As an example if I was plotting a diagonal line thru the complex numbers the next "count" should be the next point 1 unit away on the line and it will be one of two, one you consider forward one you would call backwards. How you decide the direction is also usually defined by the maths argument.
But I wasn't working in 'counts' I was working in numbers. for simplicity I chose +1 as the number, but it could have been any number. If I had chosen 9.731*10^43 it would not have been very clear what I was saying.
I also understand that many problems have to be worked out in non-Euclidean spaces. At that point the mathematics becomes much more complex. But the problem you gave me was not a non-Euclidean problem. It was on a Euclidean plane. Therefore I took the most straightforward interpretation. If there was more information required to solve the problem than what you gave then it is your job to provide that information. Otherwise it is not a problem for me if you don't get any answer you like.
By the way, while I see that in Riemann space there is a way to work with infinity it doesn't really seem to me that infinity is a number.
Once again the big problem is that you make elliptical statements, but expect the readers to understand just what you are saying. That is not going to happen unless you start making clear concise statements. If you are trying to teach us something you need to study up on your teaching skills. Your method is an abysmal failure.
Bill Gill
