The Smallest

Previous circles, each was divided into two, which means, each had a diameter of 0.25. Or you could say those were divided into 4 parts, which if each was formed as a circle, then each had a smaller diameter than its previous original size as two circles.

• EQUATION = 2^2[dividers] = 4 circles
• STATUS = there were 4 circles
• The Diameter of each circle = 1 meter (diameter/4 (circles) = 0.25 meter

Previous circles, each was divided into two, which means, each had a diameter of 0.125. Or you could say those were divided into 8 parts, which if each was formed as a circle, then each had a smaller diameter than its previous original size as two circles.

• EQUATION = 2^3[dividers] = 8 circles
• STATUS = there were 8 circles
• The Diameter of each circle = 1 meter (diameter/8 circles) = 0.125

By continuing this form of calculation, again & again ... as many as 1000x divided into:

• 2^1000[dividers] = 1 billion more circles ...
• with diameter = 1 (diameter/1 billion more (circles) = 0.000000000000000000 .... 1 = closer to zero

So any division always gets closer to zero, closer to emptiness.

[[[ The Axiom of Limitation ]]]: thing can't exceed beyond itself

• A cup of tea can't transform into 1 gallon of tea.
• A certain quantity won't be able surpass itself without the addition of others

That's why the one that could pour several times more water than just as many as one teapot it was meant for playing magic, playing tricks, because in essence it's impossible (violating the axiom). So it's not something that violates the axioms, it's just that it seemed didn't make sense, even though hidden reasoning was running into action

If the division was endless, then the question was? Were we trapped by the endless division?

Is the total diameter of the whole circles = the original diameter (1meter) or greater than 1meter?

• if the total diameter of the entire circles (that were divided) = the original diameter (1meter), it means that the division is limited, not infinite
• if the division is infinite, it means that the total diameter of the whole circle is greater than the original diameter (1 meter), this is impossible (violates the axiom of limitation)

So, the truth is that the division is finite

Then what does it mean for "finite division"?

That means there comes a time when it can no longer be divided.

When something is indivisible, it is the smallest thing

Since the division is finite, which means that there is time / moment when it cannot be divided. When there comes a time / moment when something is indivisible, then we find the smallest thing.The division function "f(x) = 1/(x)" always returns the value 0.00000000 .... 1 which can always be divided continuously. This means "function f(x) = 1/(x)" is not the smallest function. Because it never reaches zero.The negative function f(x) = 1/(-x) -0.00000001 and so forth is another dimension of reality.The direction of the dimensions can be described, as on picture

Regardless of the direction of the angle (x1, x2, x3, x(n) ...), it is still a non-zero number: 1, 2, 3 , n ... ; or -1, -2 ,- 3 , n ...; or 0.001, 0.01, 0.1 , n ...; or -0.001, -0.001, -0.1, n ...In a series of numbers is...

(-n)

negative

[[[ AXIOM OF THE DIMENSION OF NUMBER ]]]: there is the dimension of Zero or Not Zero

• The division function f(x) = 1/x, only the smaller value but not the smallest value

What is the concept of negative numbers from the point of view of reality?

 Negative values ​​have different directions of meaning:

•  as a hidden thing
•  as a sign of separation
•  as a complementary sign (pair)

 The main thing is? That negation is existence too. The concept of negation only shows the difference in state, not the opposite of existence, not indicating nothingness.

There is the dimension of emptiness & the dimension that is not empty

• Both are part of the dimension of the existence

1. When we talked about the smallest one, what did it mean? The smallest of what dimension? Empty or non-empty (matter) dimension?As long as it is matter, it can be divided to the smallest value. Any size 0.01 or 0.001 or the smallest 0.0000001 or 0.00000000000000 ... 1 , can always be the smallest. How?

That there is the smallest of matter, and since it can't be divided and we won't get the value of the division, until we force with division, then the value suddenly jumps from the smallest value of any matter (0.01 or 0.001 or the smallest 0.0000001 or 0.00000000000000 ... 1 , can be any number to be considered as the smallest), jumps to the smallest value of division, which is zero.

What does it mean jumping from matter to zero? That we will never know the smallest value of finite division of matter, but we know that the division is finite (according to the axiom), so that at a certain value (0.01 or 0.001 or any number smaller & smaller), at this point, by forcing it into division, there will be a transformation from matter to non-matter, from matter to emptiness.

So, the smallest matter? It is something which, when ... divided, suddenly vanishes, that is the smallest of matter. So the last moment where it couldn't be divided, it's the smallest matter. But it's just the smallest of one of the dimensions of the existence.

The two kind of the smallest?

• First is the smallest of its kind, a matter
• 2nd, is the smallest of different kind of existence. The point is, it's the smallest of its kind that it's not a kind of matter

Where emptiness is the smallest one of the last edge of the sequence of existence

If sorted from the beginning of the existence, from emptiness then formed the smallest matter, then the initial size of the smallest matter can be any value which we didn't know (0.01 or 0.001 or the smallest 0.0000001 or 0.00000000000000 ... 1 , can always be the smallest).

That logically we can always make division over and over again, it is an unrealistic deception.

THE LIMITATION OF THE POSITION OF THE SLICED ONE

In layman's terms, simple explanation. Supposely something is axiomatically indivisible. Then, suppose something is finite that can only be divided by 3 times, so even though logically we can divide more than 3x, in reality we can only divide repeatedly up to 3 slices. Even if we try to slice to get the 4th part by slicing it, we will slip to the left

Even if you try to force and slicing it to get the 4th part and hit one of the 3 slices, and you force it so hard, and it was considered successful, then the next thing you won't get 4 parts, but one of the slices turns (transforms) into a void which is the last trial of our efforts, strongly as an attempt to slice.

So, the ultimate limit of slicing is no longer slicing but destroying, transforming into zero - emptiness