Stereotypicalness in Numbers [Archive] - Science Forums, The Original

KHinfcube22

04-16-2003, 07:59 PM

Numbers, why is everyone so stereotypical about thhem. They say 3 "always" comes after 2 and before 4. But why? Isn't it mean to assume that three is always there? I mean, girls got mad when guys were stereotypical about them, why should they be mean to numbers? Numbers have feelings too you know!

__________________________________________________ __
I did this as a joke, but please still reply as if I'm serious.

fafalone

04-16-2003, 08:08 PM

It's just by definition.

KHinfcube22

04-16-2003, 08:20 PM

a definition is merely an explantion by one who all trust. I define numbers as a measurment of the amount of units anyway. that has nothing to do with order.

blike

04-16-2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by KHinfcube22
a definition is merely an explantion by one who all trust. I define numbers as a measurment of the amount of units anyway. that has nothing to do with order.

Without certain standards we could have no number system that would work for anyone, anywhere, any time. Thats the whole point of having it organized the way it is. Of course, anyone can create a new number system where 3 comes before 2, but it wouldn't work the way our number system does and produce results without serious modifications to the rules.

Radical Edward

04-16-2003, 11:29 PM

dave

04-17-2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by KHinfcube22
a definition is merely an explantion by one who all trust.

In the case of numbers, this is blatently not true. I very much doubt that the arabic number system was "dreamt up" overnight by a bloke. Much more likely is that mathematicians had a series of discussions for a number of years trying to find a decent kind of number system, and this is what they came up with.

Radical Edward

04-17-2003, 01:43 AM

KHinfcube22

04-17-2003, 11:44 AM

I think numbers are not a constant, but are rather a function, created by the goverment to control people's minds. Numbers only have meaning because people give them meaning. One could run a successful civilization without numbers, but could not the control half what was goin on. Take china for instance. They used "numbers" to limit the birth of child growth. and f you check history correctly, you would notice this kind of Manipulation by the goverment all over the place.

fafalone

04-17-2003, 11:48 AM

Not a modern civilization. Things like computers could never be built without some way of measuring quantities.

KHinfcube22

04-17-2003, 12:00 PM

Tue enough, well at least not a series of working comp. anyway. But comp. aren't everything. One could have an electrical current, advanced communication divices, and even modes of transportation without counting an amount. The only problem is that everything would be even more inadequite.

fafalone

04-17-2003, 12:02 PM

No they couldn't. All those things are mathematics intensive, and mathematics couldn't exist without a number system.

KHinfcube22

04-17-2003, 12:20 PM

not neccessarily. One could randomly grab a bunch of coils, an imported speaker,and you will have a telephone.

spacemanspiff

04-17-2003, 02:42 PM

and a bunch of left over coils

:rolleyes:

KHinfcube22

04-17-2003, 05:54 PM

which means more fun for the rest of us.

fafalone

04-17-2003, 09:46 PM

When you can create anything resembling an efficient communications network without using numbers, or any knowledage that wouldn't have existed without numbers, be sure to let me know.

dave

04-18-2003, 04:24 AM

Some of the more advanced ideas in electrical engineering specifically require complex numbers to be able to use them. Indeed, the entire concept of algebra is derived from the number system. Basic questions like "me and my friend have 3 bananas, I have one, how many are there" are the basis of the algebraic system.

From this (and observations of measured quantities of things) we can derive equations to understand things like electricity, mechanics, and we gradually move on.

My point is that without a basic number system with some sense and order, we cannot possibly have the things that you talk about. Sure, we might be able to "randomly" grab a number of things, but I very much doubt you could "randomly" come up with the equipment to make a particle accelerator.

And where do you think we could get a speaker from anyway? Without a number system, there would be none of these things. Argue all you want, but it's a bit silly because you cannot possibly be right.

KHinfcube22

04-18-2003, 08:08 PM

The bases of this thread was not to say numbers are pointless. It was to say everyone is rude to stereotypicalize numbers. But just because you say one can't live without numbers, I will argue exactly that one can. Now you guys need to include the chaos factor in our conversation. It is possible, no matter how unprobable, that a FUTURISTIC society can live without ever using numbers. They could just live without ever using numbers.

Skye

04-19-2003, 02:27 AM

Why don't you give it a try? Live without numbers or anything that has been designed using numbers. Post your experiences when you finish.

I knew a particularly intelligent (and crazy) guy who, after finishing high school, decided to see if he could live without modern society for a year. He went and lived at some remote beach and lived off food he caught.

dave

04-19-2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by KHinfcube22
The bases of this thread was not to say numbers are pointless. It was to say everyone is rude to stereotypicalize numbers. But just because you say one can't live without numbers, I will argue exactly that one can. Now you guys need to include the chaos factor in our conversation. It is possible, no matter how unprobable, that a FUTURISTIC society can live without ever using numbers. They could just live without ever using numbers.

I admit there is a chance that a future civilization could grow without the use of numbers.

However, I doubt they'd get very far. The chance of what you're saying actually happening is so infinitesimally small that it's not even worth considering.

KHinfcube22

04-23-2003, 06:56 PM

Whats the chance that a small planet in a small solar system in a small galaxy would have sentient beings in it?

Radical Edward

04-24-2003, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by KHinfcube22
Whats the chance that a small planet in a small solar system in a small galaxy would have sentient beings in it?

small, but infinitely larger than any civilisation at all living without numbers. One of the fundamental bases of civilisations is trade, in goods or services. those goods or services would invariably have to be quantified, especially once the services become more intangible.
as for technology, it is all fundamentally mathematics based. one has to have an idea of what one is trying to create/construct, and the properties of the materials and so on, and as faf said, as soon as you are looking at electronics, you are looking at maths. randomly sticking stuff together and hoping it works is equivalent to watching a tornado going through a junkyard and expecting it to build a jumbo jet.

JaKiri

04-24-2003, 06:55 AM

He's right!

Numbers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chain rules!

Go, make a numberistic society based on that german masterwork, Das Ordinal!

KHinfcube22

04-25-2003, 09:02 PM

Hmm, got me there. But actualy there would be a chance above 0.00000000000000001 that a none numeristic future society with all the techno we got if there was another factor to add. Abtaining the ability to create things with one's mind would make numbers pointless. And to abtain the ability, one wouldn't even need numbers.

KHinfcube22

12-14-2003, 02:44 PM

I wish to bring this up again...numbers are controversial...there are way too many ways around them...thus making them irrelevent...we only think we need them, because we do not know how to live without them...But I say we CAN have a modern or futuristic society without numbers!...Counting is not mandatory!...WE CAN MAKE WITHOUT THEM!...oh well...

dave

12-14-2003, 03:15 PM

No, we can't.

VendingMenace

12-15-2003, 02:55 AM

I wish to bring this up again...numbers are controversial...there are way too many ways around them...thus making them irrelevent...

What are the ways around them? I would be interested to hear :D

KHinfcube22

12-15-2003, 02:58 AM

ummm...well its not really what I ment...what I ment is that 2+3 doesn't always = 5...in a base 4 sytem, 2+3 would equal 10...and such...they are like the english language in way too many ways...oh well...

dave

12-15-2003, 05:23 AM

wha?

greg1917

12-15-2003, 09:14 AM

Numbers aren't 'irrelevant' - there's a difference between having an opinion and just being flat out wrong. Chemitry, physics, biology and just about everything else have either some basis in the numerical system or a total one. You've yet to explain any claim you've made and just seem confused.

dave

12-15-2003, 10:10 AM

Infact, I don't even know why this thread is actually still around. I thought we'd discussed this at great length already?

wolfson

12-15-2003, 11:04 AM

KHinfcube22 are you confused???

KHinfcube22

12-15-2003, 04:25 PM

Hey...I'm just as suprised as you this hasn't been closed...but the fact that pure randomness can produce a modern or futuristic society without numbers means that there must be one somewhere...we don't need numbers...only just to explain why something works...not to work...We can have everything and just not know why...oh well....

greg1917

12-15-2003, 04:36 PM

We do need numbers. This isnt my opinion.

Does '...oh well...' at the end of a post indicate your dreaming up more vague, non-descript unexplained pap? Its just that I spot a pattern.

KHinfcube22

12-15-2003, 08:53 PM

I use 'oh well' in most my posts in all my forums now-a-days...Oh well...I guess it has to do with tradmarking...you can know its me when there is a bunch of '...' and an 'oh well' in the post...otherwise its usually a fake...Oh well...thats life I guess...