Originally Posted by

**SlipEternal** I appreciate all of the work you put into this. My advice is to reorganize the work a bit to make it a bit more readable. While your work seems to have developed independently from existing mathematical works on the subject, you might want to explain how your work relates to Wheel Theory or Meadow Theory. Based on what I have seen, it appears that your work might be isomorphic to a meadow where $0^{-1} = 1$. By giving your work context in a larger mathematical framework, it will be easier for mathematicians to interact with your work. Currently, it is very clunky and difficult to work with. Once I know that I can treat it as a meadow for the purposes of arithmetic, it becomes clear that you are attempting to give physical meaning to the fact that you have chosen $0^{-1} = 1$ along with an explanation of why that is a strong choice for the inverse of zero.

But, it appears that you are taking precautions to keep your work separate from existing mathematical knowledge. If this is because you disagree with the basic properties of a meadow or a wheel, then it still may behoove you to introduce your work as a divergence from the current theories, along with an explanation of why those theories fail to satisfy and how your work corrects whatever they get wrong. Once you introduce your work and its interdependencies and divergences from the current mathematical framework, mathematicians will have a clear idea of what your work is meant to accomplish.

That said, you do try to justify your work. You say that the ability to divide by zero should be a boon to physicists and mathematicians alike. However, as someone who has looked into wheel theory and meadow theory (the latter at your suggestion, actually), I find the presentation you have provided vastly more convoluted than the simple presentations of the existing theories. I wonder, why would I choose your theory over the much more intuitive ones I have already read?