Jump to content

# Getting started

## Recommended Posts

Hi. You have a lucky face.

Is this a good place in the forums to introduce myself? I am reading the Great Books of the Western World, which has a lot of important books in the history of math and science. But the strange thing is that the great books people that I've known are not really proficient in the grammar and therefore cannot talk to me much about the issues of sciences and maths. The other thing is that when I want to talk about these things from an historical perspective, the scientists and mathameticians kind of think it's a waste of time to talk about a 100 or 500 year old piece of writing. So, I'm wondering if I can communicate here? Lately I have been study some philosophy of mathematics, and when I posted in a math forum the topic "Does 1 + 1 = 2?" I was immediately banned for life!  Ha! The fact is (I think, anyway) that philosophers and mathemeticians have never been able to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. At least Frege couldn't.

But I see that there is a lot of banning here, and I am not looking for trouble, but I must warn you that I am sort of a kook! Are we going to get along?

##### Share on other sites

For programmers 1+1=10..

So, we should ask "in which numeral system?"

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

For programmers 1+1=10..

Woah! That was a great reply, Sensei. I didn't expect that. I was just looking up stuff about triangular numbers and the sexigesimal system. I wonder if triangular numbers would make more sense using that system? What is your favorite triangular number? Don't say 666! Discovering that number while I was working out a table of the triangles makes me wonder whether there was not some extremely major historical conflict in the dark past between the cultures that developed the sexigesimal and eventually the decimal systems. I mean, why didn't the triangle make it as the first power? Why is the first power the square? It would seem like x3  could have been the trinagle rather than the cube. Then the square could have been xexcept these systems are incompatible. You can't make a cube out of triangular pyramids, except with right angled ones. But triangular numbers are equilateral.

##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, rufus mosley said:

Hi. You have a lucky face.

Is this a good place in the forums to introduce myself? I am reading the Great Books of the Western World, which has a lot of important books in the history of math and science. But the strange thing is that the great books people that I've known are not really proficient in the grammar and therefore cannot talk to me much about the issues of sciences and maths. The other thing is that when I want to talk about these things from an historical perspective, the scientists and mathameticians kind of think it's a waste of time to talk about a 100 or 500 year old piece of writing. So, I'm wondering if I can communicate here? Lately I have been study some philosophy of mathematics, and when I posted in a math forum the topic "Does 1 + 1 = 2?" I was immediately banned for life!  Ha! The fact is (I think, anyway) that philosophers and mathemeticians have never been able to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. At least Frege couldn't.

But I see that there is a lot of banning here, and I am not looking for trouble, but I must warn you that I am sort of a kook! Are we going to get along?

Hello rufus and welcome.

Good, well founded discussion is always welcome here.

I can assure you that whilst many scientists and mathematicians are too busy in their working lives to sppend much time on the history, this is not the case with all of them.

Some even make a career out of it and I can recommend some top notch material as a result.

For myself, as a retired applied mathematician I understand fully the pressures of 'getting an answer' in the working world.
It is called "shut up and calculate"

But since retirement I have been able to look around at the History and Philosophy of Science and Maths which has enabled me to fill in many gaps and achieve a more rounded view of it all.

edit.

Please note (did you read the rules here?) that for your first 24 hours you can only make 5 posts  - so use them wisely  -

This is a very effective anti spammer measure.

##### Share on other sites

Philosophy or math is absolutely not a magic wand.  That's why we need to study a variety of subjects in schools or colleges.  Yeah, learn as if you were to live forever.

##### Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 11:44 AM, Sensei said:

For programmers 1+1=10..

So, we should ask "in which numeral system?"

Sensei I see that you are a genius. I think the issue is in proving that there is some relation between one 1 and another 1.

Edited by rufus mosley
##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

Congratulate me. I'm a quark!

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rufus mosley said:

Congratulate me. I'm a quark!

Why  ?

I don't see a reply to my welcome post.

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...
On 11/24/2022 at 12:04 PM, studiot said:

Hello rufus and welcome.

Good, well founded discussion is always welcome here.

I can assure you that whilst many scientists and mathematicians are too busy in their working lives to sppend much time on the history, this is not the case with all of them.

Some even make a career out of it and I can recommend some top notch material as a result.

For myself, as a retired applied mathematician I understand fully the pressures of 'getting an answer' in the working world.
It is called "shut up and calculate"

But since retirement I have been able to look around at the History and Philosophy of Science and Maths which has enabled me to fill in many gaps and achieve a more rounded view of it all.

edit.

Please note (did you read the rules here?) that for your first 24 hours you can only make 5 posts  - so use them wisely  -

This is a very effective anti spammer measure.

Studiot - Thanks for your reply. I got very sidetracked in life just after posting this topic. That's why I was missing in action. I see you have an appreciation for the history of science. I am wondering whether a topic such as "Does 1 + 1 = 2?" is going to cause a problem here. As I said, I was banned in another math forum for asking what people think of this question. I remember being taught this first thing in grade school but the teacher never proved it. I'm finding it a great challenge to understand in what sense these symbols should be taken. A conjoinment of 1 with 1 would result with 1. If I add 1 drop of water to 1 drop of water, I have 1 drop of water. So, 1 + 1 = 1!

I think this would be inconvenient for those who learn mathematics by rote. Math relies on convention and 1 + 1 = 2 is not only the most famous equation in the history of the subject but is a prerequisite for further development. The question belongs to mathematical philosophy and perhaps that is where I should be posting? In the Philosophy section. But many of the ideas that I have are so crackpot that I think I would be most comfortable posting in the Jokes thread or perhaps we could have a Jokes subforum where I can let my imagination run wild. I am finally turned on to mathematics now that I see it as an art form. Another good place for us crackpots would be a Science Fiction subforum. In Sci-Fi we don't have to prove our premises. We ask the readers for "suspended unbelief." In such a forum, I could posit as a first premise that there is no speed limit in the universe. What, then happens to the theory of relativity? That is for the smarter people here to answer.

I go into this because I am very concerned about having my threads locked or deleted and myself being banned for my imaginative pursuits in math and science.

And what do the moderators think? I would like to ask for a cooperative effort in moderation. I can post sample OP's here in this thread and we can preview what I am thinking before I post these topics. I am fine posting in the Jokes thread, but then people will complain that my jokes are not funny. A Crackpot subforum might work.

##### Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, rufus mosley said:

Studiot - Thanks for your reply. I got very sidetracked in life just after posting this topic.

That happens to everyone ffrom time to time.

But now is the time to move on (or is it for all good men to come to the aid of the party?)

You have said your introductory piece and outlined what is bothering you.

The response from sensei shows that true scientists and mathemaicians don't automatically react adversely to a statement  such as 1 + 1 = 2.

Thay ask questions because the statement could mean many different things.

Really it is up to the author (you in this case) to provide enough context to make sense of it.

You have now done so by observing that two individual small drops my combine to form one larger drop.

In the anihilitation of a positron by an electron 1 + 1 = 0.

Mathematically I suggest you look at modular arithmetic  Your issue doesn't show up well with 1 + 1 but say 3 + 5 (mod 7) = 1.

Note I don't know when or where you went to school, but they now teach that in UK schools.

sensei was talking about computer uses of these concepts eg modulo arithmetic

There are also further developments in the way computer languages use these concepts.

So now we have cleared that up have you any further science questions or points to discuss ?

Edited by studiot
##### Share on other sites

1+1=2 does not refer to any manipulations with the things, 1 and 1. It refers to counting things.

If you count some things and find that there is 1 of them, count some other things and find that there is 1 of them, then if you count all of these things you find that there are 2 of them. This is what 1+1=2 says.

##### Share on other sites

Hi studiot and genady.

To tell the truth, I have not had time to read this forum. I did spend some time during my first days reading the Trash subforum, which gives me pause. I was not at all disturbed by the the OP's that ended in Trash. I don't know what the rules are, though the rules were referred to by number in Trash, and I have not met the mods. IUtil then, I would prefer to continue my thoughts here and pre-clear all of my posts and OP's. If someone finds something in this thread that they feel is interesting they can report it for further discussion. I would like to try a kind of easy and natural moderation. Perhaps I could get some posting partners and we can introduce my ideas slowly, filtering them into the mainstream conversation?

The 1 + 1 = 2 topic is far from simple. What does that mean? We say "One plus one equals two" or "One and one is two." Can we say "One and one are two?" Where does the and come from in that sentence? And is not a property of any number or object. If an apple fell in the state of Oregon in 1925 and an apple falls in the state of Washington this autumn, is that two apples? They are completely separated by time and space. The and is coming into the equation by a function of the mind and has nothing to do with any apples. I can set up two apples (or two drops of water) in the "space" of my imagination and then fully conjoin them without augmenting their masses, volumes or weights.

Bertrand Russell says that of all the philosophical ideas, the One and Many is the most difficult to comprehend. The problem here is that if the symbol + is a conjunction, so to see two apples in my mind negates that conjunction. A full conjunction would result in the number 1. This is a disjunction, unless there is some logical loophole.

I saw a Chalkdust video on number theory and was surprised to see they covered this one plus one business. So, the work of Frege, Russell and Whitehead has finally made inroads into mainstream education. Wildberger puts up strokes on the board for each number so that the numbers look like this: 1 11 111 1111 11111 etc. But, he neglects to take account of the conjunction and.

Let this be a rough sketch of the topic. I'd be willing to write an OP conjointly with another poster here, if that is possible. I do not mean that we would conjoin into one person but that we would conjoin our two or more viewpoints into one OP. This would be a positive approach to the moderation of our topics. Otherwise, I feel as if I could be meat for hungry wolves.

So what are the rules and who are the moderators?

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rufus mosley said:

So what are the rules and who are the moderators?

FYI

##### Share on other sites

18 hours ago, rufus mosley said:

But many of the ideas that I have are so crackpot that I think I would be most comfortable posting in the Jokes thread or perhaps we could have a Jokes subforum where I can let my imagination run wild.

!

Moderator Note

Please only put Jokes in the Jokes section. If you have an idea you can support scientifically that isn't mainstream science, you can put it in Speculations. If you don't understand a particular bit of science, please ask questions rather than making up garbage.

And nobody wants to waste their time discussing anything based on "imagination run wild" if it's not scientifically based. Anybody can have an off-the-wall idea, but that doesn't make them interesting. Science has a methodology to it that tries to remove wishful thinking and subjective bias, and it's been extremely successful, so we're going to be sticking with that method in conversations here.

##### Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rufus mosley said:

To tell the truth, I have not had time to read this forum.

24 minutes ago, rufus mosley said:

Let this be a rough sketch of the topic. I'd be willing to write an OP conjointly with another poster here, if that is possible. I do not mean that we would conjoin into one person but that we would conjoin our two or more viewpoints into one OP. This would be a positive approach to the moderation of our topics. Otherwise, I feel as if I could be meat for hungry wolves.

Don't be a shrinking violet.

What you have posted so far suggests someone capable of holding a sensible discussion.

So jump right in and do it.

As to 1 + 1 = 2  and this

27 minutes ago, rufus mosley said:

Bertrand Russell says that of all the philosophical ideas, the One and Many is the most difficult to comprehend. The problem here is that if the symbol + is a conjunction, so to see two apples in my mind negates that conjunction. A full conjunction would result in the number 1. This is a disjunction, unless there is some logical loophole.

I saw a Chalkdust video on number theory and was surprised to see they covered this one plus one business. So, the work of Frege, Russell and Whitehead has finally made inroads into mainstream education. Wildberger puts up strokes on the board for each number so that the numbers look like this: 1 11 111 1111 11111 etc. But, he neglects to take account of the conjunction and.

Mathematics (and its history)  has moved on a tad since the beginning of the last century but Russell was correct in that the Australian Aboriginals had a number system that goes

one, two many.

They don't count past 2.

Further the business of the + sign; it should be noted that the + sign has two quite different and distinct meanings in maths and science.

This causes confusion for some whe the maths pulls in both directions at once.

So post your topic in Mathematics

##### Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rufus mosley said:

is that two apples? They are completely separated by time and space.

Sorry, but I fail to see how time and space come into counting of apples.

## 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
×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• 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.