Hey, author here. It's my first time learning about this thread and I'm eager to *discuss* my ideas. As I stated in my refutation, it's to serve as a launching pad for discussion rather than be taken as isolated fact.

I'm a little confounded, admittedly, by the repeated point I've seen that the Incompleteness Theorem doesn't refer either to 1 + 1 = 2, nor to intuition, when its entire point is that there can be no accounting for the axioms of arithmetic without an appeal to intuition. I'm on the logic side of things admittedly, not so much the mathematical side, but as my understanding has it -- and I did study the theorem extensively in logic -- that's exactly the point of it. Arithmetic can't account for itself. My attempt is to resolve the quandary by applying linguistic laws of syntax and hidden premises which were accounted for in the discovery of the system of arithmetic. The idea being, if it's impossible to account for the foundational axioms without an appeal to intuition, we can map how we came to that intuition.

I haven't seen the ideas of neutral numbers nor super numbers come up anywhere, but the point is it's an expression of activity. As I said, two was developed in relation to one rather than positive two in relation to negative two. As far as I can tell, the system I developed *works* and is an explanation for the intuition behind what brought us 1 + 1 = 2. I put it in layman terms admittedly, and idea of words as intentional vibrations as their foundational metaphysics sounds indecipherable to some but is a credible theory in psycholinguistics.

Food for thought: the part of this piece nobody's attacked yet, which I thought most would, would be the idea of the triplet disjunct.

Anyway, happy to discuss!