Equations cause inequality, because they do not treat the two sides of a relationship defining an object, what it is and what it is not, symmetrically. The difference between two objects that are the same – the difference between the two sides of an equation – is not one thing (nothing), but two things. Objects need to be counted in a ring, twice, in order to ensure that the two sides of the relationships defining them are treated symmetrically.
Banks create money (+1) and debt (-1) out of nothing (zero) by performing a simple accounting (counting step) to solve the double co-incidence of (offers and) wants problem inherent in barter (the exchange of offers and wants) when there is no double coincidence of offers and wants of real goods or services. A person offering something to another who wants it receives the money (+1) and the person wanting it the debt (-1). Socially we all recognise that the money (+1) is an asset, and that the debt has to be repaid by the person who has taken it on. There is no obligation on the seller to spend the money, so that it can circulate back to the debtor. What happens is that ever growing numbers of people buy goods and services from ever shrinking numbers of suppliers using money and debt created by banks. In order to try to combat growing inequality, governments use banks to create more money (termed borrowing) for them to target towards those deemed in need. The debt assumed by governments grows uncontrollably. This is inherent in the way that equations work. Eventually this uncontrolled creation of money and debt must lead to collapse of the system.
In order to maintain control, the two sides of relationships between people exchanging offers and wants must be treated symmetrically. The counting steps recording the exchange of offers and wants must form rings wherein each offer and want is paired. The creation of money and debt can only form chains.
Another growing problem being caused by equations is the divergence of election results from the actual wishes of voters. This is most acute in authoritarian systems, where candidate selection is strictly controlled by a ruling authority. However, it is now also occurring in mature democracies, especially those where there are two dominant parties, as was until recently the case in the UK (Labour and Conservative) and is still the case in the USA (Democrat and Republican). Faith in democracy is collapsing.
A cast vote is an object defined by a relationship between for and against. The two cannot mutually negate. A vote for one candidate in an election is not a vote against another candidate. A voting system needs to treat the two sides of this relationship symmetrically, otherwise a candidate receiving more votes than any other can be taken to be the winner even when a majority of voters is against that candidate. Moreover, voters may feel compelled to vote for a candidate not because they would like that candidate to be elected, but because they want to block another they are against (tactical voting). Yet further, processing votes cast based on the principle of an equation prohibits any distinction being drawn between active and passive forms of abstention (different forms of zero). There is no way in which voters can signal that they want other candidates, or that they are opposed to an election/referendum being held at all (spoiling a ballot).
Chiralkine counting could potentially offer a better solution.