Thread 16767285

I don't understand why 1 + 1 doesn't equal 11

>>16767285 (OP)
It can if you define the + operation as such.

>>16767285 (OP)
it does in base1
and 11 + 11 = 1111

1 + 1 = +

>>16767285 (OP)
f+a+c+t=fact
The human brain naturally interprets addition as concatenation. Placing it in a mathematical context disabuses the human of the years of brainwashing they've endured by mathematicians. In another thread I heard them saying that rigorous mathematical logic need not apply to reality. What a joke.

>>16767285 (OP)
>I don't understand why 1 + 1 doesn't equal 11
And i don’t understand why 6 + 7 doesn’t equal 67

>>16767285 (OP)
Cant you just postulate that it does and see what interesting things that begets?

>>16767285 (OP)
It does in Rome

>>16767285 (OP)
I and I = II
1 + 1 = 2 is just a different way to write this and make it easier for more complicated calculations.

Mathematics is just applied logic.

>>16767285 (OP)
cheer up
0 + 0 = 00

>>16767285 (OP)
cause addition ain't concatenation, but concatenation is still nice, they are the same in base 1 though as >>16767303 pointed out

>>16767466
wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

>>16767494
ah yes, I+I+I+I+I=V, come on man, i like roman but there ain't to need to be facetious

>>16767509
XXIV+XLIII=?

>>16767509
ironic.
I+I+I = III

>>16767517
>XXIV + XLII
>X+X+ (IV) + (XL)+I+I
>[X+XL] + X + [I+IV] + I
>L + X + V + I
>LXVI
EZPZ

>>16767525
Nuh uh, do it again

>>16767531
>XXIV + XLII
>XXIIII + XXXXII
>(XXXXX)+X + (IIIII)+I
>L + X + V + I
>LXVI
Captcha: GGGGS

>>16767285 (OP)
it just does okay?

>>16767303
there really isn't a base 1
it seems like a base that needs only 1 symbol, but really it implicitly includes an empty symbol, too. therefore you need 2 symbols to express a "unary" number
in contrast, a binary number using 0 and 1 can express any binary number with those two symbols.

>>16767544
Do it again.. because im not sure of something.

>>16767285 (OP)
Lol you’re so cute Apu

>>16767285 (OP)
It does in binary

>>16767285 (OP)
Because your brain isn't run on javascript.

>>16767285 (OP)
It does if you concatenate strings.

>>16767525
>>16767544
>>16770217
time traveling roman detected

>>16767285 (OP)
U r stupid

一
+
一
॥
二

>>16772117
you know given the chinese write in those odd directions that ain't to farfetched at all

>>16767285 (OP)
praise kek

one plus one equals one one

ElevenLabs.io

You can create an account and ask Conversational AI to Explain it for You

>>16768496
There really it, it works exactly like anon said, but 1 isn't the first number, 0 is, so he used the wrong symbols.

>in contrast, a binary number using 0 and 1 can express any binary number with those two symbols.
I think you are trying to say that binary can express every decimal number with 2 symbols instead of 10, but so can just 0 as a unary with just 1 symbol— 0d=0u, 1d=00u, 2d=000u, 3d=0000u, 4d=00000u, 5d=000000u, 6d=0000000u, 7d=00000000u, 8d=000000000u, 9d=0000000000u, 10d=00000000000u, etc.

>>16773204
For convenience 1 is the first number in base 1, there's no law that states that symbols have to be the same demonstrated pretty easily by A being a number in base 11

>>16773219
>For convenience 1 is the first number in base
It has nothing to do with convenience it is about sequence and 1 is not the first symbol (at least with decimal, binary or any other systemic sequence of the sort) in the sequence, 0 is, I just showed you how to count in unary using only 0s to map to every decimal, but yes you could use Is or —s or ^s or &s or any symbol, but the point is you can do it with a lone symbol, you lone symbol is just kind of confusing since yours either can't map 0 or 1 is defined differently than every other base system your way.

>>16773224
In base 1 it is

>>16773226
>>16768496
Was wrong, your coping doesn't matter, you only need a single symbol, if you use 1 as the only symbol, your version of 1 just means 0 in decimal instead of 0 mapping to 0 like every other base.

>>16773204
that's not how positional notation works

>>16774053 is exactly how making an irrelevant unhelpful comment works

Its more of a 0-based hash tally system than positional notation system since there is only a lone symbol instead of several nodes, you just need an index and a position, no digits of radix x to transcribe, and your fist index indicates 0 instead of 1 like other systems, so its more of an unbase system in that regards that eliminates the need for a base by making the empty symbol the root instead of a base unit.

>>16767285 (OP)
It does anon if you are in a group where the group operation is a string concatenation. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.