/sci/ - Science & Math

because how else could we do 1/0

>>9324898
1/log(1)

>>9324898
1/(1-1)

>>9324901
>>9324900
But how would we do binary?

>>9324903
1(1-1)11(1-1)

>>9324903
Use ⇂ and 1

>>9324895
How old are you? Tell me using only the number 1.

We don't but it's more convenient to use different symbols for different numbers.

ok idiots. how would we represent √-2

>>9325183
√(-(1+1))

>>9325175
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

>>9324895
Ok i'll bite. π=?

>>9325258
And how many months?

>>9325264
(1+1)*arctan(1) :^)

>>9324900
>>9324901
>>9324906
>>9325258
>>9325304
Congrats you’ve reached peak autism

>>9324895

For the same reason we don't use binary, why constantly beat yourself with a stick when you simply can stop?

Good thread I enjoyed it

>>9324895
e?

>>9325461
exp(1)

>>9325473
Thats cheating!

>>9325461
Test

>>9325461
Lim_(n1+1+1+1+...) (1+1/n)^n

>>9324895
Feigenbaum constants ?

Unary actually makes some problems intractable, which are otherwise easily solvable in binary or decimal.

>>9324895
Because we're not computers.

Unary is great, some np complete problems have polynomial algorithms when encoding in unary

Best thread I've ever seen on /sci/.

.oO(oh dear god is /sci/ really that bad?)

how would you do 1001?

>>9325531
shoo shoo brainlet. Just copy wikipedia defintion replacing any number by a sum of (((1's)))

>>9325258

>>9325264
π/1

Your life is worthless anon. Just switch to using "0" - number of your life.

>>9325732
1+(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)^(1+1+1)

and before you ask about decimals
1.23 = 1+(1+1)(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)^(-1)+(1+1+1)(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)^(-1-1)

>>9324895
>Why do we need other numbers beside 1?
Convenience.

>>9324895
because 1-(1+1) doesn't equal one so we need another symbol to compress the representations.

>>9324895
Because of (((them)))

>>9325590
>>9325680

>>9325483
Nah, exp(x) is easily defined as the unique function f such that f'(x) = x and f(1-1) = 1.

>>9327259
f'(x) = f(x), rather

>>9326961
This desu. The jews keep the goyim confused with all these hard-to-keep-track-of extra numbers.

>>9327259
How do you define a real function if you only have 1?

>>9325181
>We don't but it's more convenient to use different symbols for different numbers.
But what about efficiency?

>this fucking thread
I love this board.

>>9324895
Lack of space, too many 1’s
Sure I have 1 and 1 cupcakes but
1,1,1,1,1 ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 eggs is too much for me

>>9325779
>”0” - number of your life
What is this equation supposed to equal?

>>9325264
(1+1+1+1)*arctan(1)

>>9325258
How am I supposed to know how many years that is if I can only count to 1?

>>9327335
one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one one years

>>9324903
0 is not a number, it's a null value.

>>9324895
We don't. It's a matter of convenience and pragmatism for human-readable representation of info.

>>9327386
>0 is not a number
Uhuh. Numbers represent quantities, and zero is a number that represents a null quantity or nothingness. If you were to say it isn't a natural number, then I agree, but zero is included in plenty of number sets with reason (hint: because it's a number).

>>9325304
It should be (1+1+1+1)*arctan(1) though.

>>9324895
One thing is a number. Another is the symbol or symbols that represent that number.
If you write something like 1+1, you are only using the symbol that represents one, but the number being represented is not one. It's a different number.

what about a half?

or pi?

>>9327502
half: 1/(1+1)
Pi: (1+1+1+1)*arctan(1)

You are using -1 all over this thread too.
Q.E.D KEK.

>>9327504
Why not just define pi as the area of a circle with radius 1?

Better than using 1 to make non-1 numbers

>>9327527
Unary operator applied to 1

>>9327292
Its far less efficient to write one hundred 1s instead of 100, the romans tried it with their numerals and gave up at IV.

>>9327578
((1+1+1+1+1)*(1+1))^(1+1)

>>9324895
>is it possible to write every number using only 1s?
Yes
>should we?
>>>/pol/

>>9327612
Nice little number game you are playing, but that is still not more efficient than using 100.

>>9324895
ITT we rediscover Succ

>>9327504
okay but what about...

imaginary unit 'i'?
-1/2
the golden ratio (not that important but impressive if you can do it with only ones)

i wont ask for irrational numbers, there an arse to do.

also for the hell of it, just because i wanna see you write it out for redundancy:
Euler's number?

>>9327695
nvm just figered out golden ratio with just ones, its pretty easy, just replace the 5 with (1+1+1+1+1) and the 2 with (1+1)

>>9327695
i = sqrt(-1) duh

>>9327695
e = exp(1)

>>9327695
-1/2 = -1/(1+1)

so after doing some reading ive come to the conclusion that you can perform any maths using just:
>1
>-1
>+
>(parenthesis)
and maybe log and natural log
and probably limits (that you need for things like Golomb–Dickman constant)

also Riemann zeta functions dont work as i can tell yet, i cant get them to work

Chaitin's constant is another problem

this is excluding some irrationals as id assume some finely regressing random ones would/might be impossible.

not sure about 'i' yet, ill get back to you on that

then that just leaves phyical constants which youre boned as things like Planck's constant is pretty much impossible.

quantum shit throws everything out the window as infinite regressing irrational numbers can be done with just ones (unless you pull some crazy shit or get lucky) as there will always be an infinite space where ones cant reach through division that cant be reduced to a finite amount of operations

the Banach–Tarski paradox obviously doesn't work as it makes 1-1+1=2 which wont work logically but does in pure maths.


im actually curiously interested in this
can anyone tell me if im on the right track or not?

wow, im spending way too much time on the internet

>>9327720
oh yeah, wow, im an idiot.

>>9327720
>>9327745
Wouldn't it be more beautiful to use (-1)^(1/(1+1)) instead?

>>9327577
Define the operator

>>9327760
Now get rid of the division with subtraction and change subtraction to adding -1and it's perfect.

Also get rid of the ^power and replace with addition.

(I'm too dumb to do that but I think it's possible.)

>>9327760
Get on my level senpai:
(-1)^((1+1)^(-1))

>>9327765
Are you high?

>>9327773
All I wanna see is 1's, -1's and +'s

As for the being high remark I refuse to answer officer, I'm a sovereign citizen/mathematician, am I being detained?!

>>9327769
-1 is still NOT 1.
If you really want to only use 1 (with substraction as operator), that would be:
(1-1-1)^((1+1)^(1-1-1))

>>9327784
How do you define square root only using + and - faggot?

>>9327527
Fine, just change all -1 in this thread with 1-1-1 just like >>9327785 said.

>>9327787
Fair point.

>>9324895
What about quaternions?

>>9326970
Pseudo polynomial algorithms

Don't math operators count as abstract numbers so that 1-1 is more than 0 under the axioms that must hold?

>>9328178
I mean a (-) != 1, therefore 1-1 is 0 written with 2 symbols, not the 1

>>9324895
What year we are? please write down

>>9325258
Fucking autist, it would be so much easier if you did something like this:
(1+1)^(1+1+1+1) + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

>>9328199
easy
(1+1)*((1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1))^(1+1+1)+(1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1)+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

>>9328221
(1+1)*((1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1))^(1+1+1)+(1+1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1)+1+1
ftfy

write infinity with 1 :^)

>>9328249
that's not a number :^)

>>9328249
This >>9328257 but I'd humor you:
absolute(limit(1/x) as x approaches 1-1)

>>9328224
(1+1)*((1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1))^(1+1+1)+(1+1)^(1+1+1+1)+1
come at me bro

>>9328292
no
(1+1)^(1+1+1+1)*((1+1+1/(1+1))*(1+1)*(1+1+1+1+1)^(1+1)+1)+1
longer but more beautiful

>>9327436
>Numbers represent quantities
found the brainlet

>>9328249
1 + 1 + 1 + ... =infinity

>>9324895
men of neolithic were tired about counting their sheep grooving a line for each

>>9325258
Digits were made to avoid exactly this. You are basically writing tally marks which get really annoying when you need to count a lot of something.
You could use scientific notation, but thats a whole other question.

>over 90 replies to a meme thread

>>9328398
that's not bad if you don't consider autistics ones

>>9328249
[math]\sum_{n=0}^{n=\infty}n[/math]
:^^^^^)

>>9328993
nvm I'm retarded

>>9328249
the cardinality of a set X such that:

1∈X ∧∀x∈X( (x+1) ∈X)

good thread

okay motherfuckers, you might be onto something here
show me graham's number using 1's and I'm convinced

11111111111111111111111111111111 is a lot harder to type than 100000, which is a lot harder to type than 32.

>>9329077
lol

>>9324895
How to divide in unary?

>>9324900
>>9324901
>>9324906
>>9325258
>>9325304
>>9325473
>>9325496
>>9326285
>>9327314
>>9327504
>>9327612
>>9327720
>>9327721
>>9327722
>>9327769
>>9328204
>>9328224
>>9328221
>>9328292
>>9329045
ENOUGH!

Seriously though, what most people don't understand is that in base 1 system zero is represented by numeral 1. Therefore it goes like this:

0 = 1
1 = 11
2 = 111
...

I was actually searching about this earlier and i didn't find this kind of solution.

i came into this thread skeptical, but now i'm a believer. 1 is truly the answer to everything.

To define the axioms of the neutral additive and neutral multiplicative for some spaces like vectorial spaces and fields. And you can't define them as equal because in most of that spaces, ther are theorems wich prove their uniqueness. Sorry for my bad english.

>>9329362
didn't you mean
[math]1+ (1+1)^{(1+1+1+1+1)} + (1+1+1)^{(1+1)}[/math]

1+1=1+1 ????

>>9329059
(1+1+1)↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑....↑(1+1+1)

>>9329643
not that there is an ungodly, fuckhuege, inconceivable about of ↑ knuth arrows

writing in base pi or base e would be pretty difficult with just ones

>>9324895
>This thread

This is an UNBELIEVABLE THREAD
Thanks OP

I'm tempted to do this in the upcoming real analysis exam.
Do you thing the professor would be mad at me?

>>9329754
Only do this if your professor is Australian, so you get an S for shitposting.

Great thread

>>9329318
so how would you write decimals in base 1?

>>9329795
you can't. that's the one flaw of all number base systems apart from base 10.
fuck, without base 10 we'd round pi to 3, we'd round g to 10
be thankful, anon.

be happy

Numbers are just a language, if you use one number you would need to use many paterns and configurations as set values/lable in order to communicate. Actually communication and language form of communication is what the basis of it all is, in mathematics we use numbers as a communicative language that is pre configured and more complex formulas require studying it and memorizing what certain thing stand for in order to communicate a desired outcome or value! In all languages mathematics dispute being more sophisticated is not necesarley that special. What is interesting and special is how we assign languages or patterns as a form or communication, and how does that affect our colective cultural and human evoultion...

what am i reading here exactly, this is meant to be the smartest board on 4chan

>>9324895
1

>>9329965
You mean smartest board on (1+1+1+1)chan

>>9328199
Current year is 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 th prime number

+ operator omitted

>>9329059
let x = (1+1)^(1+1)^(1+1)^(1+1)

number A(A(A(x)),1) is much larger than Graham's number

where A is Ackermann function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function

>>9330128
fucked up, meant A(A(A(x,1),1),1)

This is a bad thread and whoever made it should be gangstalked. Seriously while OP is walking down the street niggers should be jumping out of bushes going "HEY, YA GOT THE TIME" and other people should be phoning him at all hours of the night and there should be other people tapping on his windows. All this for faggot OP and his gay ass thread.

we actually dont need any other numbers besides 69!!!!!!!! replace every 1 in this thread with 69/69 for proof

>>9324895
$$ A + p$$

>>9330168
$ P a+ A$

>>9324895
Couldn’t you do the same thing with any number? Since you all ways can go x/x and get 1.

>>9330200
x=0

>>9330215
Except 0 of course

>>9324895
how about defining decimal numbers like
1.52434234

>>9330291
>>9326285

>>9330175
>>9330176
ah yes

>>9330291
from math import *

a = 1+1+1
e = exp(1)

print str("{:." + "{}".format(a*a-1) + "f}").format(-a*e*((a+a+1)*e-(a*a+1))/float(-(1+a*a+(a+a)*(a+a))-a*a*e+a*e*e))

Output:
>1.52434234

>>9327360
*one plus one plus one... years

>>9328396
Yes that's the point
We don't NEED other digits
But they are sure as fuck a lot more convenient

>>9325270
september

>>9324895
We don't even need the number 1. At this point you have reduced it's meaning to an unnessary placeholder. You can simply use arithmetic operations to convey the same concepts. Numbers are obsolete.

>>9328324
numbers represent an operation like addition


but also multiplication at the same time
and also sets
and also intervals
and also basically whatever the fuck you define them to represent

Because 1 isn't a number

>>9324903
If we had only 1 then both binary and decimal system would just be an unary system

>>9326304
Then why stop at base 10? It would be a whole lot more convenient to have base 1,000,000 or some other high number

>>9327761

f(a,b)
where F(a,b)+b=a

>>9327787
>>9327792

f(x)
where f(x)*f(x)=x

>>9328342
Nope, that equals [math]-\frac{1}{12} - (0+1+2+3+\dots) = -\frac{1}{12} - -\frac{1}{12}
= -\frac{2}{12} = -\frac{1}{6}[/math]

>>9324898
1 x 1 = 2

>>9330407
Convenience. You'd need to know the 1,000,000 digits otherwise, and, even worse, you'd need to know the multiplication tables with more than 1,000,000,000,000/2 entries

Stop shitposting about convinience
We found easy to use base(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1) just because we are used to it
In some place they use base((1+1+1)^(1+1+1)) know thinks how difficult would be for them to use base(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1).

>>9330763
>"It's convenient" means "it's optimal"
I guess your IQ is (1+1+1)^(1+1+1) as well.

And good luck teaching multiplication tables with more than ((1+1+1)^(1+1+1))^(1+1) / (1+1) entries to (1+1)nd grade kids

>>9330730
I just immagine un'alien and his mother:
A. Moooom i feel like a centurys studying this shit
M. And i hope you know well now cuz your peers know it as well
A. Mom stop screaming at me
M. Shut up you think like those dummi human
A. Mom i'm not a human
M. Your friend did it in two minutes
A. Mom that is mathematicaly impossible
M. Shut up what do you think of being a dummier human's computer
A. Mom i'm not a human's computer
M.then you stil have another second to prove it
A. But mom we lost an entire centisecon discussing
M. Shut up!

>>9330769
I just said is pointless discussing about it because the only diference betwen base (1) base(1+1) and base((1+1+1)^(1+1+1)) and any other base
Is how much we are accostumed to that

>>9330812
Yeah, if people could do math in base 2147 immediately after being born, then there would be no disadvantage to calculating in base 2147. Sadly, this is usually not the case and math has to be taught, and teaching math with lower bases is usually easier than with higher bases. On the other hand, there's the problem that the representation of numbers becomes huge for big numbers when using small bases. 10 is a tradeoff between those two problems

>>9324895
Just why is even easier to remeber just one number?

>>9330831
(This is reply is just me agreeing with you, mostly aimed at the OP.)

Yeah, plus we've figured that base-10 spawned from us being able to count using our fingers (which most of us have 10 of).

>>9327720
>I have never done any math in my life
Anyone defining i as sqrt(-1) is a dumb fuck. The only proper way is the number such as i^2 = -1

>>9331746
>-i = i
>I have never done any math in my life

>>9329800
kek

>>9329795
>decimal
>deci
It's base 10 exclusive, anon.

>>9325258
>69
kek

>>9325258
>√(-(1+1))
[eqn] (1+1)^{(1/(1+1))} [/eqn]
is more pleasing

>>9325258
>√(-(1+1))
[eqn] (-(1+1))^{1/(1+1)} [/eqn]
is more pleasing

>>9331967
Like said before, putting - operation in the front means there's 0 before it (not a 1) OR using -1 (also not a 1).
That should be written as 1-1-1.

How about instead of 1 we only had -1
This way there wouldn't even be retards arguing about that here

Greetings everyone, I arrive here from Reddit. Epic thread.

>>9324895
autismo detected
the more, the merrier

>>9331951
madman actually counted them

>>9331967
>>9332011
agreed

To represent different quantities of 1

We don’t

>>9327695
>Euler's number?
[math]e^(pi*i)=-1[/math]
[math]e=log_{pi*i}(-1)=log_{(1+1+1+1)arctan(1)*sqrt(-1)}(-1)[/math]

We don't "need" any number other than 1. However, using more numbers makes it easy. We use base 10 as we have ten fingers and that's how a child starts to count.
No NP complete problems are not polynomial when converted to unary

The real question is why do we need any symbols besides + and - and why use numbers besides 1?

>>9326970
basically
>dude if you exponentiate the size of the input the exponential-time algorithm becomes polynomial-time

>>9333198
You can just cop paste it to an excel cell, add = in front of it, and let the computer do the math.

>>9334768
NO that is not how that works. You cannot turn an NP-Complete problem into P just by exponentiating size of the input. Please read a book. I would highly recommend CLRS.

ITT we rediscover the theory of recursive functions

>>9334812
madman actually did that just to check for easter eggs

>>9334812
you can also just highlight the sum and right click and search with google

>>9324895
because only I can be #1

>>9324903
1 and not1

>>9324895
>>9325258
>1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Is not 1.

If you allow sqrt, exp, log and some basic tring functions you could make any number really

>>9327742
>implying you need parentheses

I have many details

rly makes you think

13=111 in base (1+1+1)

>>9327742
You need limits.

>>9330400
Lowenheim-Skolem ftw

>>9336351
name-dropping pseud/fraud detected

OP, are you Afghan by any chance ?

>>9324895
https://youtu.be/SYGF25asipc

>>9324895
to describe how many dicks op sucks on a daily basis.