• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

A number of numbers

The number three is the class of all triples; that, which is itself a class, belongs (as a member) to the even higher order class, numbers. So yes, numbers are 'out there', but spooky they are not, just actual truths of the immaterial and intangible variety.

Also, we do not need an intelligent being to count how many planets we are from the nearest star, but even in the absence of someone to count, there are a specific number of them. The system we have created and decided to use to count them most certainly does depend on us, but truth of what is there for our discovery predates the system and thus demonstrates that the facts observed are independent of us, even should it so be that ... .

Electronic valence comes to mind when talking about the very effective ability of the physical world to make use of the number of things there is out there.
EB
 
It is a scale. A number has no universal meaning, only the relative ranges between different numbers on that particular scale.

It is really simple, take a metric and english thermometer. What are the numbers on them? Why can they have different numbers for the same temperature?

English thermometers are metric. If you want a non-metric thermometer, you need to ask an American.

:tomato:

Thanks, bilby. Now, I guess, I understand what JH said. :rolleyes:

Still, I don't think I understand the point he's trying to make and it sure doesn't look like he's ready yet to explain anything much. :(
EB
Well, you aren't particularly listening very hard, you have your own idea and that typically is all that matters. Numbers are steps on a scale. Scales are arbitrary, but not without meaning. You are concerned about the numbers, but you should be more thinking about the scale itself.
 
It is a scale. A number has no universal meaning, only the relative ranges between different numbers on that particular scale.

It is really simple, take a metric and english thermometer. What are the numbers on them? Why can they have different numbers for the same temperature?

I agree. Numbers are abstractions no different than words. Meaning is whatever we give both numbers and words.
Don't agree. Accept the ambiguity of "abstract." There are two different meanings. One pertains to the realm of the mental whereas the other does not. An abstract concept is substantively different than an abstract object.

That is why science is based on math not words, math is unambiguous. There Is no why, numbers are defined by us humans, beyond that it is metaphysics that lead nowhere.

I should know by now not to jump into EB's threads.
 
Thanks, bilby. Now, I guess, I understand what JH said. :rolleyes:

Still, I don't think I understand the point he's trying to make and it sure doesn't look like he's ready yet to explain anything much. :(
EB
Well, you aren't particularly listening very hard, you have your own idea and that typically is all that matters.

You certainly have your own idea about me and that seems to be all that matters. Subtle differences here, though. I'm much less needlessly assertive as you like to be.

Numbers are steps on a scale. Scales are arbitrary, but not without meaning. You are concerned about the numbers, but you should be more thinking about the scale itself.

I know what a scale is:
Scale
a. A system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement: a ruler whose scale is in inches.

I'm with you as to numbers being "steps" on a scale. I agree that scales are arbitrary and that they mean something to us. I'm concerned about a certain issue pertaining to numbers and I will stick with that if you don't mind. Still, I'm used to putting some perspective in things. So, please, do go on. So, a scale is a system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement, like a thermometer. So far, so good. So, what about that?
EB
 
Don't agree. Accept the ambiguity of "abstract." There are two different meanings. One pertains to the realm of the mental whereas the other does not. An abstract concept is substantively different than an abstract object.

That is why science is based on math not words, math is unambiguous. There Is no why, numbers are defined by us humans, beyond that it is metaphysics that lead nowhere.

I should know by now not to jump into EB's threads.

Then just give the definition of the word "number" that you think is best and be done with it. What's keeping you?
EB
 
You certainly have your own idea about me and that seems to be all that matters. Subtle differences here, though. I'm much less needlessly assertive as you like to be.
That's nice.

Numbers are steps on a scale. Scales are arbitrary, but not without meaning. You are concerned about the numbers, but you should be more thinking about the scale itself.

I know what a scale is:
Odd, because you seem to be asking what the significance of the demarcations on them is.
Scale
a. A system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement: a ruler whose scale is in inches.
I'm with you as to numbers being "steps" on a scale. I agree that scales are arbitrary and that they mean something to us. I'm concerned about a certain issue pertaining to numbers and I will stick with that if you don't mind. Still, I'm used to putting some perspective in things. So, please, do go on. So, a scale is a system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement, like a thermometer. So far, so good. So, what about that?
EB
Not all scales are fixed intervals. Maybe the term you were looking for was fixed or repeating.
 
That's nice.

I know what a scale is:
Odd, because you seem to be asking what the significance of the demarcations on them is.
Scale
a. A system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement: a ruler whose scale is in inches.
I'm with you as to numbers being "steps" on a scale. I agree that scales are arbitrary and that they mean something to us. I'm concerned about a certain issue pertaining to numbers and I will stick with that if you don't mind. Still, I'm used to putting some perspective in things. So, please, do go on. So, a scale is a system of ordered marks at fixed intervals used as a reference standard in measurement, like a thermometer. So far, so good. So, what about that?
EB
Not all scales are fixed intervals. Maybe the term you were looking for was fixed or repeating.

Sorry but it can only be up to you to explain what you mean if you feel like it but I'm not interested in guessing.
EB
 
Number! I'd say it's the referent to which numeral's refer!

Let me tell you what a number isn't. It isn't a product of human intellect. They did not spring forth from our mental concepts of them. We didn't invent them. Through intelligence, we discovered them. Hey were here all along.

Numerals, like words or symbols, sure, we invented those, but numbers, well, they've existed for all time. There were eight planets orbiting our sun prior to our human arrival. Sorry Pluto, we still love you.

You know I can go on, but I'm just throwing in a bite; after all, the thread might meander a different direction in need of a different answer for a different question.
On the contary: a number is nothing but a product of our intellect. Its not an invention since its a result of how our brain is wired. Numbers arise from our ability to construct groups of features in our perception.

I can see your point but one doesn't preclude the other.

I'm really interested in how mathematicians conceive of numbers, not whether their conception is correct. Still, the idea here is to go through the main conception people have of numbers and see what could come out of that.

My personal view is that numbers as we routinely conceive of them are indeed somehow human inventions, like the colour red or even pain, but that there likely are things out there that somehow correspond to our invented numbers and I don't see the point of not also calling these things numbers, just like the word "tree" is no doubt a human invention to which nonetheless correspond actual physical things that it would be needlessly fussy to try and not call "trees". We can always clarify by specifying what it is we mean, either the human-made concept or the thing that's supposed to exist out there. My point is that we certainly don't know that something much like numbers don't actually exist in the physical world although they may not be much like our concept of numbers.

Perhaps the crucial point is that our interpretation of the world should remain consistent through our use of the concept of number. So, the question is whether there is any problem in our use of the concept of numbers. Is there anything contradictory with other things we think we observe of the world?
EB
There is a (too?) simple example: add two haystacks and you get what?
1) one haystack (but double in volume)
2) two haystacks on top of each other (but very hard to separare)
3) a lot of haystraws...
The number is thus pbvious depending on we are interested in. (Most farmers would be knterested in the volume of the hay, nit how many stacks there are...)
 
e ambiguity of "abstract." There are two different meanings. One pertains to the realm of the mental whereas the other does not. An abstract concept is substantively different than an abstract object.

"Abstract object" sounds to me like a contradiction in terms. Can't we just say that a number is a physical quality for example, or a physical property? If there are five children in the courtyard, then it seems to me that the number 5 here can be thought of as a property of the physical world. And in this case a very concrete property, obviously. The word "abstract" just seems to bring confusion.
EB
No. Since there the number depends on our definition of children. There may be another two persons there that we doesnt agree to be children or not. You may argue that this is nonense and say that i mean these persons and point them out, but if I didnt see you action you would have to do it again and those persons would only be identified by what you pointed your finger at at specific times. Numbers (and decamarcation of objects) always go back to an observer. No observer, no numbers, no objects. Just the undiscriminated universe.
 
If someone tells me that her cockatoo has died, I shouldn't need for her to explain what she means by "cockatoo." If I don't know what the word "cockatoo" means, I could look it up in a dictionary that explains how fluent speakers of a language use the word. If it so happens that she has used the word to mean something other than what everyone else in civilized society would have meant had they they said it, then there's a deviation between what she means (who the hells knows) and what the word means (as commonly used by fluent speakers of the English language).

People ordinarily at least try to choose a word that has a meaning that fits what what they want to express. I'm not going to say my dog has died when instead my cat has died.
 
I had numbers and number lines in 2nd or 3rd grade.

A real number can be located on a number line. A complex number can not.

I expect ipetrich cam elaborate on the math theory.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number

There is generally no problem in identifying each number system with a proper subset of the next one (by abuse of notation), because each of these number systems is canonically isomorphic to a proper subset of the next one.[citation needed] The resulting hierarchy allows, for example, to talk, formally correctly, about real numbers that are rational numbers, and is expressed symbolically by writing

{\displaystyle \mathbb {N} \subset \mathbb {Z} \subset \mathbb {Q} \subset \mathbb {R} \subset \mathbb {C} } \mathbb {N} \subset \mathbb {Z} \subset \mathbb {Q} \subset \mathbb {R} \subset \mathbb {C}



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number


A symbol of the set of real numbers (ℝ)
In mathematics, a real number is a value of a continuous quantity that can represent a distance along a line. The adjective real in this context was introduced in the 17th century by René Descartes, who distinguished between real and imaginary roots of polynomials. The real numbers include all the rational numbers, such as the integer −5 and the fraction 4/3, and all the irrational numbers, such as √2 (1.41421356..., the square root of 2, an irrational algebraic number). Included within the irrationals are the transcendental numbers, such as π (3.14159265...). In addition to measuring distance, real numbers can be used to measure quantities such as time, mass, energy, velocity, and many more.

Real numbers can be thought of as points on an infinitely long line called the number line or real line, where the points corresponding to integers are equally spaced. Any real number can be determined by a possibly infinite decimal representation, such as that of 8.632, where each consecutive digit is measured in units one tenth the size of the previous one. The real line can be thought of as a part of the complex plane, and complex numbers include real numbers....

A real number may be either rational or irrational; either algebraic or transcendental; and either positive, negative, or zero. Real numbers are used to measure continuous quantities. They may be expressed by decimal representations that have an infinite sequence of digits to the right of the decimal point; these are often represented in the same form as 324.823122147... The ellipsis (three dots) indicates that there would still be more digits to come.

More formally, the real numbers have the two basic properties of being an ordered field, and having the least upper bound property. The first says that real numbers comprise a field, with addition and multiplication as well as division by non-zero numbers, which can be totally ordered on a number line in a way compatible with addition and multiplication. The second says that, if a non-empty set of real numbers has an upper bound, then it has a real least upper bound. The second condition distinguishes the real numbers from the rational numbers: for example, the set of rational numbers whose square is less than 2 is a set with an upper bound (e.g. 1.5) but no (rational) least upper bound: hence the rational numbers do not satisfy the least upper bound property.
 
I had numbers and number lines in 2nd or 3rd grade.

A real number can be located on a number line. A complex number can not.
Yeah, I forgot about imaginaries. A number scale is actually a plane... I think.

I expect ipetrich cam elaborate on the math theory.
He'll have to wait in line. Speakpigeon can only ignore so many people at one time.
 
If someone tells me that her cockatoo has died, I shouldn't need for her to explain what she means by "cockatoo." If I don't know what the word "cockatoo" means, I could look it up in a dictionary that explains how fluent speakers of a language use the word. If it so happens that she has used the word to mean something other than what everyone else in civilized society would have meant had they they said it, then there's a deviation between what she means (who the hells knows) and what the word means (as commonly used by fluent speakers of the English language).

People ordinarily at least try to choose a word that has a meaning that fits what what they want to express. I'm not going to say my dog has died when instead my cat has died.

I am very sorry for your loss. And please pass on my condolences to your friend, with respect to her cockatoo.

There may be some kind of environmental issue, if both cockatoos and cats are dying in your neighbourhood; Perhaps you could investigate whether others in the area have lost pets recently?
 
I had numbers and number lines in 2nd or 3rd grade.

A real number can be located on a number line. A complex number can not.
Yeah, I forgot about imaginaries. A number scale is actually a plane... I think.

I expect ipetrich cam elaborate on the math theory.
He'll have to wait in line. Speakpigeon can only ignore so many people at one time.

Them image from grammar school was the number line, if somebody needs an image to understand the number line then it is a wasted effort.
 
If someone tells me that her cockatoo has died, I shouldn't need for her to explain what she means by "cockatoo." If I don't know what the word "cockatoo" means, I could look it up in a dictionary that explains how fluent speakers of a language use the word. If it so happens that she has used the word to mean something other than what everyone else in civilized society would have meant had they they said it, then there's a deviation between what she means (who the hells knows) and what the word means (as commonly used by fluent speakers of the English language).

People ordinarily at least try to choose a word that has a meaning that fits what what they want to express. I'm not going to say my dog has died when instead my cat has died.
Is this a response to someone?
 
If someone tells me that her cockatoo has died, I shouldn't need for her to explain what she means by "cockatoo." If I don't know what the word "cockatoo" means, I could look it up in a dictionary that explains how fluent speakers of a language use the word. If it so happens that she has used the word to mean something other than what everyone else in civilized society would have meant had they they said it, then there's a deviation between what she means (who the hells knows) and what the word means (as commonly used by fluent speakers of the English language).

People ordinarily at least try to choose a word that has a meaning that fits what what they want to express. I'm not going to say my dog has died when instead my cat has died.

I am very sorry for your loss. And please pass on my condolences to your friend, with respect to her cockatoo.

There may be some kind of environmental issue, if both cockatoos and cats are dying in your neighbourhood; Perhaps you could investigate whether others in the area have lost pets recently?

Yeah, what we need here is...

a PET scan. :parrot:


EB
 
if somebody needs an image to understand the number line then it is a wasted effort.

I take it that by this you really mean "if somebody needs an image to understand what we're talking about when we talk about the number line then it is a wasted effort3, because I'm not sure anybody can claim to really understands the "number line", i.e. the real line.
EB
 
He'll have to wait in line. Speakpigeon can only ignore so many people at one time.

Hey, dude, no one can ignore what's not being said, OK?! A bit of logic would help here.

I'm not ignoring anybody. You seem to have a recurring disconnect with the real world. I'd be watching myself if I were you. You can only ignore yourself at your own peril, dude.

So, whenever you feel like you're prepared to properly explain yourself without me having to guess what it might be, then go on, I won't be ignoring you, promise.

But you do have to say something first. Get it?

I'm not even ignoring Steve who is ignoring me. :D

I'm making him nervous or something.
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom