>>142955502/2
Syntax matters. Your number is not unable to be 5. (Does this - symbol = unable? 5 is able to be 5. -5 is unable to be 5. -5 is also unable to be 6.
-5 is unable to unable be 5. -5 is not able to not be able to be 5
-5 is not able to not be able to be 6, as long as we say so? The prior statement to this paragraph, is just saying so, forcing me by claim it is the case.
-5 is unable to be 6.
-5 is negative 5; 6 is 6. Clearly 1 thing is unable to be the other.
-5 is unable to be 5. -5 is negative 5; 5 is 5; clearly they are different and cannot be the same.
-5 is not unable to be 5. -5 cannot help but be 5?
I think if I have come across an understanding here, and it may be simple and obvious inhind sight, it may be that when starting from a number, a positive number; we are pointing to that number, and our focus, our world view switchs to that number being first in view; as well as that number, 5, it also takes on the role of a pseudo 0 (maybe ala; 0,5).
So from the perspective of 5, to plus 5 and minus 5 would result you with 5, but also the idea of the activity, the net of the activity would result you with 0.
