CuriosOne

45 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It is a variable, just like x, a, b... Etc.  A variable just represents any number you choose.

Oh, I thought capitol x as in capital X had some relavance....lol

57 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

5 in base ten. Always assume base ten until told otherwise or if it is obvious in context(dealing with base-16 hexadecimal codes with letters as numerals for example).

This is only alongside numbers, but you would normally use subscript to identify the base being used(if it needs to be made obvious). The number indicating the base, should itself be in base ten to avoid confusion.

ie. 5 in base ten = 5₁₀

 

An old joke goes that there are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't.

The joke being that 'one-zero' in binary or 10₂, actually means just two in base ten.

 

You already understand counting in different bases, you just have to adjust your thought process slightly to see that.

If I say 90 minutes from 3 AM, your brain will automatically add the two correctly and give you the correct time, without you even noticing it.

There is something else, I must add...

Saw this in a conversion base "calculator" as I stumbled on..

 "quotient" of "Base Systems"???

As in "The Difference Quotient?"

Used in calculus??

How Odd!

Where do those sum remainders go??

38 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I don't know. 

X^2 = X * X

^2 has nothing to do with base 2.

what's the capitol x for?

about ^2 makes sense, ...

undoublty "then" its ratio, length and time based all wrapped up in a nice tiny box of x...lol

24 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

^This.

For lower values, I'll also normally say the individual digits to make differentiating easier.

ie. One(1), One-Zero(2), One-One(3), One-Zero-Zero(4), One-Zero-One(5)

 

 

You assume base 10 unless otherwise indicated.

 

For x^2 that '2' just indicates that you are multiplying it by itself that many times.

x^2 = x multiplied by x twice = x raised to the power of 2 = x squared

 

Time is a mixed base system based on the bases 12 and 60(12*5).

Originally based on counting each of the 12 colored areas above and everytime you reach twelve lowering one finger of the other hand.

 

 

Ok, lots of questions here...if you may..

The counting base 10 system is the only one I understood so far...I will work on the others..

For the 60 and minute question.

Is that 5 in 5*12 base 5?? Or is it some "form" of square root "base system" for 25*4 = 10^2 100 cm for the base 12 system...Maybe I should just open a new thread, but this is on topic..

Just to let you know I get this idea from 100 cm in one "meter second" the SI unit for the second, but from real time, not the speed of light...

8 hours ago, Sriman Dutta said:

You seem not to understand what is meant by bases.

I will be trying to explain it in simpler terms.

Any quantitative thing is a number. We use 10 characters 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0 to represent them. Count how many characters we use? It's ten characters. Therefore our standard base of calculation is ten. 

Now imagine a civilisation living in a far off galaxy (don't ask questions like where are they bla bla, I'm just trying to explain). They evolved just like us. However unlike us, they are familiar to calculate numbers in base 4. They use the characters @,#,$ and & to represent all kinds of numbers. So they have base 4.

That's basis. It has nothing to do with calculus or trigonometry. 

Trigonometry doesn.t require a special base. Why would it? tan 45 =1 in our base and character set. It will be @ in that far off civilisation's base and character set. That doesn't mean the two things are different. 

 

If you find it hard to understand, for a moment forget everything about number system and things taught. Try to see what I'm trying to say. 

 

 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 is understood, but when we add these to "units" from derived math formulas is where I get confused, very confused and "one of the reasons are:" You cannot have 60 seconds in one "completed cycle" ie time doesn't say 1:60 pm, it goes from 1:59 pm to 2:00 pm in a cycle of 59 seconds, not 60...Is this correct??

So what happens when we apply your explanation to time? Do we have 0->59 charectors of time?? 

I think were not including the most fundamental part of numbers and nature..

7 hours ago, Sensei said:

...just in typical usage..

There are existing non-integer numeral systems, e.g. base PI, or base e, too..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numeration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_positional_numeral_systems

 

 

Well this just keeps getting more and more interesting!

""""""""""""Thanks for telling me this""""""""""""

18 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Towards the beginning of this thread I asked you a simple question you have yet to answer.

 

 

This question was intended to help you think about your question on bases.

 

In modern times we enjoy a very efficient representation of numbers the means the 'base' is the count (number or integer if you like) of different symbols that are required to represent any number value whatsoever, when used in combination.

So base 2 has two symbols :- 0,1                and  base 10 has 10 symbols:-  0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 
The next number in the base 10 system is represented by a combination of two existing symbols   as 10.
Using only two combined symbols will take us up to 99 and then we require to start combining 3 symbols for 100

As soon as we start combining symbols we also require a convention to distinguish between say 32 and 23.
This modern convention is one of the strengths of the modern system.

 

However it was not always so

For instance Roman and earlier civilisations used fewer symbols and as a consequence they representations contained more than one base, which made their arithmetic much more difficult.

 

 

 

 

When I think of 1000 and 1, I see many things..

I see a conversion factor = 1 as in the inverse of this times 2 = 1/2

1/10^3 =0.001 where 1/0.001 "un" does the conversion, I also see 1010 looks like a binary number "who knows." I also see units of kg, or even microns...Its very hard to say what I see..

When I see "our more popular choice of base 10 I see both base 10 and base 2 as x^2 

x= base 10

^2 = base 2

Why would I think this??

For the rule of "like terms." 

By the way....How does minutes, hours and seconds apply to any of this to be something "reasonable" as for as the human perception of time goes??

In other words we do well with 26 = 26 letters of the alphabet, but how do we link numbers to "time?" 

7 hours ago, Eise said:

Yes, it is obvious that you are very confused. So why did you do so long as if you understand what 'base' means here?

Let's try to explain it 'my way'. You must distinguish between the designator and the designated. E.g. when I ask you what a chair is, you could say 'it is a piece of furniture, that is designed to sit on'. You would feel pretty fooled if I would answer 'no, it is a word of 5 letters'. (I should have written then 'chair', between single quotes, to make clear that I meant the designator, not the designated. But hey, I wanted to fool you.) On the other side the same designated can be designated in another language, e.g. in Dutch as 'stoel'. Science usually does not change when you change the language. 

It is the same with numeric bases: on one side there are the numbers, at the other side there are their representations. Mathematics, and therefore all sciences using mathematics, are of course independent of the number base you use to express the numbers.

Here a list of 'objects' and some translations:

Chair        Stoel                      translation in Dutch
666          29A                        translation in hexadecimal
666          1232                       translation in octal
666          1010011010                 translation in binary
666/18 = 37  29A/12 = 25                translation in hexadecimal
666/18 = 37  1232/22 = 45               translation in octal
666/18 = 37  1010011010/10010 = 100101  translation in binary

So in the second column, we have only translations. The maths stays exactly the same, just a the physical characteristics of a chair are exactly the same as een stoel. We just have to keep an eye on which language we use, and be consistent. As an example: if we would think that '1232/22 = 45' is written in decimal, it would be wrong: in decimal 1232/22 = 56. But those are just symbols. You should always be aware of what they mean.

You meant tan( #$@ ) = @    (assuming the last symbol in your 'language' stands for '0' ).

Numeric Bases was the gap I had..

"Thanks" for clarifying this.

This reminds me of "cryptography" or

The "Ceaser Cypher " That uses "keys" a position and an output "letter by letter" where the key is a constant..

I know this sounds weird of a question.

But what base does algebrea use?

I ask becuase it has a 2 above the x:

x^2

I found this for Numeric Base..

In a positional numeral system, the radix or base is the number of unique digits, including the digit zero, used to represent numbers. For example, for the decimal/denary system (the most common system in use today) the radix (base number) is ten, because it uses the ten digits from 0 through 9.

10 hours ago, Janus said:

Why is it that "common sense" is so often a conclusion reached by starting with incomplete or incorrect information and applying faulty logic to it?

Sounds much like "programming" a computer, or a statistical analysis questioneer, you know the ones where everyone makes 6 figures a year, has a dog and hige house with white picket fencing by the beach??

10 hours ago, iNow said:

The phrase whiny little bitch isn’t gender specific 

OHHH REALLY??🤣😂

It is where I come from.....

14 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

@curiousone

 

You are still confusing powers and bases. The base only relates to how some value is being represented.

Counting five of something

Base 2: 1, 10, 11, 100, 101

Base 3: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12

Base 4: 1, 2, 3, 10, 11

Base 5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 10

Base 10: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

 

 

I'm totally confused on what you mean by "base and powers." I don't understand these sequences either...I see five sets of numbers, but dont understand what they mean..

17 hours ago, iNow said:

No. Do you truly think ridiculous and obvious strawmen like these lend credibility to you or your assertions?

If your ideas weren’t obvious bullshit, then you’d be sharing them in places where they’d change the world, but you’re instead posting here because we in this community are kind, intelligent, and helpful.

Go grind your axe elsewhere. You sound like a petulant whiny bitch of a child and don’t have the implicit benefit of being my own offspring. 

And what benefit might that be??

Using dargatory language in a public forum without the Moderators telling you to stop?

Sounds like you have issues with females...

That's Funny...🤣

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I rather doubt many people doing work at the Nobel-worthy level have the time or inclination to muck around on discussion boards.

 

Here is the crux of one of the problems - you assert something as true without evidence. It's up to you to provide that evidence. It is not the case that you are right until proven wrong, rather, you are assumed to be wrong until you provide evidence that you are correct.

 

I assume the translation here is that you don't have any evidence, because you just made up the assertion, but won't admit to it. It's not an uncommon tactic when someone gets caught spouting BS.

My OP is a function of "common sense." 

39 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.)

All science is cartography. Get over it.

But not anyone can build it. And thin air is not its substance.

It's what the engineer does when trying to predict the behaviour of a device, and calibrate its parameters.

It's what the biologist does when trying to understand the functions an interrelations of organisms.

It's what the computer scientist does when trying to simulate a system with code.

And it's what a physicist or a chemist does when trying to understand how particles and fields work.

The very concept of particles and fields are cartographic references.

And I'm damn happy that we have them. Otherwise we'd be lost in a bleak world.

---

I'm sorry I can't react more today, as there were two brilliant comments before mine.

LOL.

Where's option 11?? Since that's the matrix of choice.

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

O             ARE YOU A ROBOT ?

Please check-off which of the following are numerical bases

O : 1              O : dy/dx             O : 2

O : -1             O : 10                   O : x

O : %             O : 16                   O : 8

O : 4              O : e                     O : Pi 

Where's option 11?? Since that's the matrix of choice here...

39 minutes ago, joigus said:

(My emphasis.)

All science is cartography. Get over it.

But not anyone can build it. And thin air is not its substance.

It's what the engineer does when trying to predict the behaviour of a device, and calibrate its parameters.

It's what the biologist does when trying to understand the functions an interrelations of organisms.

It's what the computer scientist does when trying to simulate a system with code.

And it's what a physicist or a chemist does when trying to understand how particles and fields work.

The very concept of particles and fields are cartographic references.

And I'm damn happy that we have them. Otherwise we'd be lost in a bleak world.

---

I'm sorry I can't react more today, as there were two brilliant comments before mine.

 

I no longer have questions on base systems...

This makes overall sense for the engineer, the biologist and the computer scientist...

Its the bases of creative thinking, the root foundation of "syncronization" or the Noble Attitude....

ThnXxxxxx, I will study this in more depth...Greatly Appreciate Everyone's Help.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

To paraphrase Josh Billings, the problem here isn’t what you don’t know, it’s what you know that just ain’t so.

So, you cannot build a cooridinent system out of thin air and you cannot create a base "numeral system out of thin air??"

Yes, or No??

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

That's silly.

All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.
A number base is a positive integer.
But not all positive integers are used as number bases.

I have already pointed out a good place to start- twice.
It's clear that you are refusing to learn from it  or you are not bright enough to understand it. Which is it?

Why are you stubbornly failing to learn?

It's not me, it's the premis of the science model...

Anyone can create a cooridinent system like anyone can creat a "base & numeral system." 

I keep asking is base 10

Counting by 10s??

Or is base 2 County by 2s??

Simple as 1 2 3, and I get answer that sound like ""alien technology.""

Earth please??? 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

So much for your claim that you don't assert things as true. 

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean others don't, and just because you think you understand something doesn't mean others "understand" it the way you do. You don't understand it - you should investigate and ask questions. This kind of dismissal is lame.

You have quite the fascination with pi, and seemingly have imbued it with certain powers, but despite this, math is not mysticism.

I can agree with this.

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Rest assured I'm not going to understand why you're thinking anything.

You've got your toys and I've got mine. I'm playing with the toys everybody plays with. They're sanity-tested toys.

"Our time" you say. I can tell you, you're taking a lot of mine.

A post unread doesn't clarify anything.

Its the same realiable information that assumes you know what a "base numeral system is"" now I know it's a map anyone can build out of thin air...No wonder there is so much debate in science..

Proper time?? Really...?

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, no, no.

First come numbers.

Then comes topology (neighbourhoods in a set defined by the relation ⊆ "contained in")

Then comes geometry (defined by distance, a number assigned to pairs of "points": d(x,y) )

From metric (distance) come angles, defined as ratios of distances, as @Sensei has told you.

Topologies are possible to define even when there is no notion of a metric.

Numbers don't have geometry built in them.

You need numbers first. How else could you define the distance, which is a positive number?

Topology is more primitive. You only need a notion of inclusion, open and closed sets, etc.

Closed set: contains its boundary

Open set: does not contain its boundary

Edit: Dimension you can define with vectors (tangent space) or with analysis (number of real variables necessary to describe your set analitically).

And so on...

What a wasted effort!

This sounds more on the line of my insight...It makes better sense, its syncronized information... 

25 minutes ago, joigus said:

I told you, and it's in bold letters.

Are you saying I'm no-one, or are you saying I didn't tell you? 

Which one is it?

 

That post was on "fractions" and your not going to understand why I'm thinking this, but:

When I think of a fraction, "any" fraction "regardless" of any scientific explantion I think of a converging factor of 1..

Why would I think this??

Becuase of the inverse square law, the conservation of energy and believe it or not Hawking Radiation....I don't expect anyone to understand this comparison neither does it matter..

A base """numeral system""" made sense only after my Newton post, because in his time there were no computers, and anyone can create one out of thin air..

Your post now makes better sense becuase it's in "our time."

So now it's fair to say your post clarified this..

I'm glad I ask basic questions..

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

This is not a comment we can make in good faith. There are rapid advancements occurring and lots of experimentation happening. Progress is made not just daily, but hourly 

While the topic here isn’t exactly clean or precise to begin with, we’re obviously off it so I’ll leave it at that and defer to you if you feel otherwise

Yes "please do" so as im trying to keep up with replies and insightfull guidance on very confusing stuff.

Thnks and hopefully others will follow this positive example.. 

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Although nothing would amuse me more than the picture of you being preyed upon by legal counsellors, I'd advice you to think it twice.

In a previous post you bitterly complained about not being offered a job, as some kind of reward for your brilliant thinking. Set your priorities right, is all I can say. I don't wish you any wrong, in spite of your misled smugness and total disregard of the efforts of many users trying to help you to the best of their --our-- abilities.

The bullying that you mention is about a post by @iNow on another thread that didn't even mention you.

I almost forgot: numbers are not geometrically motivated. They come first. You can study their properties with topology --a basis of neighbourhoods-- or with geometry --distance, metric--. If you have n-tuples of numbers, then you can introduce angles, also from the metric.

Your talking about "manifolds" hyper cubes and the fourth dimension?

Now that I understand that a base numeral system is another word for a

positive integer,  I will research this, however eluded it might be from i as -1 of which we all know is pi ratio based....

The bullying comment was on my thread, so its directed to me however we want to do the algebrea on it....It should not by no means ellude peacfull and civil conversation between adults as it's very childish, especially on something science based...Knowledge varies from person to person for any reason at all, it's what makes life intresting

And i can careless who likes me or not at the end of the day it's just me myself and I.

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Because you couldn't be farther off the mark. That's not what bases are about. I and others have been telling you until we're blue in the mouth.

You're using the oldest trick of the game, which is non-sequitur. It's as if someone tells you,

"Mountains arise from mechanical tensions and thermal processes in the Earth's interior"

and you say,

"The why are elephants winged creatures?"

1st) Elephants are not winged creatures (a false premise embedded in a question is called a sophism)

2nd) The question does not follow from the previous statement at all (that's called a non-sequitur)

If you think for a moment most users here don't see right away what you're trying to do, you're quite wrong.

You're not discussing in good faith. It's not about disagreement. It's about you not being intellectually honest. 

You're free to keep playing your game for as long as you want, but you're just calling for action from the mods and very justified annoyance from other users.

Have a good day.

I was just told any base numeral system can be created "out of thin air" and that calculus uses no base system...

Who's not discussing in good faith again?

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Any positive integer.

Why not read about it and find out, rather than guessing badly.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_(mathematics)

This is the 1st time someone told me that a base is a positive integer..

"""But of coarse any successfully book needs to have a reason for readers to keep "flipping the pages."😏"""

Oh, this might explains where -1 comes in..

"Chukkles!"

1 hour ago, joigus said:

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions.

Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?

Yes its a question, "any base system"  works, as any base system can be created out of thin air...The better one or more efficient is the winner..

So why doesn't anyone tell me this?

I'm not concerned about binary numbers, computers and etc...This did not exist long ago when science was being formulated...I feel sorry for today's students that need to deal with this "simple" issue.

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

There is no reason to think iNow's statement was directed at you, and every reason to believe it was directed at several attempts by chatbots in recent weeks to initiate threads leading to discussions about products and services for sale. Chatbots talking with chatbots about how to solve their plumbing problems.

So no malice observed.

 

It was on my thread plain and simple..

 please "keep" these comments off my threads as they are "polluting" my focus.

I already "passed" my 24 hour chat box or e-bot test..

18 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Chatbots don't understand meaning of words or digits, sarcasms. They don't think abstractly. Can't read and understand Internet articles etc etc.

Thanks for explaining the directive "behind the insult."

On a lighter note, maybe the chat bots "wiring is reversed"

I have reported this abuser of peaceful scientific conversations to the moderators...

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actualy no, calculus is definitely advanced but there is much more to it than you imagine.

Unfortunately, thread you started about it a few weeks ago was never finished and it seems has already been forgotten.

Once again I ask you to stop introducing irrelevent material and concentrate on the answers to the question you actually asked.

Calculus has nothing to do with numbers representations or most of number theory.

I've not seen any complete answers, I've not seen a real world example of a derivitive that has units and numbers in them...

Maybe later I will ask what is 1+3

I need to see a "visual example" of this...

x this and dy/dx that "does not make sense." 

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions.

Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?

No, the number is geometry based, and it looks like it's in 3d looks like oragami..

On another note, I'm seeking legal advice on cyber bullying...There are some members here that are purposely creating problems for me making it very hard for a scientific conversation..

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

“I think one of your difficulties is that you are unable to draw distinctions between independent areas of math and science.” (me, above)

Case in point. We were discussing trig (at that point, at least. Your threads do tend to meander)

None of what you said here is trig. You’ve mashed velocity, acceleration, physical forces, atomic theory and number systems together. I think someone with expertise on cognition might have some insight here on your tendency to do this. I, however, am at a loss.

Wait a moment here...

Calculus is very advanced algebra and geometry, that uses a ratio "ie" derivative between at least 2 "observations." In other words its trigonometry based.

"Unless of coarse" its pi based, another word for tri based...What ever it is at this point it's truly a mixture of things..

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

This community, the forum where you’ve been posting 

So you speak for everyone right??

Its called:

P O L I T I C A L  C O R R E C T N E S S

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

IMO, we’ve been seeing several of these already over the past few 

Stop cyber bullying me...and stop instigating others to make fun of my posts..

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

IMO, we’ve been seeing several of these already over the past few weeks

Who's We?? The collective conscious?

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Sorry, I wrote 1/2 in binary. As I was presenting them in decimal, it should be,

 

12=0.5

 

This is what I've been seeing for years..

A sequence that does not resemble ordinary numbers, that when used with all known calculations resembles something like oragami...

I'm glad I ask these questions...

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I didn't write any computer code. That was all by hand. They way it was done before computers arrived, other that Leibniz's calculating machine.

So there appears to be a conflict between the better choice..??