), the parenthesis is not doing anything except that it is just embracing the number inside its cell. It does not or cannot produce an outcome.

Now, if we consider the parenthesis as a property of identity, where it carries an exponent, except one, and becomes a part of the exponential family, then the parenthesis can now produce a result. For example, when we raise it to the power of zero, it produces a result equivalent to one. Thus, Pemdas can now be re-arranged logically as E M D A S, without the parenthesis.

Proof #2: MDAS is the forerunner of all mathematical operations. They are the first four operands we learned at an early age in our lives. They are the first four original operators we loved to play with numbers when we were studying math. Then we progress to exponents and factorials. Because of this primary progression from simple to more complex operations, we can place MDAS first in the order, and add the E last, like in MDASE.

Proof #3: Aside from the magnificent four, plus the exponent, another essential operand must be added to the orders of mathematical operation. This is the factorial operand represented by the exclamation point (!). A factorial also generates a result, like zero factorial is equal to one (0!=1). Thus if F is added to the series, then the complete order of operations now becomes MDASFE.

Proof #4: Scientifically, when we solve for X in non-numbers-all-variables equations, we usually simplify the equation first. We find the formula for X. Once simplified, we now solve the value of X.

Proof #5: The term equation stalemate, or equation freeze, was coined by Lawsin to describe an equation where it can no longer be solved without deviating from the rules of operations.

Due to all these rational, mathematical, psychological, scientific, and interpretational pieces of evidence, MDASFE should be used instead of PEMDAS or BODMAS, and its mnemonic should read as MDAS For Ever!

Proofs why the Orders of Mathematical Operations is important in the field of Inscription Physics:

The Lawsin Mathematical Red Herrings:

A1.)

1+2+3+4(1+2+3+4) = x

(4!)(4!) = x

(4!)^2 = x

(24)^2 = x

x = 576

A2.)

1+2+3+4(1+2+3+4) = x

1+2+3+4(10) = x

(1*10)+(2*10)+(3*10)+(4*10) = x

10+20+30+40 = x

x = 100

A3.)

1+2+3+4(1+2+3+4) = x

(10)(10) = x

x = 100

B.) PEMDAS / BODMAS:

1+2+3+4(1+2+3+4) = x

1+2+3+4(10) = x

1+2+3+40 = x

x = 46

C.) MDASFE:

1+2+3+4(1+2+3+4) = x

[1*(1+2+3+4)] + [2*(1+2+3+4)] + [3*(1+2+3+4)] + [4*(1+2+3+4)] = x

10 + 20 + 30 + 40 = x

x = 100

The Lawsin Red Herring is also a mathematical conjecture that declares a diverted equation or solution as valid, but in fact, misleads or diverts the equation or solution by giving an intended or unintentional answer or conclusion on the basis of incomplete data or incorrect operation.

D.) INVALID RED HERRING:

prove: 0/0 = 2

(100-100)/(100-100) = x

[(10^2)-(10^2)]/[10(10-10)] = x

[(10-10)(10+10)]/[10(10-10)]= x

20/10 = x

x = 2

"Beautiful Things come with Elegant Equations." ~ Joey Lawsin

*Inscriptionist  - sometimes called Lawsinist, is an individual with a passion in seeking or hunting the natural laws of the universe. Inscriptionists are inspired to uncover the beauty and elegance of formulas, equations, and natural laws in every nook and cranny of the universe to unearth the central dogma of life known as the Single Theory of Everything. Inscriptionism is its philosophical doctrine.

About the Author :

Joey Lawsin is the formulator of "The Genie Project". He is a revisionist, an inscriptionist*, a visionary who wants to change the world by rewriting textbooks in science, theology, and philosophy with new concepts that debunk the old social ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as ELFS, and authored the Single Theory of Everything, a concept that was uncovered from the Theories of "Inscription by Design", "Intuitive Machines", and "Generated Interim Emergence".