Thread 16768192

“Matter” is defined as that which has mass and volume. But what defines “number”?

>>16768192 (OP)
>But what defines “number”?
quantity

>>16768230
That’s a tautology

>>16768192 (OP)
>But what defines “number”?
An equivalence class on all sets that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with each other.

>>16768192 (OP)
some fundamental unit of physical information

>>16768298
“One” is a number, so how can you define numbers while presuming the definition of a number?

>>16768340
This is the worst definition I could imagine. Was that intentional?

>>16768192 (OP)
Language. "Number" as a concept is a human device the is merely a representation of an aspect of reality, whatever you like to call it, or partition it.

>>16768366
You have a "spoon" but no one to feed you.

>>16768372
>hey, stop right there
>did you just “observe” something?
>well guess what??? You are, in fact, a—human? So that is HUMAN observation!
>what’s that? How do I know you’re a human? It’s self-evident, it’s obvious, it’s….

This board is getting to deep for me

>>16768192 (OP)
She most certainly does nnnooottt deserve him!

I see what she sees in him.
But I don't at all see what he sees in her!

>>16768192 (OP)
The word "number" originates from the Latin numerus, meaning "a number, quantity," which itself derives from the Proto-Indo-European root nem-, meaning "to assign, allot, or take".
This root is also linked to the Ancient Greek word nemein, meaning "to deal out" or "distribute," which is the source of the word "nemesis".

>>16768539
>"distribute," which is the source of the word "nemesis"
"Give me the money-box, I shall be the one with the power to bless or curse with wealth as I see fit."

>Judas was the designated keeper of the common funds for Jesus and the other disciples.
Seized the production of means.
:^)

>>16768192 (OP)
>what defines “number”
A 1-Dimensional measure of an n-Dimensional object.

>>16768366
>“One” is a number
No, one is a base unit, a number is a multiplicity of units.

>>16768192 (OP)
Mass is defined by two equations, newton's third law and newton's law of gravitation. Two equations with two unknown quantities, mass and force. Together they are enough to find a measurable result which is the acceleration.
Its a model to calculate acceleration, dont bother thinking is mass or force are real. Acceleration and trajectories are directly measurable.
Also, matter is a vague term which can mean many things besides just mass

>>16768192 (OP)
Originally something very functional and narrow that mapped unto trading borrowing selling. Then it underwent the usual mathematical trajectory of being mapped unto a lot of other things until it became a very general concept.

It's still highly anthropocentric concept in the sense that there is no objective rule of thumb for what "1" unit is. Is it an apple? Or the atoms in the apple? Or the quarks in the Apple?

Nevertheless, numbers as a concept, like language, lends themselves to being shaped in a way that correlates to the world around us, to a point.

>>16768572
>No, one is a base unit
>The number 2 is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3, defined axiomatically in set theory as the set of sets with two elements (e.g., {O, {O}}) or simply as the result of succession (adding 1 to 1)
2=1+1=therefore 2 is not a number. Neither is 3, 4, 5, [...], oh fuck!....Numbers arent real!!!!!

>>16768590
>2=1+1=therefore 2 is not a number
No, therefore it is a specific number of 1s (2 of them, a multiplicity) rather than just the unitary base itself.

>>16768192 (OP)
she's high on noseium

>>16768602
>it is a specific number of 1s
Yes, all numbers are made up of non-numbers, so what is a number but a multiple of "non-number units"?
>What is a multiple?
A series of non-multiple units?
>the unitary base itself
What is a base if not the division of the unit, a non-number made uo of numbers and creates numbers but is not a number?

>>16768606
>so what is a number but a multiple of "non-number units"?
That is it, a number is a multiplicity (ie number of) metric units.

>A series of non-multiple units?
No, its a multiplicity of metric units.

>What is a base if not the division of the unit
A base is the unit, if you divide it you have a fraction of (rather than multiplicity of) the unit rather than a metric unit.

>a non-number made uo of numbers and creates numbers but is not a number?
A metric unit is the base and a number of them is multiple instance of the base unit, it doesn't create the number, the number describes how many multiples there are of the base metric unit.

>>16768609
>number is a multiplicity
Number is a ratio*.
>its a multiplicity of metric units
Proportional ratio of the number 1*.
>A base is the unit
Wrong, 1 in every base is denoted as "1", it defines nothing of the base itself but is a subdefintion defined afterwards.
>if you divide it you have a fraction of the unit
A third of 10 isnt a fraction, but an irrational.
>A metric unit
Is base-10, is 10 a number?...it cant be, you used to define 1, so numbers define the unit and the unit defines numbers? Circular definitions rationalized with words-words to obfuscate this.

>>16768615
>Number is a ratio*.
No, ratio is when you compare two numbers like 2:3.

>Proportional ratio of the number 1*.
If you are taking it with respect to 1, you are just using the the base, its why they generally just leave out the divisor anytime it is equal to 1 since 2 is easier to write and look at than 2/1.

>Wrong, 1 in every base is denoted as "1"
Yea that is why it is the base because even if you are using binary, 1 is still the base metric.

>A third of 10 isnt a fraction, but an irrational.
You aren't using the base, 1, you are using the radix, 10. If you used the actual base and showed it as 1/.3 you would see it is not a fraction because you have a fractional divisor that ends up becoming a multiplicity due to laws of reciprocal functions.

>Is base-10, is 10 a number?
Base to 10 means the number system starts at the base and has a radix length 10 where 10 is the multiplicity whereby the digits rollover because that is how many symbols make up the number system.

>>16768629
>No, ratio is when you compare two numbers like 2:3.
Or 1:10 for 0.1, defining the base with a ratio.
>when you compare two numbers
>number is a multiplicity
>two numbers
>multiplicity
...
>leave out the divisor
>multiplicity
>divisor
...
>You aren't using the base, 1, you are using the radix, 10.
You used fractions which does not use a base system, you also use "metric unit", which is 10. Now its called "radix".
>>16768615
>rationalized with words-words to obfuscate this.
...
>1/.3
That isnt 1/3rd, thats 1 over 0.3.

>>16768640
>Or 1:10 for 0.1, defining the base with a ratio.
A radix can't be defined by a fraction because you can't count from 1 to 10 in a fractional number of steps, you need a discrete integer amount of symbols to count with.

>You used fractions which does not use a base system
Ratio is when you divide a multiplicity of the base by a different multiplicity of the same base, so yes, there is a base system.

>>leave out the divisor
I didn't leave out the divisor, I made it ambiguous so either 2 or 3 could be the divisor since either way 2/3 or 3/2 its a ratio.

>you also use "metric unit", which is 10. Now its called "radix".
No 10 is not a base unit, 1 is always the base which is way number systems always goes base through radix (base-10) so 10 is 10 times the base unit, not the base unit itself.

>Now its called "radix"
No, radix is the amount of symbols in the numbering system, as you said yourself, the base is always 1, no matter the radix of the number system and 10 is always when the number system rolls over to a new digit.

>That isnt 1/3rd, thats 1 over 0.3.
Yes because you didn't say 1/3, you said 10/3, but 10 isn't the base, it is the radix.

>>16768651
>radix
"In a positional numeral system, the radix ( pl. radices) or base is the number of unique digits, including the digit zero, used to represent numbers."
So.....zero is a number, but 1 is not, but the rest are?
>You used fractions
>Ratio is
Notice how you keep switching words?..."words-words to obfuscate"....

>use "metric unit"
>No 10 is not a base unit
You do this to avoid the errors in your logic.
>"A metric unit is a unit of measurement in a decimal-based system using base units like the meter (length), kilogram (mass), and second (time), with prefixes (like kilo- or centi-) indicating powers of ten multiples or sub-multiples of these base units."
Unless youre using a Linguistic definition instead of a Mathematical definition;
>"The root meaning of the word "metric" comes from the Greek word "metron," meaning "a measure". This root is fundamental to terms related to measurement, proportion, and the establishment of standards."
Then yes, its "measure" defines "1 side length".
>Now its called "radix"
>No
NO. NOW >>>YOU<<< USE THE TERM RADIX. YOU are the shifting definition, YOU are the one that ill-defines then switches terms to avoid defining.
>Yes because you didn't say 1/3
>A third of 10

Youre tiresome and a highlight of academia's "crisis in the foundation of Mathematics".

>>16768673
0 is the additive unit, it is different and defined by its own set of axioms.

>Notice how you keep switching words
No, a fraction is a division of a base (ie 1/3) while a ration is a comparison of multiplicities of a base (ie 2/3).

>You do this to avoid the errors in your logic.
No, I do it because 1 and 10 are two different things.

>Unless youre using a Linguistic definition instead of a Mathematical definition;
No the definition you gave confirms what I said, 1 [insert metric] is the base, not 10 [insert metric].

>Then yes, its "measure" defines "1 side length".
Both definitions you gave say that 1 is the base of a metric, the second one you just used "length" instead of meter (length).

>YOU are the shifting definition,
I didn't shift anything, I always maintained that 10 is the number of symbols, not the unitary base.

>A third of 10
Yes because a third of 10 is not 1/3, it is 1/0.3.

You are the one having a bipolar crisis, acting like you both don't know what a number is and also that you are some kind of expert on what a number is.

>>16768682
>You are the one having a bipolar crisis
"Im Dr.4Chan Larpenstein."

Where did you do you thesis in Psychology? Was that before or after you flunked out of Pure Mathematics?

>>16768682
>0 is the additive unit, it is different and defined by its own set of axioms.
>radix
>"In a positional numeral system, the radix ( pl. radices) or base is the number of unique digits, including the digit zero, used to represent numbers."

I now dont need to type more, I can just copy and paste the defintions of the words you use to disprove your own posts.....[yawns], flunked for sure...and when you lose you "switch majors to adopt a new LARP".

>>16768695
How can I be flunked by someone who knows nothing about the subject?


The digit zero is not the same thing as the value 0 unless zero is the only digit present, including 0 in the list of symbols is not the same as the axiomatic definition of just 0 alone which is defined as the additive identity.

The only thing you proved is that you still don't understand there is a difference between 0 and 10 just like there is also a difference between 1 and 10.

>>16768706
>How can I be flunked by someone who knows nothing about the subject?
My thesis in Pure Mathematics was on Number Theory and base-systems themselves.

>The digit zero is not the same thing as the value 0 unless zero is the only digit present
Circular defining word games without Mathematical understanding, you flunked the course.

>>16768706
>The only thing you proved is
That you cannot define a single thing without referencing another word under a different context ad infinitum, youre hoping I lose track of the never ending trail of avoidance but I do not....because IT WAS MY THESIS. I am peer reviewing your work as "LINGUISTICS - NOT NUMBER THEORY".

>>16768192 (OP)
I bet, that she practices with a jade egg!