Again, using the Peano based additive approach to number, from the (Type 1) cardinal perspective, each prime t, is seemingly made up of independent homogeneous units (in quantitative terms); however from the (Type 2) ordinal perspective, the composition of these units as 1st, 2nd, 3rd,....,t

^{th }respectively, is unique for each prime (in a corresponding qualitative manner).

Then indirectly these unique ordinal units can be indirectly expressed, in a circular quantitative manner, through the t roots of 1 (excluding 1 which is common in all cases).

The Zeta 2 zeros, representing the unique values for s can then be expressed as the solutions for

ζ

_{2}(s) = 1 + s^{1 }+ s^{2 }+^{ …. }+^{ }s^{t – 1 }= 0 (where t is prime).
Therefore, the key role of the Zeta 2 zeros, in this context is that they provide the means of converting ordinal notions of a qualitative nature (indirectly) in a quantitative manner.

And of course once again, we have the seeming paradox that the ordinal nature of each prime is expressed through an orderly sequence of natural numbers!

However we can equally approach number from the multiplication approach, where, again from the (Type 1) perspective, each (composite) natural number is expressed as a unique combination of primes, in a cardinal manner.

So for example 6 = 2 * 3.

However just as before we found that a (hidden) Type 2 explanation (of an inherently qualitative nature) existed, this is equally true in this case.

In other words, when two (or more) primes are multiplied, a qualitative - as well as quantitative - transformation takes place in the units involved. So the Type 2 aspect of interpretation now relates to this (hidden) qualitative aspect of number transformation (arising from multiplication).

Now I have already used the geometrical representation of number multiplication to hint at this qualitative transformation.

So once again 2 * 3 can be represented as a 2-dimensional figure comprising 6 square units.

Therefore we can now readily appreciate that while the quantitative result of multiplying 2 * 3 is indeed 6, that this result now represents a transformation from 1-dimensional units (with respect to 2 and 3 separately) to 2-dimensional units (with respect to the combined operation).

Thus again, whereas the quantitative transformation in the units can be directly attributed to their separate independent nature, the qualitative transformation - by contrast - relates to the corresponding interdependent nature of units involved.

And when one reflects on it, the very means by which can recognise 2 and 3 as the (separate) sides of a rectangle, is the corresponding ability to appreciate an orderly relationship in a 2-dimensional manner, as between these respective sides (where they are necessarily understood as interdependent with each other).

Therefore, whenever we multiply the primes to obtain composite natural numbers, both a quantitative (Type 1) and qualitative (Type 2) transformation is involved.

There is perhaps an even easier way of appreciating this inevitable interdependence that arises from the multiplication of numbers.

The very essence of the manner we view the primes (in a cardinal manner) is their - seemingly - absolute independent nature. This is why the primes are customarily referred to as the "atoms" of the natural number system.

So from this perspective, 2 and 3 as primes are indeed independent "building blocks".

However when we multiply these numbers, they no longer exist in an absolute independent manner (but rather in relationship with each other).

Therefore though 2 and 3 are indeed separate and independent in their cardinal prime state, when multiplied together (i.e. 2 * 3) both numbers now exist as part of a new relationship (where they can no longer be appreciated as merely independent).

Put another way, both 2 and 3 obtain a new qualitative resonance through their unique combination in generating the number 6.

And now we come to the crucial insight! If in fact the primes acquire a qualitative interdependence (though their unique relationship with each other) then they cannot in fact be independent in an absolute manner!

Rather both their (quantitative) independence as individual primes and their (qualitative) interdependence, through their unique relationships in generating the (composite) natural numbers, are thereby necessarily of a relative nature.

The implications of this - though in one way obvious - are quite startling, for it entails that just as the (composite) natural numbers are dependent on the collective nature of the primes, equally the individual primes are dependent on the (composite) natural numbers for their existence.

The great fallacy, perpetuated in conventional mathematical interpretation, is that somehow we can start with the primes as the absolute "building blocks" of the natural number system.

This in turn reflects the merely reduced quantitative empahsis on number that defines such understanding.

However properly understood - in a dynamic interactive manner - both the primes and natural numbers mutually depend on each other for their existence.

So in fact a paradoxical type relationship exists whereby ultimately they perfectly complement each other (both quantitatively and qualitatively) in an ineffable manner.

However to properly appreciate this, the quantitative (Type 1) and qualitative (Type 2) aspects of both the primes and natural numbers must be emphasised in equal balance.