irrelevant

1 is defined as the successor of 0

Not

lol

nope

I defined it as such

Just now

O is the first number and 1 is 2 and so forth

If you were working with my definitions you would be forced to agree with me

Otherwise you'd be illogical

Thats the logic about it lol

no sorry not in my reality

I can ascribe any amount to a number

It is you who want to stand for only one thing

But it is not so

In my reality 0 is the first number 1

I am declaring this

2 is the succesor of 1, that is 1 + 1 = 2

If you agree with this definition

You must agree 1 + 1 = 2

No sorry by the time you count to three I have 4 of something and you are behind

1+1=3

So you are declaring the successor of 1 to be 3

We have a disagreement in naming things lol

Not a disagreement with the logic

why do you say logic

my logic is sound

Nothing is a number

it is called zero

I literally said your logic was sound

Well

Valid

at least

So if I have nothing it is still something

What does that mean

Nothing is something is this matrix

What is a matrix

Wait rather

What is your definition of nothing

Nothing came from nothing to create everything so 0 is infinity and everything

What do you define nothing to be