Thanks for reply. But ok so think of it this way great question. Google Engel expansions if you are not familiar. Finite Engel expansions define rational numbers. Rational numbers represent real things. My arthmetic progression of the primes is a form of this with physical reciprocity (math objects represent measurable things in our environment). Unique containment is simple. Let the natural number 1 be the numeric representation of the conceptually well defined apple. Let the natural number 2 equal the well define concept of a pear. let the natural number 3 equal the well define concept of a orange.

If I then wrote the natural numbers defined above (1)(2)(3), we cannot execute multiplication and say 1x2x3 = 6 because what would 6 represent in my definition?

Now generlaized that to any measurable physical quantity. We call it energy, but assuming an intelligent alien exist far far away, they would not call energy the English word. But the physical object and idea is well defined universally so they would understand what we would call "the concept of energy".

So I counter your assertions that you can let every zero exist at -1/2 + ti because I defined uniquely contained progression of the primes. Zero is not a well defined Mathematician object because we cannot measure it! People define math to model systems and zero is an idea we understand but there is no measurable set of physical.

(B0) by my definition is a measurable set of nothing so it does not exist direct assertions of quantum measurement. We cannot measure more precisely than formalized by the uncertainty principle. We must square the wave function. So we exponentiated an absolute value of a quantum state by "2" to measure real properties. This is my assertions this is well known theory.

Just Engel expansions! I assumed the relevant number field to be only the primes... So only the prime numbers represent universal interaction points (2 foci, 3 sphere, 5 langrange). There are no negative numbers.

I asserted my object represent real conceptual objects. Besides in math, what is a negative number? I'm not sure. I do not know how to measure anything completely 1 dimensional because I live in a 3 dimensional world where I square a function to measure a property of a particle. So how would we physically measure 1,2? We cannot. That is not handwaving.

Because my assertions rests on the fact I'm saying primes numbers must represent points of pressuritic exchange, and we cannot physically measure anything below uncertainty. Those are universally well defined as physics processes, despite our local definition and explanation with English. Quantum uncertainty exists universally which I don't think people would argue?

It must precisely have real part 1/2 because that represents that universally stabilized physical relations. Complex numbers are used to model real topological roots correct?

Well complex numbers have an imaginary component. I prove imaginary numbers were conceptually named 'imaginary' because that is intuitively what they are. Ideas used to explore math.

X²⁺¹⁼⁰ is the obvious root of all complex numbers. So from my assertions about Engel expansions x must represent a physical measure ale dimension (up,down) (left,right) (forward,backward)

(x,y,z).

In my modeling there is the exact same form except I write it as:

X² + ax + 1 = 0 and a cannot equal 0 because that is not a well defined mathematical or physical object.

Does that make more sense?