1. Introduction

Caution: You will encounter aspects in this paper that could evoke a sense of deception. Everything is essentially identical. Understand that our foundation in science was fundamentally weak. This article reinforces that foundation.

I prefer to characterize mathematics as the universal language. In a language such as Chinese, characters constitute letters, letters combine to create words, and words assemble into sentences. In mathematics, the focus is on numbers, and while mathematics serves as the language, numbers function as the letters in this context. The fundamental digits 0-9 are utilized to create other numerals such as 10, 23, 46, 75, 98, and even larger figures like 27834, 97651, and so forth, extending infinitely. These figures can hold significance when employed to symbolize an entity for scientific understanding. Continuing with the explanation of language, consider English; for instance, the phrase "I am sick" is grammatically fine, but "sick am I" is an unacceptable arrangement. In this Universe (in mathematics), there are seven scrolls that act as the foundation of mathematics. They showcase the power of mathematics and the reason why we can add, subtract, multiply, and divide numbers and it would work. Also, we can do some really cool stuff, and it would work, but mathematicians forgot something. What I’m about to explain is the reason why any branch of science that works closely with mathematics experienced or will experience a lack of progress at some point. When you don’t know how to speak a language, you can’t communicate. If you know it slightly, you could be misunderstood. If you persist on speaking however you like, correct or not, you spill out gibberish, and you seem like a mad person.

A slight error can act as accurate because it’s minimal, but a combination of slight errors becomes noticeable. To rephrase, if I allocate my investment of 300 yuan, I anticipate a return of precisely my initial cash within a month. Upon reaching that date, in the event of an error from a broker, website, or application, I receive 299 yuan. In this context, a significant number of individuals are unlikely to experience panic, as 299 yuan is nearly equivalent to 300 yuan. Envision if I had received 250 yuan; it would be quite apparent and incite alarm, would it not? This is not the correct rationale, as it may be uncommon; the actual explanation is; suppose I possess 3,000,000 yuan in my account and choose to allocate 300 yuan across 10,000 assets to recover my principal within a month. Keep in mind that this is a presumption, not an assertion of how investment operates. If I receive a return of 299 for each investment, clearly indicating an error, my overall return amounts to 2,990,000. To proceed, I lose 10,000 yuan, and then I have to panic. The fact is that I won’t panic if I lose 1 yuan by doing just an investment but would definitely panic losing 10,000 yuan from more investments. Again, a slight error can act as accurate because it’s minimal, but a combination of slight errors becomes noticeable.

In Ultimate Relativity (UR), we discover the authentic value of Pi and its importance; individuals were skeptical when I asserted that Pi forms the mathematical foundation of the Universe and all its contents, including the reader of this document. Prior to UR, mathematicians utilized a Pi value that functioned as a clone, albeit with a minor discrepancy of up to 0.017 from the actual value. It is possible that the erroneous value of Pi has been utilized across various scientific domains throughout the years, with the inaccuracy proliferating like a contagion. A virus constrains advancement, which underpins the assertion. (What I’m about to explain is the reason why any branch of science that works closely with mathematics experienced or will experience a lack of progress at some point). Perhaps mathematicians, both historical and contemporary, may require a public apology following this publication, although you have already been absolved. It is time to transcend by unveiling the seven mathematical scrolls of the cosmos that embody the truth.

To proceed further, this is the conclusion from my previous UR papers [3] [4] [5];

• The true Pi value is 3.125 rational as

• The value of Pi transcends mere numerical representation; it comprises four digits that I designated as the "Four Zodiac numbers," specifically 1, 2, 3, and 5. They signify the foundation of the Pi value.

• In the doctrine known as the Four Zodiac Symbolic Teachings (FZST), the four digits represent each quadrant that constitutes a geometry as a circle.

Upon reviewing this paper, you may ascertain whether my findings are erroneous or accurate, leaving the ultimate judgment to the global audience. Armed with these three concepts, you are prepared to understand the scrolls.

2. Scroll One – Trigonometry/Four zodiac (Root)

The first scroll is about Trigonometry backed up by something special. This branch of mathematics is crucial for determining distances and angles in fields such as Physics, Engineering, Surveying, and graphics. Trigonometry, as you are aware, is a mathematical discipline that examines the connections between the lengths of sides and the angles of triangles. I’m not here to teach trigonometry; my objective is to connect the foundation of mathematics to its principal branches. Therefore, I will share with the reader some profound insights that were not covered in primary education. It is essential to comprehend these aspects to advance.

Figure 1. Scroll/Trigonometry

Point 1: In the cosmos, the sole natural geometry is that of a circumference. This implies that, should the Universe be created today with solely natural entities, the predominant geometry observable would be circumferential forms (such as fruits, eggs, planets, trees, leaves, etc.). You will not encounter objects having geometrical forms such as triangles, squares, or rectangles. These forms are not natural.

Point 2: We can form all other shapes or geometry from a circumference (360°). Hence, the root geometry of the Universe is a circumference.

Point 3: In Trigonometry, it’s basically about triangles. Unlike other shapes, a Triangle is a geometry directly produced from the circle, using the quadrants of a circle or the sides.

Note these three points above. Also, if planets are not 3D circumferential, trigonometry will have an insignificant use in this Universe and won’t be part of the scrolls; this is for people that think that the Earth is flat.

Using point three, A triangle has three sides, and there are four numbers (1, 2, 3, and 5) that represent the four quadrants of a circle. Wouldn't it mean that three numbers out of these four numbers will represent a triangle?

Figure 2. (1 2 3 5)

Well, before I proceed, I want the reader to look closely at Table 1 and observe. How many numbers do you see?

Table 1

You are done observing, and you can see that 1, 2, and 3 are the only numbers present in the root trigonometry ratios. We already know what the trigonometry ratios are; we can also use these trigonometry ratios to get the sine, cosine, etc. of other angles. You can go further to check 90°, 180°, 270° and 360°, only three numbers are present. I have to test and show you why only the root numbers 1, 2, and 3 can only be used. It is obviously not a coincidence. If 1, 2, 3, and 5 represent the quadrants of a circle, then 1, 2, and 3 would be responsible for a triangle as the root ratios, formed from aligning the sides of a quadrant. Perhaps the last zodiac (5) is absent in this gathering. There’s a deeper reason why it had to be 5. Someone would ask the question, "Why is it 5 that is absent? Why not 1? Why not 3?" The answer to this is in Stake Theory [8]. However, if we are choosing three numbers out of four numbers, it is most definitely the first three numbers.

Dividing a circle into four equal parts to form quadrants means that we now have four radii; this is where trigonometry emerged from.

Equal radii mean we can use the number 1 in test, resulting to the length of each of the four radii as 1. We form a line by joining two radii lines. For a triangle (trigonometry), we call this line "the hypotenuse," but it is more than that for the four zodiacs.

Hypotenuse - hyp

Opposite - opp

Adjacent – adj

This is the same as;

When a circle is divided into four, we have 90° for each quadrant which indicate a right-angled triangle. Hence, a circle (Four zodiac) gave birth to a right-angled triangle (Trigonometry).

Figure 3. Hypotenuse Formation

The length of hypotenuse of the right-angled triangle relating to a circle is represented by This implies that; If the radius r of a circle is 5, the hypotenuse line relating to that radius is i.e

If the radius is 27, the hypotenuse line is Bring out the right-angle triangle from the equilateral triangle, we see that we now have an angle 60° and 30° to make up the 90°. Hence, we have (45°, 45°) and (60° 30°) right angled triangle, this is how we get the trigonometry ratios. You know it from a triangle, but I’m telling you now that the whole idea of a triangle is from a circle. Humans knew what a circle is before knowing about the triangle.

Figure 4. Right-angled Triangle (60°, 30°)

As we know, testing with the (60° 30°) right angle triangle, we see that we get

Let’s connect the four radii of the circle i.e., forming the hypotenuse all round. If we do this, we get a square. We can now see something like Figure 5.

Figure 5. Square Formation (4 hypotenuse)

Well, this is a glimpse of the blueprint and how it looks like from the surface (Top view) and you can’t see all the details without proper and gradual interpretation.

What does the Figure 5 mean? We’ll find out in scroll three.

Summary

We all know the details on trigonometry. There is a reason for the existence of trigonometry ratios, which is the idea of obeying all that we observe when a triangle is formed using a quadrant of a circle. All that we observe in the circle-quadrant-triangle situation is what guides us to interpret the blueprint. We observe the sides of the triangle, which helped to form the ratios, with the root angle in play as 90°. All these will come into play when interpreting.

3. Scroll Two – Growth

Figure 6. Scroll/Growth

These scrolls are interconnected; they are comprehensible to all as they are designed for everyone in this Universe. Nonetheless, it is vital to comprehend one scroll prior to grasping the subsequent one. The Universe is inherently simple; it is human beings who complicate things. I could inform you that as much as 50% of the information you receive in science is entirely false.

To proceed, after the creation of the universe/planets (formation of chemical elements), the next thing that happens is growth. When I mean growth, I also mean multiplication/increase/progress. The Universe is always moving forward, and then we have the positive and negative. The Universe or we can use Earth, is aging as time passes, but there will be positives and negatives along this growth process. Humans and animals multiply, vegetation multiplies, and we also advance in technology every now and then, etc. This explanation is growth in a simple form. The deep aspect of this is in Economics as Stake Theory [8]. This is math, so it's a brief discussion and more calculations.

They always say that I oppose already established theories. The question is, do I oppose already established theories, or do I reveal the truth?

We have linear growth; we also have exponential growth. Linear growth is straightforward and true as you know it, but the findings and facts around exponential growth are what I have a problem with. Simple and compound interest are normally used to explain the two types of growth (linear and exponential).

The equation for exponential growth is in the format;

y = value at time t

a = initial value

k = growth rate

t = time

e = Euler’s number = 2.71828182845…….

Obviously, the equation is absolutely correct but anyone would guess that it is the Euler’s number that I have a problem with, why?

What is the Euler number e? In mathematics; they say it is one of the most important constants. It is the base of natural logarithm (In) and appears everywhere relating to growth in advanced mathematics, physics, engineering, finance, biology etc.

Value of e = 2.718281828459045……..., it is an irrational number, and it goes on forever without repeating. I’ve seen all the praises of the Euler number but once again, I hate to spoil the party but party is over.

My thought process to knowing that the e value is wrong started from an observation at the digits. If you understand my theory (UR), you realize that a constant of the Universe;

• Must have a sequence or pattern to the digits.

• It is always a Pi code or the Inverse (repeating digits).

• Only constants with repeating digits can extend longer but is the same as the required digits for a result (e.g., when used in an equation will yield the same result with , repeating digits to any point). Hence, we wouldn’t need the complete digits in this case, we can use 12digits or 13digits to get accurate results.

Thus, if the digits of the e constant continues forever as they said, I didn’t see repeating digits extending longer. Also, I did the inverse of the e constant and I didn’t find any pattern still, no Pi codes. This is the first thing that made me realize that e is not what they say it is. Let’s say my suspicion isn’t valid, we can as well confirm it practically with compound interest calculation.

A = final amount

P = principal = 1000

r = interest rate (8/100 = 0.08)

t = time in years = 5

e = Euler’s number = 2.71828182845…….

Changing characters to match the main formula for exponential growth

Continuous compounding using e;

There’s a main formula that produces the correct result;

Why are both results different? Are both results not meant to be the same? The excuse given by mathematicians is that the continuous compounding with e compounds every tiny fraction of a second and infinitely, but that’s a lie. The main formula compounds the exact same way with the formula involving e as If I want to compound based on any period (time), I’ll simply adjust the time to fit the rate. That’s the first excuse they give; the second excuse is that the complete digits for e are not being used. Hence, the complete digits will give an accurate result. Well, that’s also a big lie. How many digits will we keep on adding? This rate of inaccuracy in science is damaging; we cannot continue in accepting inaccuracies as ‘’widely accepted.’’

It is said that Jacob Bernoulli first discovered e as a constant; he showed that this expression converges to a value between 2 and 3, and then Euler popularized the constant, connecting it to the exponential function and logarithm. This means that there was a result gotten by these two mathematicians that made them conclude that e is constant; we’ll know the truth soon.

3.1. Prince Jessii’s Description on the Base of the Natural Logarithm (e)

Normally, I would have given my findings another symbol, name and description because it’s completely different from the present description of e, and to tell you the truth, the lies will keep on increasing if the truth is not presented. Perhaps, I’ll just try to do the needful.

Table 2

Examine both descriptions in Table 2; the present description will soon be a thing of the past. The difference between the two descriptions lies in the fact that e is not a constant. I discovered that e is not a constant, as the e values are only generated from a growth rate and remain constant solely for that specific growth rate.

3.2. Growth Model Using (e)

If there’s a rate of 8%, e for any calculation in science that involves a rate of 8% will be;

The above calculation should be done to get e for each rate before proceeding to use Proceeding to do a brief table (Table 3) to display the reason why e was concluded as a constant.

Table 3

Table 3 is the reason why the likes of Euler and Bernoulli concluded that e is a constant. Most of the generated results for e based on the formula is always in the format 2.xxxxxxxxx, the gap between growth rates will not be much at times thereby making us believe e is constant as we can use the constant to get values close to actual. Perhaps, not all. In conclusion, the likes of Euler and Bernoulli didn’t know the exact way to get e.

3.3. Test

Now, let’s use the exact same example to test;

A = final amount

P = principal = 1000

r = interest rate (8/100 = 0.08)

t = time in years = 5

e = Euler’s number = 2.71828182845…….

Continuous compounding using e as 2.71828182845….;

Compounding with the main formula;

Continuous compounding using e for

Can we spot the difference? Can we spot how accurate it is with the real e. I used the right approach to e with the same formula to get the correct result. e was never a constant. For the doubters, testing with another example;

A = final amount

P = principal = 30

r = interest rate (39/100 = 0.39)

t = time in years = 9

e = Euler’s number = 2.71828182845…….

Calculation for

Continuous compounding using e as 2.71828182845…….;

Compounding with the main formula;

Continuous compounding using e for

Note: Use a calculator that can display complete digits, or type the values in full with the formula for e in root to get exact results. For example, type in the format to get accurate results.

The definition is that it compounds infinitely, but it is the same with the other formula. Once more, should I choose to compound according to a specified duration, I will modify both the period and the rate. Employing e as 2.71828182845… merely to amplify the outcome is an inappropriate method, entirely insignificant, and appears to be the actions of fraudsters disguised as mathematicians. Certainly, if I fail to utilize the correct value for e, it influences my outcome, which is why the value continues to escalate dramatically, often referred to as "compounding every tiny fraction of a second" or "compounding infinitely." Here is a question for the doubters: If it is accurate that compounding with e was the most possible outcome, there ought to be uniformity in the differences between compounding with e as 2.71828182845… and the conventional compound interest equation. The focus is solely on the growth rate rather than time, while time represents its advancement. If the growth rate is this, which e value should we employ? That's how it works. Here comes the surprise;

Instead of tiny fractions of seconds or compounding infinitely, think about tiny growth rate, very tiny. Remember, from Table 3, the e value increases as the rate decreases, so the investigations are on a very tiny growth rate. Check this out.

3.4. Tiny growth rate

Calculations; a tiny growth rate of

If there a tiny growth rate of (4 zeros for clarity);

If you notice, the first six digits are the same with the first six digits of the e value as a constant that you know, this means that we are getting there, we are approaching a limit that Euler and Bernoulli thought was e as a constant. Let’s move lower.

Let’s do another tiny growth rate of If there a tiny growth rate of (8 zeros for clarity);

From the above calculations, you can see that we have reached the value that made Euler and Bernoulli describe e as a constant. In this Universe, we can’t have constants with never ending digits except the digits are repeating, I don’t know how many times I would keep on repeating myself, the never-ending digits is just so wrong and deceiving. The value you see above is exact and it seems like it’s the limit but let’s proceed to see if we can get something higher. Let’s test a tinier growth rate.

If there a tiny growth rate of (9 zeros for clarity);

The Limit of 2.718281828 remains the same.

To continue, If there a tiny growth rate of (13 zeros for clarity);

We have finally gotten 1, this means that the limit of the value e for growth is exactly 2.718281828, and we can see that it maintained the value pattern (18,28,18,28) and it stops.

The fact that it jumped to 1 from 2.718281828 means that 1 is the limit when we go higher in growth rate. For example, we try to go for a very high growth rate.

3.5. High Growth Rate

Going higher, If there a higher growth rate of (10 zeros for clarity);

We are approaching exactly 1, let’s go higher with a growth rate of (14 zeros);

The result is exactly 1.

So, when we go higher, we get 1; when we go lower, we get From trying to go lower forces it to jump to 1, indicating that we have crossed the limit. This confirms as the limit for the tiniest growth rate. I see mathematicians doing series or calculations to assume that it reaches infinity; the truth is that those calculations are not pertaining to the natural things of the Universe. In all the calculations I’ve done in my papers relating to the naturals, released or unreleased, I’ve never gotten a limit so far from the obvious. Doing calculations infinitely relating to the natural, e.g., growth, simply means humans can’t die (humans can’t stop growing), planets can’t die, etc. Also, there’s nothing like never-ending digits when the digits are not repeating. We can see the evidence through these calculations; let’s not be deceived by falsehoods. Using the limit of e (2.718281828) as a constant to do calculations for other growth rates is what increases those values to make one think that it compounds in every tiny second; meanwhile, it’s a flaw. There’s an e value for every growth rate, and its limit (2.718281828) is for the tiniest growth rate possible. We’ll talk about this scroll a lot more in [8].

Relating to growth in nature, there’s nothing that continuously grows infinitely, plants don’t, humans don’t, everything basically fades at some point. Therefore, a limit appears as a standard to growth rate as we observe with calculations, this implies that if there’s a growth rate k and e represents the exponential growth identity as a value, then; will aid growth according to the growth rate k with a step indicated as an addition of 1.

Hence;

To increase/replicate the steps as a period, we take both sides to the power t;

At this point we reveal the result by using t to increase the number of steps (period), if t is 2, then;

Back to the derivation;

If there’s an initial value as P to be inserted through the process of growth to get the final value, the equation requires the initial value to be multiplied both sides by the equation;

Now, for the mathematicians, what’s the difference between the left-hand side (LHS) and the right-hand side (RHS) of the above equation, I basically just derived the equation with a different letter for rate/100, it basically says that;

The above equations are basically the same, two forms of the same description. I have done many calculations that have two or more ways to approach the same goal. Now, the mathematics community have to decide because you guys can’t be confused. If is discrete compounding, then is discrete compounding as well. If is continuous compounding, then is continuous compounding as well. Test with any value you can test with, it’s applicable to all values, the same result is gotten from both formulas as I have demonstrated with calculations.

Summary: In conclusion, there’s an obvious limit for growth, so we can’t say infinitely or continuous or never-ending, when describing e. e is about exponential growth with a growth rate and we have to get e for each growth rate, e is generated i.e., it reincarnates for each rate value, it is not a constant, go to scroll 7 to see the other proof of e using logarithm. There is a reason why growth is the second scroll, it has something to do with the matter in a planet (Universe) and how they grow or multiply. After the creation of these things(root), the next thing is growth, this is why growth comes second. Download Stake Theory for free to see more on growth and hang around for more.

4. Scroll Three – The Pi Value

Figure 7. Scroll/Pi value

A person can say the truth and then become the deceiver in the eyes of people; this is my current situation in the realm of science. My theories have been called so many names. Some call it fringe, some say he’s a joke, and some even go ahead to say that it is pseudoscience. I’ll tell you for free that when I realized that many people aren’t supposed to know the truth, I started to care less. Another problem is that so many people can’t imagine being lied to for years, at least 4000 years. Imagine the lies being told for so long. The fact is, someone will laugh last, and it is definitely not those who think that Pi is 3.14 or some irrational never-ending digits joke, I can assure you. Now, before I end a 4-millennia error/mistake and the debate, I would like to bring back the fact that there was no concrete proof of Pi as 3.125. There was also no concrete proof of Pi being 3.14, 3, or with irrational never-ending digits, etc. Everything from Johann Lambert down to your favourite mathematicians and scientists that claimed they proved or supported Pi’s irrationality are lies covered up by using calculus, which, of course, uses unknowns. Later, I’ll explain why calculus, complex numbers, and imaginary numbers were created to permit/accommodate inaccuracy. Note: "Wrong" is not the same as "inaccurate’’. If they could lie to you with the e constant, there are more lies.

I have proved Pi as 3.125 using UR in physics, but that requires knowledge of physics to understand. Now, I will use a very straightforward method that is independent. We all know that the circumference of a circle is Thus, with the equation, if there’s a circumference value and a radius value through measurement, we can plug it into the equation to get the true Pi value. Perhaps this can’t be done through measurement due to the presence of error. Basically, this is the cause of the argument surrounding the Pi value; if it is done through measurement with a measuring tool, we get different Pi values from different trials. So, the measurement method is near impossible for precision, but one method is the most accurate for this situation. If a given radius is used to draw a circle with the help of Pi. The question is, can we know the radius and circumference of a circle without the help of Pi directly? If yes, then we will know the true Pi value by the end of this chapter.

We need teachings from scrolls 1 and 2 to achieve this. This time, you will only hear what you already know. The core principle of the trigonometry and growth chapter that precedes this section is to highlight that it revolves around the quadrants. It persistently indicates the quadrants, asserting, "Review the quadrants.’’ This is basically the hiding place of the Pi value and now we are on a journey in search of it with a clue in mind. Bringing back the four-zodiac trigonometry structure (blueprint);

To proceed, we have to establish a relationship between the quadrant’s circumference and that line called the hypotenuse. We already know that

If the hypotenuse is a diameter, its radius will be;

I guess, we are gradually forming what looks like the blueprint itself. The four created hypotenuse will now form a square inside the circle. The perimeter of the square is simply;

The full understanding with the help of trigonometry-four zodiac is now completed, we now initiate analysis;

Figure 8. Split (Line to Curve)

Using Figure 8 for illustration, If the Pi value is exactly 3 with a radius of 1, the circumference is;

There is a converter which is a constant that can be used to convert the perimeter of the square to the circumference (perimeter) of the circle. It can also be used specifically to convert the hypotenuse to the quadrant’s circumference, kind of the same thing. To get that converter, we simply divide the quadrant’s circumference by the hypotenuse.

Thus, for the converter which I name is;

We can test this with any radius and circumference for confirmation.

If the Pi value is exactly 3, with a radius of 3, the circumference is;

Figure 9. Split (Line to Curve)

Using Figure 9 for illustration, for a radius of 3, the hypotenuse will be which is If we use the converter for as 3, we expect to get after conversion.

Hence, the converter is constant. However, the problem now is that we are doing things blindly because we don’t know what the true Pi value is. If we use Pi as 3.14, we get a different converter value as a constant. Pi as any value will give a different converter as a constant. Let’s try Pi as 3.142.

Figure 10. Split (Line to Curve)

Using Figure 10 for illustration, If the Pi value is exactly 3.142, with a radius of 1, the circumference is;

In this case, the converter for Pi as 3.142 will be;

I would have to skip this process of getting the converter for different Pi values; you can see how it’s done, and you can do it on your own to confirm. Table 4 contains proposed Pi values and their converter values from calculation.

The Converter is a value that converts the formed square (four hypotenuses) to a circle, it basically converts the lines to a curve (circumference). This means that if we have a radius of a circle, we can form the 4 hypotenuses (square) with the idea from trigonometry, and use it to get the circumference of the circle by multiplying by the converter. As usual, Pi is inseparable from the circumference. Hence, a different Pi value will give a different converter value. Hence, we are still doing things blindly without knowing which Pi value alongside its converter value is the correct one that we can just use to multiply and get the accurate circumference.

4.1. Pi’s Den

Figure 11. Pi’s Den

The fact that a value can remain hidden for many years says a lot about the significance of the Pi value. In my opinion, it prefers to remain hidden. The fact that the true Pi value is been brought to limelight by this time after more than 4000 years from its discovery means that a lot of progress is about to happen. Apart from the fact that it doesn’t like to be seen, our mathematicians/scientists then and now made the whole process of finding the true Pi value even much harder. It is straightforward and easy to know the true Pi value, but at the same time not that easy. I need to welcome the reader into Pi’s den. It was always from the statement "Check the Quadrants." The quadrant is the right access to the Pi value.

I can decide to say that the Pi value is 3.125; another person can say 3.14, and another can say 3.142, and these are very close values. We can never know the true Pi value unless we accurately measure the circumference of a circle drawn with a pencil using a drawing compass. Perhaps there's a primary way of knowing the true Pi value.

I like to recount a short tale about a wealthy and renowned individual who had a doppelgänger of identical age. The wealthy and renowned individual feigned his death unknown to anyone, and this deception persisted for several years. The impersonator (doppelgänger) resolved to emerge as the wealthy individual, usurping the identity of the wealthy and renowned man, residing in his domicile, seizing his spouse, and deceiving the public into believing he was the original. One day, the affluent man's family required funds. In this scenario, the affluent individual typically accesses his vault by utilizing his fingerprint for authentication; however, it is now the impersonator's opportunity, and he evidently cannot gain entry to the vault, as a mere doppelgänger has minimal advantages, and it is well understood that the impersonator cannot unlock the vault with his own fingerprints. It is possible that, at that instant, everyone realized he was an impostor.

Simple Method of solving for

We can simply use a formula to get the converter value for each Pi value without doing it manually.

For example; If my Pi value is 3.14, my converter value will be;

Table 4

Table 4 shows proposed Pi values and their converter value.

Test your proposed Pi value to see its converter value, which is the value that can convert the formed square to the circumference, because we are about to find out which ones are fake with errors.

4.2. Exponential Growth

Figure 12. Exponential growth graph

We were taught that exponential growth is a curve. Well, guess what? A circumference is a curve or consists of curves. Hence, we have a path to the truth.

Obviously, there’s a reason why I revealed the truth behind the constant e and its theory. More lies can only be used to cover up a lie, which is what your favourite mathematicians did. The conclusion is if the truth behind the e constant was not known in scroll 2, there’s no way we know the true Pi value. Till the end of the Universe, we will never know. The Pi value and circumference of a circle are inseparable in math formulas, meaning that you can say that the Pi value is 3.14 and you get a circumference. As long as you maintain the same Pi value (3.14) in all your calculations of a circle (area, semi-circle, quadrant, etc.) involving Pi, everything will fall accordingly in the right way. This is due to Pi and the circumference being inseparable, which is why we can’t prove the Pi value using those formulas. To obtain the Pi value through a method other than physics formulas, we would need a concept that is fixed in its essence. In mathematics, only e can help us prove the Pi value. We can’t accurately measure the circumference of a circle drawn manually with a compass; while we can take a measurement, we cannot be certain if the result is accurate, but there’s a true way we can accurately measure the circumference of a drawn circle using exponential growth. We don’t realize that we do a very powerful thing each time we use a drawing compass to draw a circle with a radius; we simply demonstrate exponential growth (Figure 13). We do this, and it flows without us knowing what happens behind the scenes. The only hint is what I said: Pi uses that same radius to distribute along a curved path to form a circumference. I said this in the introduction of four zodiac symbolic teachings [1].

Figure 13. Circle formation with drawing compass

When we draw a circle using a compass, there’s a growth in curve and degrees, as you can see in Figure 13. The curve keeps on growing until it forms a complete circumference 360°. There’s a natural understanding of the concept from the scrolls, and there’s a theory surrounding this growth that can only be known through the blueprint, but I’m here to tell you. The speed or manner in which you draw a circle doesn’t matter; what matters is how the curve grows to form a complete circumference each time you use a compass with a given radius.

An easy way of demonstrating growth is using four radii, which are the intersecting lines. Use the compass to grow the curve to meet the ends of the radii. This is basically the blueprint I’ve always talked about using FZST.

Now, let's discuss. If we say that exponential growth is a curve and a circumference is a curve as well, we can definitely use exponential growth to accurately measure a real circumference, except that the exponential growth formula concept with e was wrong; I corrected it in scroll 2. When I say "real circumference," I mean the one drawn using a compass. The circumference drawn by any other means must have been programmed to use Pi as a different value other than its true form.

I will just go in and test quickly to give you just a part of the proof that a circumference drawn from a radius is the real proof of exponential growth as a curve.

To prove, we need details using the growth formula;

All exponential growth is always in the format (formula) above, whether it is population growth, bacteria, decay, compound interest, etc. It is the same formula format. Again, y is simply the value that a will become after the given time t of the exponential growth with a growth rate k using e will elapse. Let’s look at the blueprint once again and analyse it.

Let’s assume we don’t know anything yet but with the blueprint which is scroll 1 that we already established using TFZ, the key is the natural understanding of the quadrants. The curve grows four times according to the quadrants. The four radii in a circle means that the circle is divided into four, forming four quadrants.

Figure 14. Rate/Time

A quadrant is 25% of a circle (100%), which means that the rate is 25%;

If there are four quadrants and it requires four quadrants to create a full circle, the duration is evidently 4, as it corresponds to the four quadrants.

Recall that I have recently rectified the falsehoods concerning the e value in scroll two. Consequently, we advance to ascertain our e value correctly;

Thus, we possess our variables, e, k, and t. We are unaware of our principal, specifically the value of a. Acquiring the value for a requires the right information. The objective is to ascertain whether it is indeed exponential growth, we possess simply an indication about the converter and its capacity to transform the line into a curve, therefore we employ this idea solely for validation. The converter is simply in relation to the curve (circumference), which fundamentally equates to 𝜋. I have also previously stated that they are indivisible. Consequently, we derive an equation as follows;

Let’s use this as the value for a to test and know if we are on the right track;

With the formula for exponential growth;

We basically need to input the Pi value and anticipate obtaining the corresponding converter value for the active Pi value, with e being constant, and it is anticipated that the mask of the fake values will be eliminated. Let us test the various values of Pi.

For Pi as 3.14;

Doubters must verify their Pi value to ascertain its accuracy. The consistency is expected to be maintained throughout. If Pi equals 3.14, we anticipate uniformity across equations. Absence of uniformity indicates that an error exists. A distinct converter value was obtained through the normal technique, while we currently have an entirely different value by exponential development. Therefore, 3.14 did not succeed in this test.

Let’s proceed to test Pi as 3.142;

For Pi as 3.142;

The identical inconsistency is evident; why are the results different? 3.142 did not succeed in this test either.

For Pi as 3;

It applies universally to all false Pi values. I disclosed a narrative concerning the affluent rich man and the imposter. A clone can accomplish only a limited number of tasks. For those who adhere to the notion of Pi as a never-ending decimal, how do you propose to incorporate all the alleged digits that’s beyond your calculator's capacity? Despite achieving that, inconsistency and inaccuracy persist.

4.3. Exponential Growth (proof of the Pi Value)

For Pi as 3.125;

This is the first proof of the Pi value as only the true Pi value (3.125) passed this test. Relax, we are only just getting started. Mathematics is supposed to be an error free subject. If there’s an error, it is as clear as crystal.

As previously revealed, I can decide to take the true converter value, and ask the square inside what my circumference is by;

This is basically the relationship between linear and exponential growth (A Line and a Curve). Of course, I’m changing something that has been wrong for up to 4000 years, I need to show the world more. This is just Pi welcoming us to its den. I used the identity of the converter of the proposed Pi values to test if an exponential growth is present in a circumference, and it revealed that my suspicion is valid. So, ladies and Gentlemen, the proof that exponential growth is a curve is not by plotting points on a graph, we can actually use lines and get a zig zag from those points plotted. The proof of exponential growth being a curve is the whole idea behind the circle formation.

I’ll do a section to present the other proof of the Pi value using exponential growth, but let’s proceed to understand what happens behind the scenes. If you notice, through the blueprint, we easily could know the growth rate, the time and e which is gotten from the rate. There’s a bit difficulty in knowing our principal (a), which is the value that multiplies according to the growth rate.

4.4. The Principal (a)

In a circle formation process, the focal point is the radius. A radius is used to draw a circle and I revealed in [1] that Pi helps to use that same radius to distribute to form a circumference which is done 6.25times. Hence, we pay attention to the length of the same radius on the circumference path. In FZST, I expressed the radius as 16% out of 25% quadrant circumference, which means the radius is 16% of the entire circumference. This time, to get the principal, we use the quadrant’s circumference as 100%, and find out what percentage is the radius of the circle on the quadrant’s circumference.

4.4.1. Finding the Principal (Part One)

Figure 15. Percentage of a circle’s quadrant

Calculation for quadrant’s circumference;

We know that the radius is 1, with Pi as 3.125, the quadrant’s circumference is 1.5625.

The radius is exactly 64% of a circle’s quadrant circumference.

Let’s try this with another radius. If I have a radius of 7, the circumference will be;

Calculation for quadrant’s circumference;

Testing the findings of the radius of the circle as 64% of the Quadrant’s Circumference;

We are on Track.

Hence, to get the principal, we multiply the radius by 0.64 (64%);

Principal for a radius of 7 will be;

For exponential growth, the percentage of the quadrant’s circumference as the radius times the radius, is the principal value that aids growth. Let’s try this out. That percentage of the Quadrant’s circumference as the radius for a radius of 1 is simply 0.64. Let’s see what exponential growth does with the value 0.64.

For a radius of 7;

We can see that with exponential growth, we get exactly the quadrant’s circumference value. This whole calculation gives us the idea on how to get the principal for a full circumference.

The quadrant’s circumference (1.5625) multiplied by 4 gives the full circumference of the circle (6.25). Hence, to get the principal that will yield the circumference, we multiply the result by 4.

For a radius of 7;

4.4.2. Finding the Principal (Part Two)

There’s another method to get the principal, this arises from the converter value.

Again, we can get the converter value by using the formula;

If we can understand the above equation in another way, it means that Pi represents the circumference, which can be broken down into 4 parts (quadrants) with the converter still in play, represents the line.

The equation for the converter is simply

If we take the inverse of to get , we get another type of converter that produces the principal.

Let’s name this Hence

Converting to the quadrant’s circumference (1.5625), we use

Now, converting to the principal, we use

For a radius of 7, it will be which is

After which we proceed for exponential growth. I think this an easy method.

4.4.3. Finding the Principal (Part Three)

However, this should be the easiest method. We can use a simple question with an equation to get the principal.

If the radius is 16% of the circumference, what percentage of the circumference is

For a radius of 7 with a circumference of 43.75;

We proceed next for exponential growth. This is a similar method to the first method, but it’s quite easy. All methods are easy, depends on the choice. However, use Method 1 and 2 if you don’t know the circumference beforehand.

4.5. Growth Process

This part reveals the growth process and how the curve increases with time.

Table 5

Figure 16. Growth Process (Length)

With Table 5 and Figure 16, we can now observe the increase in curve. From the starting point P:0 to P:2.56 is the length as the principal, which is where the growth officially starts from and ends at the P:6.25 which is the full circumference. The Length of curve added increase with time as seen. We can see the proof and how the true Pi value (3.125) can do the unthinkable but the question is; how do we confirm that the growth is accordingly? How do we know that the growth describes a full circumference?

4.6. Growth in Degrees

We can know if we do it in degrees. To confirm all the findings, we have to demonstrate it in degrees. It is still the same procedure; we just have to find the principal for degrees measurement. With the same idea, remember it’s all about the radius.

Procedure: The aim is to get 360° by the end of the cycle, if we don’t get 360°, then the Pi value as 3.125 is wrong as well.

To get the principal for degrees measurement, we use the same idea of the radius on the circumference.

To get the exact position (degrees) of the radius (1step) on the circumference, we use the formula;

Figure 17. Radius on Quadrant’s circumference (degrees)

To get the principal for growth in degrees, we simply multiply the principal for growth in curve (length) by 57.6°, then divide by the radius;

Another way to get the result is by getting the angle for length (curve) 2.56 of the total curve (circumference). The question goes this way; From the full circumference, what is the angle of the principal?

2.56 out of 6.25 is out of 360°.

We use as the principal, then we proceed for exponential growth;

Figure 18. Growth Process (Degrees)

Table 6

This whole demonstration confirms the formation of a full circumference through exponential growth aided by Pi. Figure 18 is just the version of Figure 16 in angles.

4.7. Breakdown

Table 7

Table 8

Table 7 shows the full breakdown of the growth in length and in degrees as they correspond. The increase (extensions) sums up the full circumference in length and degrees.

These demonstrations and calculations are the mathematical evidence of the Pi value as well as it’s relation to exponential growth. Thus, what’s left is to test with one or two more radius just for a 100% confirmation.

4.8. Exponential Growth (Final Testing)

The illustration displays accuracy and proves the true Pi value, test with as much radius value as you can, they all produce corresponding accurate values.

4.9. The Flaws of the Other Pi values

I am uncertain about where to begin. In the proper context, based on all the calculations, I am not required to demonstrate that the other proposed values of Pi are incorrect; this is not meant to be a debate but rather an authoritative conclusion, however I must establish their inaccuracies for global awareness. I have already demonstrated the initial test utilizing the converter value; the remaining Pi values were unsuccessful. I will move forward with the continuation.

4.9.1. Test (Pi as 3.14)

We know that our radius is 1, with Pi as 3.14.

The quadrant’s circumference is 1.57.

The radius is exactly 64% of a circle’s quadrant, and 3.14 didn’t pass this test, we expected a result as 1, but we have 1.0048.

Using the third test, independently with its own converter;

Converting to the quadrant’s circumference (1.57), we use for Pi as 3.14 (Table x);

Now, converting to the principal, we use

Using 2.547770701 as the principal in exponential growth formula, we expect to get 6.28 as the circumference.

I tried to do it independently with its own converter and still, 6.28 was not possible to get through exponential growth. This is to show you all shades of wrong with these other Pi value.

Proceeding for Measurement;

We use as the principal, then we proceed for measurement using exponential growth;

There’s an error as seen above, not exactly 360°.

4.9.2. Test (Pi as 3.142)

We know that our radius is 1, with Pi as 3.142.

The quadrant’s circumference is 1.571.

The radius is exactly 64% of a circle’s quadrant, and 3.142 didn’t pass this test, we expected a result as 1, but we have 1.00544.

Using the third test, independently with its converter;

Converting to the quadrant’s circumference (1.571), we use for Pi as 3.142 (Table x);

Now, converting to the principal, we use

Using 2.546148949 as the principal in exponential growth formula, we expect to get 6.284 as the circumference.

Proceeding for Measurement;

We use as the principal, then we proceed for measurement using exponential growth;

There’s an error as seen in these calculations, not exactly 360°. I don’t need to test any other Pi values; it’s a waste of time, I tested them some years ago. The reader can decide to test any proposed Pi value you can think of; they are all wrong.

Summary: Deceptions cannot unlock anything. It has been a long time of deceit, but at last the proof has been released. The primary issue concerning the accuracy of the Pi number lies in measuring. It is evident that the majority of pre-existing formulas incorporating Pi are accurate, indicating that we have frequently executed the correct procedures while employing an erroneous constant value, as a result of individuals conducting measurements or calculations that yielded results approximating 3.14 repeatedly, leading to a collective decision to append additional digits and formalize it, which is an inappropriate methodology. Any scientific formula that incorporates Pi must adhere to the value of 3.125; otherwise, the formula is incorrect. The demonstration of the Pi value appears as the third scroll, as its establishment through the four numbers suggests its relevance in several life aspects, the first being the creation of the significant value "100," previously disclosed in scrolls two and three.

5. Scroll Four – Percentage

Figure 19. Scroll/Percentage

Let’s Discuss. In relation to percentage, the number 100 is been used a lot in mathematics and other branches of science. I like to use the number ‘’100’’ to represent a whole, then expressing a number as a fraction of 100, as a fraction of a whole. Remember, we are reenforcing the foundation of mathematics. 100 is been used all these years without realizing that the value 100 is simply;

The reason for this is the fact that the Pi value is rational as a fraction;

We get the almighty percentage by multiplying that fraction by 4, which is the key that represents the number of quadrants, four zodiacs as well in relation to the blueprint; in all, it is key.

If you observe scrolls two and three very well, it has always been 100 vs 360, percentage vs degrees, a line vs a curve. A line can as well be a curve. I can actually bend a straight line into a circle. The same line length will now be the same circumference of the circle. Again, this is just 100 vs 360. Now, if Pi can perfectly bend a line to a curve (circumference), which is 360 degrees. Why can’t the Pi value tell you the exact degree for a percentage?

Table 9

This is the idea behind drawing a Pie chart as you know. Obviously, the Pi value is there secretly because What if I told the world that there is another way to convert to degrees using the true Pi value with the actual formula we use for a circle’s circumference.

Figure 20. Blueprint Sketch

Take a look at Figure 20, you see the symbol of the four zodiacs, which is a circle divided into four parts with intersecting lines. This symbol indicates that there’s a natural (default) angle as 90° with each quadrant as 90°, also represented by the four numbers that forms the true Pi value 3.125. If there’s anything we’ve learnt about the ‘’theory of everything’’, is the fact that the default gives birth to the rest. If 90° is the default angle, then any other angle can be gotten through the default, and this is where we apply the true Pi value for conversion, just like we did with the converter value using this time it is degrees and it is 90° by just looking at the blueprint.

In scroll 2 and 3, we used the converter with the formula as;

The formula without Pi is;

This time, we replace with 90° to get another type of converter

When we use intersecting lines (vertically and horizontally) to divide a circle, we get 4 quadrants with 90° as each and the circle will then have four radiuses. This is normal in mathematics and we can use the idea for conversion from percentage to degrees but we are supposed to think that any proposed Pi value that successfully converts the percentage to degrees accurately, is the true Pi value.

Remember the normal way of converting percentage to degrees;

This concept of showcasing the power of the Pi value is simply using the idea behind , with 34 as the circumference, try to find the radius, but this time, apply the converter

Alternatively, with the idea that the radius is 16% of the circumference.

Hence, compare Table 9 with 10 and 11, you’ll observe the accuracy.

Table 10

Table 11

Summary: Percentage is already known without any flaw, I don’t need to speak much about this scroll, you can see more discussion in [8]. We already experienced the power of the percentage in scroll 2 and 3. These tables also ensure you construct the Perfect Pie chart for a presentation. However, the percentage formed by Pi helps to generate the growth rate and e. The fact that a curve (circumference) can be formed through exponential growth means that the geometry of all-natural matter will be in accordance with the Pi nature.

6. Scroll Five – Geometry

Figure 21. Scroll/Geometry

Geometry is the branch of mathematics that deals with the study of shapes, sizes, positions, and angles. This scroll teaches us about how the geometry of the natural things will be, before proceeding to reveal that the other shapes can be formed from a circle.

We can now see that Pi creates growth and percentage, and we now see the reason why all-natural geometry (planets, trees, leaves, fruits, eggs, atom etc) are in a Pi shape/Geometry. Now, pay attention to what you see in general. The Pi shapes as revealed are based on the fact they have a circumference. Every Pi shape is formed from the idea of a circumference.

6.1. The Pi Shapes

I’ve done this before in previous papers. These are shapes (2D,3D) with a circumference, the Pi value is present in their formula for area or circumference as well, such as circle, sphere, ellipse, oval, cylinder, cone.

Table 12

Table 13

These are the shapes we see in planetary bodies/planets, fruits, tree trunks, leaves, eggs, atoms, electrons etc, basically everything natural. The same Pi geometry is also behind the extraordinary man-made things like planes, cars, fan, gears, basically the idea behind rotation.

Generally, I don’t have much to reveal in this scroll, because I’ve done this several times over the years in previous papers. Everything about the formulas, descriptions relating to these shapes are valid except the ellipse which I have an issue with.

6.2. The Flaw Behind the Ellipse

Figure 22. Leaf Shape

The inquiry is as follows: is an ellipse characterized as a two-dimensional figure or a three-dimensional object? If it is two-dimensional, the recognized depiction of an ellipse is inaccurate; it can only be partially accurate if it is three-dimensional. An elliptical circumference is a distinct type of circumference determined by an alternative angle. It assumes an oval shape when oriented vertically and an ellipse when positioned horizontally, although one should be attentive to the trajectory of the circumference. This form of circumference is observed naturally in eggs, leaves, and certain fruits. It is also stated that the orbital trajectory of planets such as Mercury is elliptical [2]. Everything comes from the root, if the shape is valid, it will be seen in blueprint. Everything we learned in school regarding an ellipse is inaccurate. During our school days, we were instructed to create an ellipse, a process that is somewhat complex. However, with the existence of a blueprint, if it represents a natural form, it should no longer be complex. The equation for the circumference of an ellipse remains elusive; a search online reveals that no precise formula exists for its calculation, instead indicating that it necessitates a sophisticated concept known as an elliptic integral. That is entirely erroneous and unacceptable.

Just like a circle, how do we know a perfect ellipse? Remember, it all started from the root ratios, while a circle is from the (45°, 45°) right angled triangle which is total of 90°, an ellipse is also from a right-angled triangle (right scalene triangle), a total of 90°, but to be formed from a circle.

Figure 23. Ellipse Formation 1

The Figure 23 explains the identity of an Ellipse, it is according to the blueprint. The whole process of finding this identity, starts from a circle.

Figure 24. Ellipse Formation 2

• Draw a Circle with any radius.

• Form a (45°, 45°) right angled triangle from the circle’s quadrant.

• AB becomes the hypotenuse of the triangle, measure the hypotenuse line or calculate it from radius.

• The Diameter AB becomes the line that divides the Ellipse into two parts (Diameter of Ellipse). Hence, we’ve formed the semi-ellipse.

Figure 25. Ellipse Formation 3

• At 45° (half of hypotenuse), draw a line the exact measurement of the hypotenuse, if your hypotenuse is 7cm, draw a line 7cm starting from the centre of the circle E. E to H is exactly the length of the hypotenuse (Figure 25).

Figure 26. Ellipse Formation 4

Figure 27. Ellipse Formation 5

• Take your drawing compass and measure the exact radius of the circle, use H as the centre of the second circle.

• Complete the Ellipse by forming the other half (Figure 27) from an attempt to draw a second circle. You can decide to complete the second circle as well (Figure 26).

• EH=AB, CH = EB (Figure 26). We can do the drawings without completing both circles, just connect A to B by trying to draw a circle both ways.

With the above method, we can practically draw an ideal ellipse in its true form. By revealing the identity of the ellipse, calculations for circumference and area of an ellipse are needed.

We know that which is is simply or Hence;

6.3. Circumference of an Ellipse (Derivation)

First form;

Second Form;

Third Form;

If then substituting into equation results to;

Table 14

To get the circumference of the drawn circle from the three formulas, all we need to do is multiply by 2. This is due to the fact that an ellipse is basically the circumference of two quadrants joined together, it will require two more quadrant circumference to match a full circle circumference. Hence, if C is the circumference of a circle and then;

Converting first form;

Converting Second Form;

Converting Third Form;

The above derivations are usable if you want to know the circumference of the drawn or to be drawn circle from the details of the ellipse.

6.4. Calculations for an Ellipse (Test)

Without the radius of the circle, we can use first form and second form. If we have only the radius of the ellipse, as 8, to know the circumference of the ellipse, let’s confirm with the derived equations.

Using First form;

Using Second form;

Using Third form;

If the radius is with the circumference of the circle is;

Using the converted formulas to attempt to get the circumference of the circle;

Testing First Converted Form;

Testing Second Converted Form;

Testing Third Converted Form;

The Test is complete, you can test with any values of your choice.

6.5. Area of an Ellipse (Derivation)

Figure 28. Ellipse Formation

The Area of the semi ellipse would be area of quadrant minus the area of the triangle;

Testing with radius of circle as 7;

Full Formula description;

Trick: we calculate with 1 as a default. Hence, instead of passing through the long process, a quick and independent formula will be using the value of the area of the ellipse for 1 as radius and multiply by current radius. Thus, we derive the formula for area.

For example, we got 27.5625 for radius as 7 with the long process. A quick trick will be as follows;

This gives us the official formula for the area of Ellipse, which will be;

Let’s test on more time. For an Ellipse with diameter as

Using the circle area method to confirm. The diameter of an Ellipse is the hypotenuse of the right-angled triangle formed from a circle’s quadrant. Hence, the radius of the circle is 15.

Test is complete.

6.6. Conclusion for an Ellipse: Identification

Figure 29. Ellipse Identity

The description of an ellipse in 2D is exactly a perfect leaf shape as observed in Figure 29. Also, when you do the practical (drawing), you see for yourself. I could have given it a different name, maybe "leafse’’, but I don’t have to lie that it isn’t the true form of an ellipse because an ellipse geometry is natural. However, when this shape (ellipse) becomes 3D, it becomes the shape we see as an egg. In all these, note that there are so many factors that affect geometry.

People say that Earth is not a perfect sphere; it could be true, but we all know that the geometry behind its form is spherical [9]. Whether perfect or not, it is spherical. This same situation applies to the ellipse/oval in shapes like the leaf. All the leaves in nature follow the ellipse form, but we would see forms like combinations (love shape), stretched, shrunk, etc. These are forms of different leaves, but if we observe closely with all types, we’ll notice how they curve to a pointed end like the display in Figure 29.

6.7. Summary

From exponential growth forming the circumference to percentage to geometry, this describes the reason for the things of nature in Pi shape. We have other shapes/geometries like the square, triangle, polygons, etc. Each of these shapes can be formed from the circumference as the default geometry of the Universe.

7. Scroll Six – Number Theory

Figure 30. Scroll/Number Theory

We already know this branch of mathematics as the study of integers and their properties. This is the most important scroll. The reason for its importance is the fact that you can know that Pi is 3.125 but you won’t know that the numbers that form the Pi value is a thing. If I also say that 1,2,3 and 5 form the blueprint by representing quadrants, you won’t believe me if a number theory didn’t exist. Another reason for its importance is the fact that it tells us the features, characteristics of the numbers, the relationship (link) between the numbers. We have to observe the properties of the Four zodiac numbers (1,2,3 and 5) which are also the numbers that make up the Pi value, it is key to interpreting to blueprint to max. The connection/relationship between the four numbers created some key branches in mathematics that are significant and I’ll just explain right away.

7.1. Number Formation

Have you wondered why the famous open problems in Number Theory are;

• Riemann Hypothesis

• Twin Prime Conjecture (are there infinitely many primes p such that p+2 is also a prime?)

• Goldbach Conjecture (every even integer is sum of two primes

• Collatz Conjecture ( problem)

If we observe the open problems in number theory, we see that they are related to these root numbers whereby there are some strange behaviours when numbers like 2 and 3 are used. There are certain laws of the Universe, I said it before that mathematics is the language of the Universe, and I also said that the numbers that forms the Pi value are the root numbers. When we see a thing of beauty, something strange or something bizarre, just know that the root numbers are involved.

7.2. Prime Numbers

If we don’t know the law, we simply do not have a guide. Not following the law means we do what we like. I already proved in [6] that the Four zodiac numbers formed the prime numbers. In this section, we will have a brief discussion for understanding.

There’s already a UR paper on prime numbers relating to Pi. Here, I’ll just simply state the facts.

There’s a common sequence with prime numbers and two numbers broke that law and made your mathematicians confused. Why? Because there’s no understanding of the law.

Who actually make these decisions? why is 1 not a prime? on what grounds? When 1 is the ‘’Ultimate Prime’’. I want the reader to reflect on the following questions;

• Why is 2 the only even prime when all prime numbers are odd numbers?

• The Last digit of all prime can either be 1, 7, 3 or 9. Why did 2 and 5 break that law? No other number apart from 2 and 5.

• All primes can be expressed as either or with n as a whole. Then, why did 1, 2 and 3 oppose?

Four numbers broke something that is common among other similar numbers. It can only be possible if these numbers are the origin. 1,2,3, and 5 are the root prime numbers and also the first four prime numbers. Any other prime number apart from these four zodiacs, must follow the rule as;

• All prime numbers are odd numbers.

• The Last digit of any prime number must either end with 1,7,3 or 9.

• All primes can be expressed as or with n as a whole.

Table 15

The first row in Table 15 is called ‘’root row’’, this is where we see the root prime numbers. The proof of the intersecting lines, the exact positioning of the numbers we see in the blueprint is simply the prime numbers arrangement. This is something bizarre. In [6], I still proved the fact that column 1 and 5 are linked and the proof is that; to sieve out multiples of primes, we count the steps of each prime. For example, to sieve of multiples of 7, count each 7 steps from 7 in column one downwards, and 7 steps from 7 upwards and onto column 5 and the downwards, you’ll get all multiples of 7. To show that column 1 and 5 are linked, let’s count 7steps from 7 upwards onto column 5;

This is why 35 is coloured red as it won’t be a prime. Now, 5 belongs to column 5, let’s count 5 steps from 5 onto column 1 to mark a multiple of 5.

5 with 5steps downward on its own column will be;

7 with 7steps downward on its own column will be;

This is how to sieve the non-primes out. The process is continuous, you keep counting out with the numbers of steps (i.e., if the prime is 19, count 19 steps) Read [2] for full discovery.

Perhaps, look at the sketch of the blueprint base in Figure 20 (1-5, 2-3), meaning 1 is linked directly to 5, and 2 directly to 3, which reveals the reason why the columns are linked, with column 1 similar to column 5 containing all other primes and column 2 and 3 containing primes as just itself. It means a lot, and it showcases the power of the blueprint. This is one of the proofs of the intersecting lines of the blueprint.

7.3. The Link between 1, 2 and 5

There’s a special link between 1, 2 and 5. The understanding behind this link is more than just numbers and more of what they represent. Stake Theory [8] reveals the identity of the numbers. However, as numbers, there are three major relationships between them, only one is already known, the remaining two will be revealed in this section.

The three major relationship between 1,2 and 5 are;

• Direct Link

• Binary

• 3HEX

7.4. Direct Link

There’s a direct link between 1,2 and 5 involving odd numbers, even numbers and a special sequence. This link also showcases the power of the Pi value.

7.4.1. Odd Link

Using an odd number, 3;

The link involving odd numbers;

Step 1: Multiply an odd number (n) by Pi.

Step 2: Write the result without the decimal point (e.g., result=9.375, result becomes 9375).

Step 3: Divide the result by 5 continuously i.e., until the results cannot be divided by 5 further. We get 5steps.

The final result is (n) which is the odd number itself.

Testing with more odd numbers;

Observation: The result is always 5steps and it produces the odd number in play.

7.4.2. Even Link

This is not the case for any even number multiplied by Pi with the application of the same method.

The link involving even numbers;

Step 1: Multiply an even number (n) by Pi.

Step 2: Write the result without the decimal point (e.g., result = 9.375, result becomes 9375).

Step 3: Divide the result by 5 continuously i.e., until the results cannot be divided by 5 further. We get a mix of 4steps and 3steps.

The final result is

Testing with more examples;

Result: n/2

Result: n/2

Result: n/4

Result: n/2

Result: n/4

Result: n/2

Result: n/2

Result: n/4

Observation: The steps are always 3steps or 4steps. The results are always n/2 or n/4. 3steps for n/4 and 4steps for n/2.

7.4.3. The Sequence

With the same method. These are set of even numbers that involves just two steps, the result is they form an important sequence in number theory.

Observation: From Odd to Even to Sequence, we see a reduction in steps from 5steps to 4steps to 3steps to 2steps. Also, an increase in divisor from result, n to n/2 to n/4 to n/8.

The final results from the sequence calculation in section 7.33 as;

The results as a sequence (Binary):

The numbers forming the results as a sequence (3HEX):

This results to the next section as ‘’Binary’’.

7.5. Binary

Does the difference between binaries bring out the real link between two values in binary and how they switch? I don’t think so. I said that numbers in science are like letters of a language. Numbers interact, when they interact, they mean something. In trigonometry, (1,2 and 3) three of the four zodiacs combined to give us something extraordinary. In binary, three of the four zodiacs combine as well but this time it is 1, 2 and 5 coming together to form an extraordinary thing called binary. The number is multiplied by the Pi value with 5 as the divisor reacting with 2 steps always. 1 is the root of the four numbers, so we always include it. Thus, binary is a link between 1, 2 and 5.

It’s straightforward, without binary there won’t be advanced technology. I think by now, we would still be using horses and camel to move around, we would be using birds to deliver information to people, and a lot more.

The only reason why we advanced in technology is because we found a way to manipulate the electron which is the reason why humans can create the extraordinary, it’s all about electrons. With the help of binary, we could manipulate the electron and now binary is the foundation of;

• Computer Programming

• Networking and Communications

• Data Representation in Computers

• Telecommunication

• Memory and Storage

and lots more.

Let’s check out this difference in binary, take a look at Table 16.

Table 16

Let’s name the sequence as the root sequence. The same sequence is where we get our perfect binaries which are 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 etc., they are green in Table 16 as observed. There’s also more to the reason behind the other binaries.

With the root sequence, and the sequence in difference from Table 16, we can write numbers in binary. Why? The pattern we notice on the difference section of Table 16 is simply the reoccurring of the root sequence.

With the sequence, we can simply know or write the binaries by filling gaps with first time appearances starting with 1, then the rest;

Insert 1 at the places it will appear (every 2 steps), Insert 9 at the places it will appear (every 4 steps).

And so on, according to the sequence. Once the differences are formed up as a table up to the desired end point. Insert the perfect binaries in green (Table 16), e.g. 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000…... at their positions which is the sequence (1,2,4,8,16,32…..). Begin addition and subtraction with the differences. This is how to know the binaries through differences.

For Example, if I have the following table to fill up;

Table 17

To fill Table 17, I know the sequence format (1,9,89,889,8889….) and I know that 1 appears every 2 steps with a step as first appearance, therefore I insert 1 at every 2 steps (Table 18);

Table 18

The next is 9, 9 first time appearance (second row) to appear every four steps (Table 19), therefore;

Table 19

The next is 89, 89 first time appearance (fourth row) to appear every eight steps (Table 20);

Table 20

89 didn’t get to an eight step because it’s a short table. Next is 889; 889 first time appearance (Eight row)) to appear every sixteen steps (Table 21);

Table 21

The difference table is complete. Thus, proceed with addition or subtraction to get binary;

Proceed to fill in table with results (Table 22);

Table 22

These calculations and illustrations display an alternative way to get binary through a sequence of difference arising from the link between 1, 2 and 5. The illustration I just displayed is how computers can quickly interact with binaries, and this is not known. Computers don’t start calculating with the other binary method. It’s basically from the difference positions, repeating sequential format (1-2-4-8-16…).

7.6. Manipulating the Electron

There’s a reason for the digits of the physical constants. It is like everything in the Universe is designed under a program titled ‘’Pi’’. When we talk about matter, it is simply an electron as a sub-atomic form. Binary is the logical system humans (and software) use to instruct hardware. The hardware then manipulates electrons at the physical level to make those instructions reality. Without precise control over electrons, binary would be useless.

Table 23

Not the CODATA values which is no longer valid, the UPE values show that the digit pattern of the electron related is in accordance with the digit pattern of the differences through the sequence. There’s nothing on Earth that isn’t by the blueprint. If it true that binary could manipulate electrons, we would observe a pattern, which is what you see in the digit pattern of the Electron Mass and Electric constant as well as other particles like quark (Table 23).

7.7. 3HEX

To avoid a lengthy paper. The concept of 3HEX is revealed in the paper titled ‘’Red Atom-3HEX: UR III’’, paper will be out soon.

7.8. Summary

The four zodiac numbers are the first four prime numbers. Three of the numbers combine to form trigonometry, three of the numbers combine to form binary and 3HEX. Digital engineering relies entirely on binary logic, the powers of two patterns hardware layouts, communication protocols, and processing blocks across branches of technology. Video game engines and 3D graphics software require textures to be perfectly square powers of two (512 x 512, 1024 x 1024, etc.). Network sizing: 64, 128, 256, 512 Ips. Storage: 2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512gb. Cryptographic keys: 128-bit, 256-bit etc. And so on, as much as I can remember. At the beginning, we thought binary was about ones and zeros or perfect powers of 2; it actually involved 5, and the strength of binary is generated from the Pi value. Again, everything in this world is directly or indirectly created by Pi.

8. Scroll Seven– Pathways

Figure 31. Scroll/Pathways

Pathways are simply as its definition, the link between the scrolls as they are not much. During the explanation of the scrolls, we already encountered some of them such as;

1. BODMAS

2. Ratio

3. Root and squares

4. Logarithm

5. Sine/Cosine/Tangent…

6. Limits

As the reader, you are already familiar with these pathways and may include any that you believe are absent from the list. Topics such as calculus and algebra are not inherent pathways; rather, they are artificial constructs that utilize unknown variables to elucidate problem-solving concepts, essentially substituting unknowns for numerical values, and are exclusively for human developments and for complex systems, not derived from nature. In this document, I will disclose a correction of the calculations relating to the natural logarithm, prompted by the corrected findings regarding e in scroll 2.

One observes the discussions around the application of calculus and infinite series to approximate the value of Pi, as well as the utilization of the Taylor series with factorials and other methods to derive the value of e. These methods are utterly worthless; hence, I would explicitly advise pupils to exercise caution. Only when you aspire to make a new discovery do you recognize that it is the small details, such as the comprehension of Pi and exponentials, that constrain your advancement in achieving a novel discovery. The reality is that academics, mathematicians, and scientists often have peers who will endorse their erroneous theories in exchange for future reciprocation when the latter publishes a theory. In other news, propagate an erroneous theory and get the endorsement of your peers in mathematics or science; once they provide their support, it is deemed a legitimate theory, compelling students and others to accept it. This is the summary of events involving falsehoods in the science realm.

e serves as the base for natural logarithm. I didn’t create Logarithm, but if it’s true that e is not a constant, logarithm will approve.

8.1. Base 10

With e as the base;

With a calculator, it gives the correct answer which shows that Logarithm approves. Insert in this format, to get accurate results.

8.2. Log and In

About e and its inverse (In), of course, because of the misconception about e, we can’t use calculators for now until it is corrected. Hence, we just do it manually from the fact that;

This result using a scientific calculator gives 0.07696104114 which is wrong, this due to the fact that e was described as a constant. Meanwhile, the correct result is 0.08. In short, to do similar calculation, you must get e for the value in play.

Calculations were previously done based on exponential growth format; Let’s derive the actual equation;

So, if we have an example with x = 17, to find we can calculate;

First Step: Get the e value;

Insert the above in a Calculator, you get;

The result can be known before calculation because 17-1 is 16. Hence;

There’s a lot to be corrected in mathematics, the errors and mistakes are too much at this point, all these because e was described as a constant.

Switching from a number to next number, ‘’a form of growth’’, can be done using Logarithm through the concept of exponential growth. i.e., 16 to 17, 17 to 18, 18 to 19 etc.

Note, use a calculator than can compute complete digits so you don’t quote me wrong, or input as roots. i.e., e in this case is 1.193721614 in decimal, in roots, it is Decimal is likely to give incomplete results, but roots or fraction will always yield accurate results.

Now, we can use e to grow a number, if then I can add steps (time) like I explained in scroll 2,

This is the same as Now, is growth in numbers (17-18-19-20 and so on) an example of exponential growth? it is evident.

Again, using 19 and 20.

Insert the above in a Calculator, you get;

An equation can be established from the fact in scroll 2;

It is entirely not my fault; I apologize if my statements have caused offense, but I believe that scientists and mathematicians ought to prioritize precision and refrain from fabricating theories and soliciting validation from peers, as this undermines the integrity of science. This issue is occurring in other disciplines, a typical example is the efforts to compel global acceptance of string theory in physics, despite it being one of the most misleading theories in existence.

Allocate sufficient time to examine every evidence regarding the irrationality of Pi, approaching it with a focus on precision. Upon scrutiny, one will comprehend my justification for disclosing that these individuals employ calculus, complex numbers, and infinite series, among others, to encourage inaccuracies that result in deception. When employing unknowns in your calculations, it is necessary to validate your equations with actual values to ascertain their accuracy; otherwise, you risk creating confusion for both yourself and others.

In Lambert's demonstration of Pi's irrationality, he evidently presumed that Pi is irrational prior to constructing his equation with insufficient clarity.

The above equation is the starting point of Lambert's failure and also the reason why I said mathematicians use the subjects with unknowns to permit inaccuracy; they are not used to accuracy. Someone should explain how on earth is Yes, I know that is 360°, and but one side is in radians, and the other in degrees. We always forget the rule for validating an equation,

The above equation is true but we are forgetting that for an equation to be true, LHS must be equal to RHS, this is where mathematicians get it wrong, you don’t make assumptions without following procedures. Lambert simply substituted for 45° but we all know that to make equals 45°, we convert to degrees because LHS is in radians and RHS is in degrees, you know this.

The equation is supposed to be written as;

This is straightforward: the sole method to equate with 45° is well known, which is why I maintain that the practice by mathematicians constitutes an act of deceit, as one is aware of the correct technique yet chooses to act differently. Exercise caution when formulating equations involving unknowns; consistently validate each derivation step with an actual value/number to ensure accuracy. Failing to do so results in self-deception; this is the sole method to proficiently apply intricate approaches for resolving complex systems. Other demonstrations of Pi's irrationality exist; upon examination, one will observe that they are total nonsense.

In all, this paper is a call for the mathematics/scientific community to review our mathematical foundations, the findings are here for your independent verification. Thank you and seat tight for more on other science subjects.

9. Summary - The Blueprint of the Universe

Figure 32. Blueprint

Mathematics isn’t just beauty; it is the universe's native language that defines the impossible. Humans discovered numbers, but numbers are the hidden architecture behind reality; they speak to us, but most times we ignorantly do not listen. Without mathematics, there’s no way we can understand anything in science. Without numbers, there’s no mathematics. Therefore, why won’t the root of science be numbers? This paper contains a lot of new findings in mathematics, but there’s a major finding to take home, which is the blueprint. With all that has been revealed, a whole new path has been created in science; we need to just simply follow that path [7]; it will lead us to the unknown discoveries. All these years, we’ve been having discoveries, but they were done blindly without a single theory that can connect several discoveries together. The whole trigonometry-four zodiac root ratios formation, down to growth, percentage, geometry, number theory, etc.—they tell a story generally in science, and I’m gradually revealing that story to the world. Now, if the root of mathematics is basically four numbers, then these four numbers are the root of science. This paper is only the beginning; there are more discoveries in UR II, III, IV, and V to be released gradually. The next paper in the series is titled "Stake Theory." III and IV of the blueprints are to be released hopefully in 2026.

All theories and new equations in this paper are novel, all proposed by Prince Chimobi Igboejesi.