[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 43 KB, 450x436, numbers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132122 No.6132122 [Reply] [Original]

what ARE numbers?

>> No.6132124

Whatever we decide to think they are.

They are a method of thought.

>> No.6132138

Numbers are symbols representing quantities, but not quantities of any physical thing when dealing with pure math.

>> No.6132142

>>6132138
Agree with this guy.

>> No.6132166

>>6132122
<span class="math"> 0 = \emptyset [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> n+1 = \{\emptyset, \{ n \}\}[/spoiler]

>> No.6132242

Numbers are abstract concepts which describe known quantity. Variables are abstract concepts which describe unknown quantity.
>that was easy

>> No.6132252

>>6132242
>Numbers are abstract concepts which describe known quantity.

That's natural numbers and maybe some of the real numbers on a good day.

What about the rest?

>> No.6132259

What IS math?

>> No.6132269

>>6132252
If its known quantity, its a number.
If its unknown quantity its a variable.
There is a third option?

>> No.6132270

>>6132259
a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there

>> No.6132272

>>6132166
>0=null set

No.

>> No.6132278

>>6132259
Simple additive/subtractive arithmetic aside, Mathematics is an accident that occurred roughly around 3000 BCE when ancient Babylonian and Egyptian Kings and landlords hired a bunch of priests to develop a mechanism by which the boundaries of a plot of land could be precisely determined so as to remedy ownership disputes, even in the face of the seasonal floods that caused the landscape to change due to erosion; all the while pouring the foundation of the academic discipline from the seeds of religious superstition.

From then till the advent of the the Classical Greek period in 400 BCE, a total of some 2600 years, the field of Mathemetics remained a diverse hydra that belonged nowhere, yet had features ranging from elementary algebra to applied monkey measuring. When it was ``threatened'' by external and internal perception the discipline pretended the measure-monkey part wasn't there, or re-framed everything as some divine theism, or granite pyramidism by pretending it was the will of the gods.

Euclid worked his ass off to make the ``mathematician'' title fashionable, but still some people had insecurities of being even close to the formulae as if it would invoke the wrath of Hades himself! The most important scrolls and tablets that defined the field at the time CONTAINED FORMULAE.

Eventually, after many further centuries of strife and struggle, most of humanity got over it. It was only then that the field, originally mistaken to be 'γεω-μετρία, but in reality `(γεω μετρία) (or `(geo metria), or `(Earth measurement)) evolved to take on the modern catch-all name 'mathematics'.

>> No.6132289

>>6132272
That part, at least, is the beginning of the "standard" construction. Now I feel sort of bad for marking this wrong when my students do it, but usually they'll say something horrible immediately afterward, e.g., {} - {1} = 0 - {1} = {-1}.

>> No.6132295

>>6132289
Define standard construction. If we are to construct <span class="math">\mathds{N} \backslash 0[/spoiler] then yours might work. In any case, why not just go for induction with <span class="math">\mathcal{s}(n)[/spoiler] as the follower of n?

>> No.6132299

>>6132295
>tfw when no symbol for the set of natural numbers
Somebody refresh my memory?

>> No.6132304

>>6132295
I wasn't the anon who proposed it. His looks different but I don't really want to think about it.

>>6132299
\mathbf{N} or \mathbb{N}, depending on taste.

>> No.6132306

>>6132304
Thanks, anon.
Got mine from deteXify. Sucks.

>> No.6132345

>>6132122
I'll give you an example
5 is what is called the "cardinality" of any given set that has this many elements:

| | | | |

and can be put in bijection with any other set of the same cardinality

>> No.6132358

>What ARE numbers?
We just don't know.

>> No.6132370

numbers is a pretty cool guy. Eh counts stuff and doesnt afraid of anything.

>> No.6132412

>>6132370
All that needs to be said.

>> No.6132450

>>6132259
Religion.

>> No.6132456

truly, a social construct

>> No.6132487

>lern 2 instrumentalism

>> No.6132493

>>6132122

a jewish invention to dominate the goyim

>> No.6132496

>>6132122

semiotic extensions of non-vacuous autologies that possess Millean denotation but lack Fregean bedeutung. In short, numbers don't exist, numerals exist. There is no semantics to the numerals, just an epistemic chasm that leaves us wondering about the meaning behind meaningless syntax.

>> No.6132504
File: 16 KB, 400x220, what are birds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132504

>>6132358

>> No.6132539

>>6132504
Dwarf flying dinosaurs.

>> No.6132546

>>6132539
No, birds are impossible to describe.

>> No.6132575

>>6132345

I don't understand, what's an "element" ? What does "many" mean?

Thanks

>> No.6132586

>>6132575
The cardinal numbers are basically just equivalence classes of sets, with the cardinality of two sets being equal iff there is a bijection between them. Obviously this definition is not sufficient for other numbers like the reals. However, all numbers are just abstract objects, which means they are defined by their properties. The real numbers are just objects which obey certain axioms (or definitions, same thing really). They don't have to have any special "real" meaning.

>> No.6132590

Symbols for the fundamental nature of reality.

>> No.6132596

>>6132496
Stop parodying philosophy. Philosophy is not jargon-blabbering Pomo shit.

>> No.6132600

>>6132596
It is if you're French.

>> No.6132619

Numbers have intrinsic meaning in the same way adjectives and adverbs do, independent of the things they quantify/qualify.
ie. The abstract idea of "red" or "redness" exists in the same way as whole numbers.
The other number systems built from the whole numbers are consequences of treating number systems as obeying axioms and certain properties that allow for sufficient regularity (ie. allowing us to do calculus, which rests on the fact that the reals are a complete ordered field)

>> No.6132624

>>6132619
Calculus does not require that the reals be ordered. The complex numbers are unordered, and complex analysis still exists.

>> No.6132634

>>6132624

Well, I should've specified that one-variable limits exist because of the completeness of reals. Of course, limits of complex valued functions are analogous to limits in R^2, which exist if and only if the component limits exist as one-variable limits.

>> No.6132647

>>6132619
Nice forms there, Plato.

>> No.6132662

>>6132619

This is true. I have been to platonic heaven and personally seen the essence of the number 4, redness, and what it feels like to be a bat.

>> No.6132665

>>6132596

don't confuse your own subjective incomprehensibility with objective incomprehensibility, you coprophagic prion. i have convincing evidence that suggests you've never read philosophy in your life.

>> No.6132672

>>6132665

I was just messing around, you clearly have a firm grasp of the concepts of which you're speaking. Everyone in here just doesn't understand them because they aren't well-read.

>> No.6132676

>>6132672

And I'm totally not being sarcastic, I completely withdraw my previous statements about your "babblings" being "pomo" and "not philosophy" and "parodies" and " "

>> No.6132682

>>6132672
>>6132676

Thanks, m8

:-)

>> No.6132686

>>6132682
yw :^)

>> No.6132701

I'm currently a graduate student of philosophy at a top 5 school specializing in modal logic and philosophy of language, and I couldn't have said >>6132496 better myself. It's clear that numbers don't exist. He's completely right, too. Most contemporary analytic philosophers are of that view - in fact, I wrote a paper on semiotics and the philosophy of math for my master's thesis.

P.S. You sound very well-read, like >>6132672
said (maybe the most well-read person I've ever come across on /sci/).

>> No.6132705

>>6132701
And you conclude that from one sentence.

ITT: Philosophy circlejerk.

>> No.6132718
File: 42 KB, 407x405, philosophy majors.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132718

>>6132701
>a graduate student of philosophy

>> No.6132720

>>6132705
Well he's proven that he's familiar with Fregean sense and reference - and even spoke of them in the original German. He's familiar with the principle of non-vacuous contrast and Millean denotation-connotation - no individual without a philosophically oriented mind and propensity for reading the necessary literature would know of any of those things - enough to intelligently put them together in a coherent sentence. If you wish you were him, just say it.

>> No.6132724

>>6132720
Haha, you're a philosopher, idiot!
You should major in a science, like physics or math. There is no use for philosophy.
Also, talk about original German; this is how we say fuck off over here in Slovakia:

Msin red omt sop

Haha get real

>> No.6132726

>>6132662

Is mathematical platonism derided in philosophy? Cause I feel like most people studying mathematics implicitly adopt a platonist standpoint, or don't even bother with the inquiry altogether.

>> No.6132727

>>6132138
This basically.

>> No.6132731

>>6132720
Yes, I wish I was Jacques Derrida so nobody would ever have to understand me. Knowing random shit with no application is more important than communication. I can't wait to live a fulfilled and well-analyzed life flipping burgers.

>> No.6132735

>>6132720
>and even spoke of them in the original German

Wow, he used the word "Bedeutung". Big fucking deal. Are you always that easily impressed?

>> No.6132739

>>6132735
Not OP, but

ITT: Narrow-minded engineers that don't understand philosophy.

Philosophers can do math and write essays, they're way beyond you guys, lmaooo

>> No.6132741

The word "number" doesn't have any specific meaning in formal mathematics; things that are called "numbers" are a set of somewhat related mathematical structures that have the name more through historical accident than anything else.

>> No.6132742

>>6132724
Euro-nigger confirmed, just as I suspected.

>> No.6132744

>>6132739
>Philosophers can do math
Prove it.

>> No.6132746

>>6132724

Intertwining text with sub-text, you're bad!
oh, you!

>> No.6132748
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132748

>>6132739
What's there to understand? Anyone can make up subjective, unverifiable and practically useless nonsense and call it "philosophy". Go back to /lit/ or /x/. You're obviously wrong on /sci/.

>> No.6132751
File: 1 KB, 100x100, 1381014630698.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132751

>>6132739

>> No.6132752

>>6132739
>Philosophers can do math
The majority of philosophers rejects math because they don't even understand the semantics of a logical implication.

>and write essays
Any 10 year old can write essays. That's why they are usually given as homework assignments.

>> No.6132754

>>6132748
you're probably just not smart enough, like >>6132665 said

if you don't understand philosophy, just admit it and get on with your life, don't say "uhh duuhhh itsss stoopid"

>> No.6132759

>>6132754
There isn't anything that needs to be "understood" in your philosophy. Your edgy teenager drivel is neither deep nor insightful. Keep those platitudes on facebook.

>> No.6132762

>>6132752
LLOLLL
this is the guy defending /sci/. imagine that? this was like the worst person to do the job. There were so many arguments he could have made, but he chooses the ones that make him look ignorant and faggy.

>philosophers reject math

OHHH ALRIGHTTYY THEN, BRO LOL
>Analytic philosophy?
>no?
fair enough

>any 10 year old can write essays.

got a good chuckle, teared a bit too

>> No.6132765

>>6132754
>As soon as I enter into a relation with the absolute other my absolute singularity enters into relation with his on the level of obligation and duty. I am responsible to the other as other, I answer to him and I answer for what I do before him. But of course, what binds me thus in my singularity to the absolute singularity of the other, immediately propels me into the space or risk of absolute sacrifice. There are also others, an infinite number of them, the innumerable generality of others to whom I should be bound by the same responsibility, a general and universal responsibility. I cannot respond to the call, the request, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrificing the other other, the other others. As a result, the concepts of responsibility, of decision, or of duty are condemned a priori to a paradox, scandal, and aporia.

Clearly this was written for readability.

>> No.6132769

>>6132759

>platitudes
>philosophy
>nothing to be understood

If you "scientists" had the IQ to pick up deconstructivism you'd realize how stupid you look right now. come back when you do, faggatron

>> No.6132773

>>6132765
>continental philosophy
>equated with philosophy

you're years behind. it's like me quoting Democritus when trying to explain the atom to someone - it's not very relevant or important now because improvements have been made

>> No.6132775

>>6132769
>If you "scientists" had the IQ to pick up deconstructivism you'd realize how stupid you look right now.
Deconstructivism is an architectural style. You're thinking of deconstruction or deconstructionism.

Now who'se the idiot?

>> No.6132780

>>6132773
>>6132769
>>6132762
>>6132754

As much as I hate to admit it, these guys are right. /sci/ doesn't have enough of a foundation in contemporary philosophy to say anything.

>> No.6132781

>>6132773
This was written in 1995. Not exactly ancient Greece.

>> No.6132782
File: 994 KB, 300x169, 1381786842622.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132782

>>6132701
Odd, if numbers don't exist and numerals have no meaning, why do I make money of juggling with both?

>> No.6132784

>>6132122
Interacting Units

>> No.6132788

>>6132775

QED

You had no idea what deconstruction was when arguing with me, and googled it just to see. When realizing there was a typo (a clever trap) you, like the autist you are, tried to rub it in my face. Good job, you've just proved my point. I'm glad you admit that you're arguing against someone without the faintest idea of what they're saying. You autistic children are hysterical.

Much love

>> No.6132793

>>6132762
>this is the guy defending /sci/
I am not a guy.

>look ignorant and faggy.
It's always amusing how philosofags resort to ad hominems. I find it ironic that you fail at your own field so fucking hard. A philosopher's only job is to make up arguments, yet all YOU did was flailing your arms and throwing a tantrum like a toddler. If it was your intention to destroy your own credibility, congratulations! You succeeded.

>>Analytic philosophy?
This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
Let's see.... <span class="math">[/spoiler]>political philosophy: >liberalism >analytical marxism
toppest lel

>got a good chuckle
You think essays are hard to write? What are you? Autistic? Did you fail all your language and literature related classes in elementary school?

>> No.6132794

>>6132781

>implying that disproves my point

are you going to argue against me or just say things that are irrelevant

>> No.6132797

>>6132793
>I am not a guy.
Then what are you doing here?

>> No.6132798

>>6132788
>googled it just to see
So you can judge people by a single sentence and even read their browser history remotely! You must be a very powerful philosopher!

>a typo (a clever trap)
How wily of you. Every time you post I am awed by your extreme intellect. You aren't REALLY retarded, you were just pretending. Clever troll.

>I'm glad you admit that you're arguing against someone without the faintest idea of what they're saying.
Outstanding way to put words in my mouth. Is this what philosophical debates are like? I can only imagine.

I eagerly await the day you attempt to make an actual point instead of rhetorical tricks. By the way, the argument "nobody understands philosophy like me" is not a good response to the claim that philosophers communicate poorly.

>> No.6132800

>>6132793

as it turns out, "guy" can mean a person of either sex when used informally. Words have multiple definitions, as it turns out. Isn't language wonderful?

Secondly, you should just stop writing, darling, you sound silly. I'm embarrassed for you, as are the autists you're trying to defend.

You wish you could master every field of thought like a philosopher can. Now run along, sweetheart - you're too cute.

>> No.6132802

>>6132794
You said I'm "years behind" and drew an analogy to Democritus. In fact, the article is from 18 years ago. If you can't see the problem here, then there must truly be something wrong with your brain.

>> No.6132805

>>6132793
>I am not a guy.
Then what are you?

>> No.6132807

>>6132769
>If you "scientists" had the IQ to pick up deconstructivism

Yeah, I guess my IQ is just too high for deconstruction. As a person who - unlike you - isn't verbally impaired, I can understand language without needing to "deconstruct" it autistically, which btw only leads to gross misinterpretations.

>> No.6132811

>>6132798

Philosophers are infinitely smarter than you, and I'm a philosopher, therefore I'm infinitely smarter than you. As was to be proven.

>> No.6132817

>>6132811
>I eagerly await the day you attempt to make an actual point instead of rhetorical tricks.

>> No.6132818

>>6132724

Msin red omt sop

Pos tom der nism

Postmodernism


how many of them are there? who is who?

>> No.6132824

Also
>push deconstruction
>dismiss Derrida
Seriously, wtf are you doing?

>> No.6132826

>>6132788
>is too uneducated to use the correct words in his own fucking field
>resorts to empty insults when being called out on his stupidity
Yep, we've got a typical philosotard ITT.

>>6132797
>Then what are you doing here?
Science and math! And I advise you either to do the same or fuck off to /x/ where you belong.

>> No.6132827

>>6132817

That was a valid argument; I guess I can't expect a scientist to know the flexibility of language.

>> No.6132830

ITT:

samefag

this is fucking genius

>> No.6132833

>>6132827
I didn't say your argument was invalid. It's perfectly valid, and also perfectly retarded and wrong.

I said you didn't make an actual point, which is still true.

>> No.6132834

>>6132278
Thanks for the history lesson.
Is there some kind of book that contains all major mathematical discoveries and inventions hitherto - with tutorials and practice problems - in chronological, historical order?

>> No.6132835

>>6132833

You just agreed with me, how smart.

I win.

>> No.6132841

>>6132835
>I win
You don't win by making valid arguments. You win by proving true facts.

You are retarded. If you are retarded then you should kill yourself on livestream. Therefore you should kill yourself on livestream.

I win.

>> No.6132842

>>6132800
>You wish you could master every field of thought
As a matter of fact I do.

>like a philosopher can
Funnily your posts ITT demonstrate how philosotards cannot even master their own field.

>>6132811
This is what philosotards call "logic"? My lels are in orbit.

>> No.6132846

>>6132841

Haha, now you're just making arguments to prove you know how, this is sad!

Take a gander at this imbecile ladies and gents, hahaha!

you wish you were me, but you can't because I'm me and you're not - hahahaha (hahahaha)

>> No.6132852
File: 17 KB, 297x431, philosophy threads.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6132852

A common theme of these armchair philosophers is that they are all crap at math and the sciences. That's why they escape to philosophy, which sounds deep and edgy and intelligent (and in many cases, it is!). The more desperate you are to be seen as intelligent, the more nonsense you read (Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, and so on).

Just because you suck at math and the sciences that doesn't make you intelligent or creative.

>> No.6132858

>>6132846
>you make valid argument from false premises
>I make valid argument from true premises
>"lel what do you have to prove, fgt?"
Is this how philosophers conduct themselves these days.

>you wish you were me
In my field we call this disorder "grandiose delusions" or by the technical term "self-important shitbaggery."

>> No.6132862

>>6132846
Anon, you should reconsider your choices. You are wasting your time "shitposting" and "trolling" on an anonymous forum. As if that wasn't already sad enough, you happen to lack the creativity and the intellect to succeed in these pathetic endeavours. If you ever wonder why you don't get laid, this is certainly among the reasons. Now go ahead and reply to this post, I know you will. You cannot resist sharing the bitter tears you're whining over your failed existence.

>> No.6132865

>>6132862
inb4 he posts a lame variation of "no u"

>> No.6132916

>>6132780
>contemporary philosophy

I know that someone like Ayn Rand can found her own philosophy rejecting everything else that was stated and proved right before and nobody cares, it even gained a lot of followers.

>> No.6132931

>>6132916
Even philosophers hate Ayn Rand, though.

>> No.6132932

>>6132811
I think Socrates has some words for "philosophers" like you.

>> No.6132939

>>6132846
Oh fuck you argue exactly like a friend I have, so fucking annoying.

>hahahaha!
>I win! I win!

>> No.6132969

>what IS *word*?
confusion over language =/= being profound

>> No.6133509

>>6132862

this type of comment is sooo trite and overused. How does one succeed at shitposting or trolling? By riling up the audience? It appears that's been done, so he was successful. If not, then how? Most importantly, it's interesting when you consider where your own posts fits in in a grander scheme of things - your post is even more worthless than those of the OP, because you're addressing him and feeding him. If you really thought he was all of those things, commenting back wouldn't be an option for you. If we reexamine who the sad existence is, it turns out to be you, OP, and everyone else in this thread.

Anon, you should reconsider your choices Now go ahead and reply to this post, I know you will. You cannot resist sharing the bitter tears you're whining over your failed existence.

>> No.6133557

>>6133509
me2

>> No.6134504
File: 20 KB, 400x305, fuck yeah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6134504

>>6132122

Things used to count burgers

>> No.6134516

>>6132278
Wait, fuck, so were people afraid of mathematics as wizardry and devil magics, or did they just look down upon it as a nerds hobby in OLD style?

>> No.6134544

>>6132969
what is what?

>> No.6134572

>>6134504
/r/ing the american bear edit of that