The Gaussian-School of Higher-Arithmetic (1831, updated 2022); tutorial #4-b.

Colour coded Algebra? Why on earth would anybody need this?

Author's comments:

1) In pure algebra, there should be no need for colour coding. In pure simple Algebra, everything is already adequately defined. Within the very simple basic algebra required for explaining unified number theory as required for appreciating quantum-relativity, everything was properly defined by about 2000 years ago. However, it seems that everybody, starting with the work of Leonhard Euler in about 1730, followed Euler in his catastrophically false interpretation of so-called negative numbers.

2) My task in correcting Euler's false interpretation of -1 (inverse-one) is made almost impossible for me by the deeply hypnotic, pan-humanity, 294-year-old, twelve-generations deep, mass trance-state occasioned by the general adoption of Euler’s incredibly clumsy and palpably false interpretation of inverse-one (-1). Therefore, although it should not really be needed, I will colour code my algebraic expressions as an aid to encouraging the general adoption of my rational algebraic interpretation of the rotational inversion of the simple counting numbers.

Here is the colour coding key that you will need in order to easily follow my graphical algebraic interpretation of the Gaussian language of rotational polarity inversion.