you're arguing with realityGermann wrote: Mathematically, Nibbana should already be achieved. Theravada - arguing the opposite - is directly contrary to mathematics.
A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
People describe "some kind of reality" and sometimes they use mathematical tools to make that description. The way they do it is to show how their mathematics predicted something which was then shown to actually happen. Your mathematics predicts something which has not been shown to actually happen. When this occures the usual way to proceed is to consider if the mathematical model has a mathematical error and if the mathematical model is found to be mathematically correct then to consider if/how its application to the phenomena being studied is inappropriate or incomplete or inaccurate. When people describe "some kind of reality" sometimes their description is inappropriate or incomplete or inaccurate....and their use of mathematics is simply part of the shortcomings of their description.
There is another very useful application for mathematics. Sometimes when a mathematical model is not consistent with the "some kind of reality" which it is being used to model the fact that there is an inconsistency can lead the person doing the study to consider that they might have misrepresented "some kind of reality" and it is the assumptions about "some kind of reality" which are in error.....mathematics can lead people to re-examine their views to see if there is something which they have yet to learn.....when people try to describe "some kind of reality" they often forget that their description will only be as good as their understanding and forget that their description does not define that "some kind of reality" and is only a description which can be more or less appropriate or complete or accurate.