I took a slightly different understanding from that comment than I think you did. I took the comment in two parts; the second being a tangential suggestion tha

I took a slightly different understanding from that comment than I think you did. I took the comment in two parts; the second being a tangential suggestion that security is financial. The first was more interesting. Taken to be a reply to your claim that x=y+1 implies x>y, it is grounded more in theory. The claim is one grounded in a given model - a prevailing mathematical one - and is undoubetdly correct in that model and in the many of the models we use around us. That does not, surprisingly, make it true. There are countless models in which it is false, though it seems unlikely these are useful models. There are also models which are to a degree isomorphic to the current (standard?) models of fancy. In these may lie a way to subvert the expectation of their version of "x>y when x=y+1"