Some conclusions reached in this paper within the scope of the treatise writing rules are summarized as follows: （１）The goal of business in the wealth calculation in the medieval age was to increase metallic money, not money flow calculation nor profit and loss calculation. The goal of business in the money flow calculation in the classical age (early modern period) was monetary income exceeding monetary expenditure. It was neither the wealth calculation of metallic money nor the profit and loss calculation. The goal of business in the profit and loss calculation in the modern age is the periodic revenue that exceeds the periodic cost. It is not the metallic money wealth calculation nor the money flow calculation. （２）Newtonian physics is based on the basic premise of absolute time and absolute space. Modern periodic profit and loss calculations also assume absolute time and absolute space. However, neither time nor space can be absolute in nature. In fact, Einstein’s theory of relativity proved that both time and space are relative; the Newtonian mechanics theory of speed, on which Ijiri relies, was established in the modern age (late 17 th century), as was the profit and loss calculation (late 17 th century). These two modern phenomena are based on the “agreement of the frame of reference.” （３）The Hicks income concept citations that the majority accounting researchers have made miss the mark in two ways. First, it overlooks Hicks’ recommendation to economists not to use bad (unhelpful) concept such as “income.” The second is that it also overlooks Hicks’ advice to accountants that “book value” based on “actual transaction figure,” which can be seen as nonsubjective (objective) figures, is more reasonable than “income,” which can only be a subjective value. （４）The prevailing view of accounting is that the order of knowledge (épistémè) in the modern age, such as absolute time and absolute space, is regarded as an immovable natural phenomenon, and that periodic profit and loss accounting had sprouted since the medieval age of Pacioli. The discourse that double-entry bookkeeping practices existed as early as 1340 by Peragallo, Ijiri, etc. is only a “retrospective reading”. They are all unknowingly being led astray by the retrospective reading of the modern order of knowledge. In doing so, they have inadvertently endorsed the discourse of over 500 years of double-entry bookkeeping.