This author draws conclusions like a BC astronomer; they are good given the area the article is restricting itself to, but this restriction is innately wrong. N

This author draws conclusions like a BC astronomer; they are good given the area the article is restricting itself to, but this restriction is innately wrong. Numbers are weak because natural languages don't intrinsically use them and they are taught post-linguistic development to a fractured foundation, e.g. natural languages form like slang. Lets arbitrarily call 205-chi and 210-foe, how is one to find the name for 207; there is no interconnected phoneme structure that numbers and words can jointly draw upon. Yes, numbers are a naming system, but they become just another irrelevant layer when there is not a common core to draw upon. It's funny, with so many brilliant minds continuously rewriting coding languages no one has stopped to make human language less of a symantic ambiguity. Maybe Ithkuil is our only hope.