If we consider the fraction 2/3 we see that we are comparing the number 2 with the number 3. Nothing is said about the reality to which each number applies, beyond the implication that both numbers apply to the same reality. If, however, they do not apply to the same reality, then one of two things result: i.e., a conversion must be made or we agree that we cannot deal with the situation.
Suppose we are considering 2 apples and two pears. They are both fruit and have many features in common. The fraction 2/3 tells us that of the 5 fruit, 2 are of one kind and 3 are of another, and that we have 2/3 as many of one kind as we have of the other, and 3/2 of the converse.
If we rewrite the fraction in the following form 2/3|5 this nomenclature will tell us all of the above in one glance; namely, that we have 5 articles, having a factor in common which we are comparing, and that we have 2 of one kind and 3 of the other. Written 3/2|5 tells us precisely the same thing except that the order of comparison is reversed.
If we write i2/j3|5 we realize at once that 2 somethings lie along the x axis and 3 somethings lie along the y axis, but that we are considering their numerical values only.
If we write i2/j3|5 we realize that we are comparing two vectors in a quite normal manner. In fact, we are so familiar with vectors that the mere presence of the i and j notation tell us the whole story with respect to these two vectors. Therefore, the vertical line and what is to the right of it may properly be omitted.
Consider next the problem of zero and infinity. If we define infinity as the largest number in which we have any interest and zero as the smallest number in which we have any interest, and if we maintain exactly the same degree of interesting both, then unity must lie exactly halfway between our zero and infinity. We may tell this story in our nomenclature as follows: 0/00|1 or 00/0|1.
Consider next the situation with respect to differentials. The quantity dy/dx implies that there exists a relationship between y and x and that there are no aspects not included in this relationship. If, however, there are unrelated aspects, then dy/dx implies that only the related aspects are being considered. To a limited extent we get around this difficulty by "conversion factors" or scale constants, but these means do not allow us to cross the gap between one type of reality to a totally different type.
If we write sy/dx|A we are saying that A describes the relationship between y and x which we are to consider. This relationship may be ANYTHING.
The foregoing, though interesting, is not essential to the handling of ordinary concepts and their mathematics. However, there are certain transcendental concepts which do not lend themselves to a mathematical analysis unless we use such devices to orient them within the framework of the mathematics we have learned to understand.
We are all familiar (or think we are) with the term "NOW" meaning the present. We speak of the past, present and future and consider "now" as the bracket in time with which we are immediately concerned. However, no matter how precisely we define it we cannot establish exactly what the present or now really is, except that it is vaguely a dividing point between the past and the future. Nevertheless, we know quite well instinctively that we are living in the present and it is a perfectly real and satisfactory situation. Furthermore, we are advised that, to a disembodied entity, the present is the complete reality and the past and future merely arrangements of events in the broadest sense.
If we write Future - Past = Now, we are saying that "Now is a very small differential between two very large items". A more proper expression is: Future - Past/Now|90° where we show that the present is actually in quadrature with the Future-Past, and hence need not be a small differential at all, but can assume the proportions which we instinctively know it to possess.
If we use the symbol Q for this quadrature concept we can write the above as:
F - P| Q
which tells us the whole story regarding this relationship and leaves us satisfied that it is all in the proper perspective.
We know that spin itself, the divergence of spin and the curl of spin are all mutually at right angles. Therefore, any inter-comparison between the three fields presented by these quantitites should properly be written with the Q concept included:
De/dm|Q   dm/dt|Q   dt/de|Q
Incidentally, our observation of these three fields is always in quadrature. This is quite apparent with respect to time as set forth above, but a little consideration is necessary to appreciate that it also applies to the other two basic fields as well. This concept is even more necessary when learning to appreciate the higher dimension. Without it we cannot deal mathematically with the relationship between fields and, say, free will.
Here it should be emphasized that the Q concept extends beyond mere quadrature, or kind. It actually embraces the relationships existing among whole families of aspects of reality.
Consider the twelve dimensions of Deity, oriented in four fabrics of three each. Ordinarily one would not consider any dimensional relationship to exist, say, between the electric field and probability, but these are truly related through the Q concept. In fact, the Q concept is the only relationship which does in fact exist between the various dimensions.
Again, we have defined a field as any region which has a unique characteristic. If we extend our concept of a region to include the abstract as well as the spatial idea, then all twelve of the dimensions become fields. Admitting this, the Q concept must exist between the various dimensions incorporated in the analysis.
Let us look at an example:
is a valid equation only if both sides, and everything on each side, refer to the same aspect of reality or a Unity relationship exists between all of the components. Note the resemblance of this equation to certain electromagnetic wave equations, which are in fact particular cases of this general case.
Employing the Q concept, this equation becomes