The concept evokes a good issue about symbolic language, that is the concept of numerical addition as a story is theoretically sound, but often illegible. One story may be written as, using your example as A is 1,
I have walked downtown to see the parade.
9 8-1-22-5 23-1-12-11-5-4 4-15-23-14-20-15-23-14 20-15 19-5-5 20-8-5 16-1-18-1-4-5
add
9+8+1+22+5+23+1+12+11+5+4+4+15+23+14+20+15+23+14+20+15+19+5+5+20+8+5+16+1+18+1+4+5
371
You may recognize this as similar to constructing sigils; the meaning is still there, and the experience is the key. However, this story also coincides with another story:
We will swallow our eyes and bones.
23-5 23-9-12-12 19-23-1-12-12-15-23 15-21-18 5-25-5-19 1-14-4 2-15-14-5-19
->
23+5+23+9+12+12+19+23+1+12+12+15+23+15+21+18+5+25+5+19+1+14+4+2+15+14+5+19
371
If your story was "371" i don't know (?) how to translate this without other variables. there is a chance i will get it ?"right" and the experiential construct still remains, but it may not be "as you intended"
This is why i suggested matrix operations. If the numbers are demarcated into a field
| 23 | 5 | 23 | 9 | 12 |
| 12 | 19 | 23 | 1 | 12 |
| 15 | 23 | 15 | 21 | 18 |
| 5 | 25 | 5 | 19 | 1 |
| 4 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 14 |
| 5 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
we have the capability of presenting any amount of operations to create a scalar, inasmuch as we may create matrices that allow operations to become another story-matrix, assuming they span a generating set. However, this is only less vague, and would require at least two numbers as variables instead of the plain summation.
The question "what do we do with the huge total" is, again, an issue because we don't know the field. We can guess, but I cannot be certain the story is not the repetition of the letter 'A' 371 times. There could be an implied field but that would, again, have to be understood to fully translate. As fine as it would be to create a storybook of pure summation, there is not much a reader may do with the final number, concretely and "without" experiential translation in and of the abstract that formed the number - perhaps not to be confused with guessing, but your intuitive poetry book is unlike you. (Jokes)
Assuming an amount of works written in this integer order, it would be difficult without offering compromising variables or instructions. Howsoever, there is another option - suppose instead the field is implied through the story itself. One may take careful detail to use the same words over and over, and to have the sums imply a field; that is:
tiny boxes i love it
t i n y
b o x e
s i l o
v e i t
20+9+14+25+2+15+24+5+19+9+12+15+22+5+9+20 = 225
clearly it is the square of 15, so with squares we might imply that the box is square. we could go further and only use squares of numbers, like an entire section for 'O' (15) which this falls under, or go simpler and just use the implication of squares. That isn't enough! We need to repeat words. How does this work? If we repeat some part of a phrase that adds to 80, it could be another phrase that also adds to 80. The size of the matrix and context limit the number of answers, but there are still possibilities.
However! we may go further. rather than simply showing the numbers, we can draw the numbers in different ways, again, like sigils.
Again, this is a bit esoteric and implied, so there will arguably "always" have to be some further variable, if one is to disregard a collective abstract and look at it through the essentialist lens of "this is a book". How frightening!
We could also, rather than summation, show a series of matrix transformations, but again, this would look like a system of instructions rather than one number, which is against the point again.
The joke, really, is the idea of a purity to transcend a system of instructions by one summation - what else? That summation is already inherent in all things, but I digress heavily (further jokes).
So, say in the end we just have a bunch of numbers. Maybe they're square, maybe not; the implications might not be readily available. They do tell a story, of their own shape and their formation, and it is honestly fine that there are many translations. The "final" methodology of telling the story is to make the book of numbers instructions on how to read it. This could be done by further summing each story into one letter (to taste, double digits are extant) and explicitly writing the instructions on how to take apart each number, via backwards instruction, or the words each contain that would be helpful to take it apart - that is, if all stories are constructed of the same few words, then by explaining all of the words the story can be put together in some order, and perhaps the order of the words in each story may be explained by what section they are put in, perhaps the reason it isn't "i love it tiny boxes" is because the "tiny" section, as explained by the full summation and translation, comes before the "love" section.
I'm rambling, is this close to what you want? You wanted the big number to be split again into the small numbers, there are many doors; explicit instructions, elimination of variables, ciphers, matrix instructions, etc; but how do you like to go about this? each number has a taste, yes, but, funnily enough, we both have this same number presented and have arrived in different ways at it, our 371. It's good poetry, but I don't know how you like it presented? let me know.
Thanbks,bkslblaebkja
