mathematical sex and orientation

natural number unary
0 = 0; _ =_
1 = 1
11 =  2
111 = 3
...

 logarithmic number scale (binary)
0 = 0
1 = 1
10 = 2
11 = 3
... and trinary for comparison  (still a log system)
0
1
2
10
11
... (the most common log scale people use is base 10)

as you may see however there is a bit of a vestigial simplification from the reasoning of nothing as being a type of value causing the unary (the first set) to have a divergent use of a non-unary value; no multiple of one can equal 0, and the passive lack can only indicate nill/null not none.

if we enter into the log scales we can see quickly that there is an arbitrary limit of how complex one "place" can get before needing another one to maintain precision. you can grow the base itself, but still will have limited capacity, beyond which it can't grow without expansion. now people may argue implicit associations, that there is more nothing than something because the value 1 has infinite 0 before it and that implicitly geometricly expands even as the unary or log system gradually ads more meaning.

from this natural number base, we often expand into integers (math sense) we add prefix of paradigm presumption ascribing with greater certainty the value of the number, generally as either + or -. but what is the difference of + and - 0?

symbolically:
0 = female
1 = male
what if we add into/onto that gender and orientation?

well we are already familiar with + and - as being both processes and attributes and them associating with non-zero numbers. but what happens if we use them on zero?

the answer is 'almost everything'. what is the opposite of nothing? what is not nothing? everything. and from here we get a simple way to introduce a variety of concepts:

• zero/nothing
• something/variable  (binning/circumscribing)
• infinity/everything

also it allows an ideological inversion later for variable oriented math rather than number based math. allowing abdication of the arithmetic focus. as well as a tying of both the abstract and litteral ways brains deal with counting.

you have:

+0 as the normal 0 value

-0 as both adding nothing in a specifically negative way, but also an inversion of the integer sequence. this inversion make -0 create a number series in the opposite direction or the + or natural number sequence.

but also there is the 'true' imaginary sequence which shifts the binary to trinary and imaginary 0 (io) indicates a certain or circumscribe-able yet unknown value; literally a variable.

...

so how does this orientation relate to sex?

it relates in taht now you have incremental inversion steps to remove ambiguity.

in unary, you had almost no use for one of the primal evaluative states. you had nothing, but it was logically dissimilar to the numbers either through paradoxal implicit lack, or explicit lack and logical dissonance due to multiple numeric bases.

in log numbers, you have 0 as lack. it is a number representing the unity of integers adn the creation of higher orders; representing active cyclical patterns within that numeric base. whenever you have a specific base - 1 value and it gets incremented to or beyond the base it pops up in the delta-signicance; two digits become one or vice versa.

but now in an abstract manner you are reorienting for the perception of plus-or-minus 0 as always nothing, to 0 as infinity (or the limit of infinity) and thus a holistic decadent dep-iary (negative oriented looping) paradigm to be contrasted with an additive paradigm.

it is pushed further still, by adding in a class of objective variables into the main number sequence itself. ignorance isn't 

masculine (arithmetic or process) vs feminine (ends orientation)

6+7 = 13 vs Q - O = X

it shifts the mind back and forth between the two approaches of dealing with numbers so even if you primarily use log math, you can still see the limitless variables underneath and you can deal with an analyze the relaitonship of the variables while avoiding much of the arithmetic.

and it is all about focusing on the measurement algebraicaly over the unit representation. combining the unary five litteral apples, with the algebraic adjective '5' apples to create a simple, powerful, and abstract, as it is merely drawing a circle around the things to be counted.

the feminine (compass shaped) variable base is simply the hand positions representing teh order the variables are creating. n,s,e,w,se,nw,ne,sw. +0 and -0 can also be shown Θ (theta) vs )-( or Φ (both characters strike through the circle significantly), the last dichotomy is · vs O.  the way the feminine form is ordered is 0,n,s,e,w,se,nw,ne,sw, )-( with no capacity for unary style expansion, but rather adding proceedingly smaller hands to the compass face, like a clock. these numbers are pointers, pointing to some type of limit, theta and phi as 0 and infinity but with the compass faces specific 'bones' signifying the order of creation of object or class they belong. when there are multiple hands the largest one is the parent class

you probably use the feminine base like degrees. so you have the compass shape and then a integer. instead of x = 173 you have Q173 or Q (which is south east) is 173.

society and slut shaming

(intro)
this is kinda relating to my major problem with english as a language. because english isn't logically/analyically constructed there is no facsimile of continuity and many words with similar themes/meanings are phonetically very different. arguably, they are so different that allot of objective meaning oriented word families are hidden.

(begining)

'who are society?' expresses one paradigm, emphasis being not on society but 'are'. i'd say 'who is society?' or 'what is society?'

and there, though vague, is a huge difference of paradigm. 'who are (our) society' means that there is a plurality of personhood, and that sample size is relevant because you are deriving straight from sample rather than averaging (logically generalizing, as opposed to anecdotal hyperbole); which you also kinda argue against in this entry as juvenile. the fragmented sense as shown either by adding 'our', or changing 'are' to 'is', can express a more limited and precise meaning.

imho, roughly society's opinion is the modal opinion of one's social environment. the scope of the social environment is unspecified. 

society could be your friends, your teacher/family/church, your city, or even the media which attempts to tie empires of many cultures together. put another way, it is the fuzzy-logic form of "man's opinion" and the problem people have with the term often arises with the presumed scope/generality of the group/speaker. young people, especially those in 'playgrounds' may have a very different but equally genuine perception of the limit's of their social interaction. to them society might be hypocritical soccer moms, underpaid and understaffed teachers, and a bunch of peers groups by age more than capacity, culture, or interests.

it is the collective and general response of what you perceive a people are telling you to do. society's dictate is the interpretation of all the most general opinions projected upon you; creating the ethos/role you feel pressured to be. which going back to the playground icon, if you aren't grouped with people of similar convictions, chances are you will be offended by irreverence to your values/premise, even by minority circumstance. especially during a time when identity and role are fluid, and one is really seeking comradery/companionship due to intense hormones.

...

"society is in a rapid rate of moral decay" is dissonance of national identity (law/morality confusion) vs religious.

 things like the general 'society tells victims not to be abused, rather bad people not to abuse' can be a genuine perception though tacitly false. the only way i think we can possibly engage with it though is to request further analysis. "how do you know they are bad people, if you aren't told that the behavior is unacceptable? wouldn't they seem to be 'good' people despite their wrongs if the behavior was tolerable?" the value to this approach imho, is that there still may be some people who are brought up in environments where there is a 'hate the sin not the sinner attitude', and if the wrong/harm a person committed was mitigated by greater societal 'conspiracy' the person may need to feel the victimized state to move on beyond it; forsaking that acrid environment.

the comment about necessity of society teaching "don't get raped" is valid, but ironically i think it needs to be taught to women to make sure they are aware the lesson is out there. it is a matter of not teaching a lesson, but most people have the relevant audience in this instance backwards; and most things backwards in general.

but again the issue lies in how vague and open to perception ambiguous words are even with (perhaps sufficient) grammar.

people will abuse 'society' through anecdote the same way many abuse 'they' as a genderless (or bi gender) singular.

...

the way 'don't get raped' is vallid is that it is a double negative. but the oversight is that you don't want a double negative if things are shitty, you want another negative to cancel it out. you want to rebuke it. and if forced to use bad methodology/reasoning you need to make it so your change still subjects the (self) injured to the placebo, even if it does nothing to anyone else.

 making people think you are doing something, may have better impact than abusing demographics in profiling to charge innocent people with crimes; which just inters the wrong.
...

most people who are against slut shaming don't even know why they fuck they are shamed most of the time and just project outwards so here is the thing.

being a slut can merely mean a girl is promiscuous and socially this is a mild negative. the hate and rancor comes out not from slutty actions but from cheating, especially cheating and they crying rape to escape responsibility for one's choices.

fiscal morality and homelessness

how to increase the social value of the homeless:

• buy an apartment complex or design a military (submarine) style barracks:
•  perhaps instead design a tokyo single room tube hotel style; array. making the whole of the bunk a safe.
• honeycomb, crawl in style
• put within the barracks, a safe with key for every bunk (irrelevant if entire bunk is the safe)
• allow withdrawals from registered bank to only be made once the key is returned
• legislate that the nearest bank to a homeless complex has to wave account creation fees and minimum deposits for an account, and check deposit services, and for personal financial counseling.
• documentation of a fiscally responsible identity, recognized by civil and criminal institutions.
• 'proof of' address (for law enforcement)
• registered place of employment, and banks are required to have the capacity to record salary. 
• empower the caretaker of the homeless complex to grant bus transportation passes.
• give free food for the homeless in a cafeteria style eatery; bulk food, perhaps donated.
• vegan + bread + water + various types of oil menu...
• group showers - water valves can be adjusted to only give hot water during certain hour ranges.
• assign a police group to have jurisdiction over the complex with both significant camera coverage and lighting.

basically increase the value we grant the homeless above the value in terms of spending we place on criminals.

the requested approach:

• creates jobs & manpower,
• increases quality and sanctity of life
• more tax revenue, with the program being self sufficient through taxation.
• reduces manpower loss based on fiscal issues (if someone is misfortunate enough to lose a house, they still have a level to fall back on without the costs for all associated with turnover from loss of a job),
• homeless families don't negatively influence children as significantly (reducing criminal activity),
• reduces or eliminates criminal panhandling, by socializing most everything necessary to make panhandling nearly redundant.
• reduces labor fluctuations during winter months of more dire need because impromptu shelters wouldn't have to be set up if there already is relevant/sufficient infrastructure.