>>11632226>how could -x possibly be any more fundamental and not just mere shortcut for (-1?x)?No one said it's more fundamental. They are equivalent, and it's just easier to write -x.
Since -1x+x=-1x+1x=(-1+1)x=0x=0=-x+x, and similarly, x+-1x=x+-x, anyone with half a brain just writes -1x+x.
Or, instead of ever using numerals, you should write out every number in autistic set theoretic notation, and be sure to never say that e.g. the integers are a subset of the rationals, or any nonsense like that. Make sure to only ever write anything using set theory notation. Also, don't use equals signs, or even subset signs. Instead to say that two sets are equal, write that every element of the first set is an element of the other, and every element of the second set is an element of the first.
Also, you cannot use any results you have previously found. Every proof must be obtained from the 8 (or 9) axioms of ZF(C).
It sounds like this is the kind of retarded autism you want.
