Entering the discussion a bit later, so I will take some snippets from here and there.
As @FlorianMinges mentioned, you will have to memorize 100 million objects. Sure there are workarounds for that, and regardless of the fact that you wil still run out of objects, I can show you in another way that it is next to impossible.
There are just over 30 million seconds in 1 year. That means that if you manage to create one object every second and you don’t sleep, you will still need over 3 years to create 100 million images. That is a lot. I am on my way to build 1 million loci and even after 4 years I have not reached a fourth of that. You want 100 million things. Let that sink in.
Especially when you say the following
Trust me, PAO is easier than what you have in mind.
Actually this is not a problem. The strenght of PAO is that it is on-site encoding. It actually prevents you from having to memorize a million items by splitting it into three parts. If you just have 100 persons, 100 actions, and 100 objects, you can create 1 million different images. When looking at larger numbers, PAO (and equally all other systems based on the concept) is one of the easiest ways to memorize them.
This is also not a problem when combining it with a peg list or the method of loci. Let’s say Albert Einstein is slamming your front door with a teapot. Cinderella is eating your couch with a camera lens, like really using the lens to scoop the stuffing out of it. The hulk is drowning a piano in your stove. These images make no sense, but since all individual elements are in one image, they become easier to remember. It is not a problem, it just requires practice.
Aren’t you still creating the association of 5 = apple then?
I would like to add on this, by mentioning that this also is the amount of effort put in a single image. That is also a strenght of PAO. In your system, 240683 and 243810 would both be different things, meaning you have less effort to put into either image. However, with PAO, both images would include the same person since both start with 24. That might seem confusing because you put the same person in two places, but it is in fact a strength as it lets you put more effort into the image of that person over time.
Let’s recap here. You want 100 million numbers to be turned into images without any form of association?
In fact, you also mention this.
So at first you say you want there to be no association, and then you come back by saying you could not do a system because of the lack of meaning. Which way do you want to go?
Here you lost me. Are you saying that stories like Albert Einstein slamming a teapot against your front door are less memorable than memorizing numbers through a line-based writing system? If that is so, your brain is quite fascinating.
You are making things way more complex than they have to be. We got great systems that work already. PAO, story, shaper/sound, a lot of ways to turn numbers into images. The fact that people have created working systems in less than a week, and manage to encode 1 million numbers with it, already proves how far we have gotten. If you want something like math, PAO is the way to go, because it treats the numbers the way they naturally appear: as values.
Association is not problematic, association the way you try to do it is problematic because you make the objective harder than it in reality is.
This is very similar to the line system you posted earlier. It might work for a few numbers, but as the sets of information grow larger, you will make an increasing amount of mistakes.
As a final note, I can tell you that no one here has created 100 million completely different objects for a system, so no one here can help you with it. We have shared our opinions on it, and if you choose not to listen to those, that is all up to you. However, I do hope you will see that there is no logic in calling systems that have worked for decades problematic, while you struggle to even make a start with the idea you have. Our systems leave a lot of room for improving, they are by no means perfect, but the fact that they have worked so well is proof of their effectivity, even today, and even for the things you want to memorize.
an apple in the basket, the red apple in the car, a half apple on the table …
