Jump to content

Did Issac Newton know about numeral systems?


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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..

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No. We don't use "numeral systems in calculus"... Numeral system is just a way to display numbers.. 1) computers don't compute calculus by themselves. They execute program written in machi

Newton grew up in a world where 12 inches made a foot, three feet made a yard, Two yards (or six feet) made a fathom,  five and   a half yards made a pole, four poles made a chain; ten chains made a f

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 c

Posted Images

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." 

 

 

 

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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

!

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.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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

 

 

Edited by Endy0816
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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

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

Quote

In any base you must use as many digits as your base (always a positive integer different from one). In hexadecimal you can only use 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f.

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

Which one is it?

 

Edited by joigus
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

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

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.. 

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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

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.

7 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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

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

8 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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

A post unread doesn't clarify anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

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..

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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??

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to post
Share on other sites

O             ARE YOU A ROBOT ?

Please check-off which of the following are numerical bases

: 1              O : dy/dx             O : 2

O : -1             O : 10                   O : x

O : %             O : 16                   O : 8

O : 4              O : e                     O : Pi 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I know it's a map anyone can build out of thin air...

(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.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

O             ARE YOU A ROBOT ?

Please check-off which of the following are numerical bases

: 1              O : dy/dx             O : 2

O : -1             O : 10                   O : x

O : %             O : 16                   O : 8

O : 4              O : e                     O : Pi 

LOL.

Edited by joigus
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

: 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.

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

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??

I don’t even know what it means to “build a cooridinent (sic) system out of thin air” (or a “base numeral system”) or how a base is a “map”

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

That said, if you really don't know the answer to these questions you have made do you know what onethousand and one looks like ?

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Are You 100% Sure On This??

Understood but:

Counting by base 10= 10, 20, 30 

Counting by base 2 = 2, 4, 6

Is this correct?

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

I'm totally confused on what you mean by "base and powers."

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.

30 minutes ago, Sriman Dutta said:

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.

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

Edited by Eise
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:
Quote

So from what I see, a base is "any number" 

Any positive integer.

...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

 

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.