On the self.

[vonFiedler]

And we call that number "10" because ...

Well 10 is really just anytime the base system loops back around, a base 8 system would still have 10 it'd just be 8.

Anyway, your finger can't be a complex number because your finger is a digit. It's discrete. It isn't continuous, unless you want to get really technical and bring the hand into this, in which case we can go back to the lions. Where one lion ends another doesn't begin. They are each singular entities that become plural when counted. 2.7 can't be singular. It just can't. It's continuous, hell, it's more than halfway to 3. You can't have digits when you're taking e to the power of x. The digits would get incrementally bigger. It's madness. You're acting like a world with indescrete numbers would simply have a "different numeric sense". On the contrary, everything would be chaos by our standards. And then you'd just say "oh well our standards are arbitrary". Well, they've been pretty practical up until now.

 

[Objection]

OK, I could argue about how the "different numeric sense" would mean that what we currently use would look like chaos and I could continue to say that every bit of reasoning you apply to our current system could be applied in a similar way to any numeric system (base 3.14 lol), but by this point we're basically going around in circles with the numbers discussion. Besides, I've got a different issue with what you've said:

Well, they've been pretty practical up until now.

When you make that kind of statement, you admit that you are basically accepting something as true (in this case, it seems to be "base 10 is the only acceptable numeric system" - if it isn't, please correct me) without knowing why it is true. Similarly, most people in this thread accept certain things about the self as true without knowing or understanding why these things are true. This means that when we get a thread like this in which someone gives a point of view that goes against the "accepted truths", everyone else gets uptight and tries to convince the non-believer that he is wrong. The problem is, how can you hope to convince someone that something is true without knowing or understanding why it's true? And I am all too familiar with that scenario from the non-believer's point of view.

 

[cantab]

In fact, you can convert from your system of thinking to my system of thinking using f(x) = e^x. And every time you use addition I will instead use multiplication.

I would say that you are, in a sense, still using addition. Your notation is changing, and your methods of calculation must change, but still, you're adding basically.

Take the most basic system - the unary. Like Roman Numerals only using I.

Then to add, you simply concatenate. III added to IIIII is IIIIIIII. The formatting is just to bring out the method.

To multiply, you repeat one list of I's for each I in another list. III multiplied by IIII is IIIIIIIIIIII.

Now, long lines of I's aren't practical, so one creates a more sophisticated notation. You've created a screwy one, but that's all it is - a notation, a means of writing the numbers down. It doesn't have any bearing on what the numbers are or how they behave.

 

[vonFiedler]

When you make that kind of statement, you admit that you are basically accepting something as true (in this case, it seems to be "base 10 is the only acceptable numeric system" - if it isn't, please correct me) without knowing why it is true. Similarly, most people in this thread accept certain things about the self as true without knowing or understanding why these things are true.

I gave you some very good reasons we count the way we do. We need distinct, non-continuous measurements. They have so many applications, even in video games alone the difference between digital and analog defines whole genres. You have not addressed this line of reasoning whatsoever. Nor did I say that base 10 was the only acceptable system, I'm the one who brought up Base 16, Base 9, and Base 8. And the more I think about Base 9 the cooler it is, what with "10" always being divisible by 3. Only it's not hard to see why Base 10 came to be, ten fingers and all that. It seems that people keep accusing me of "not looking outside the box", but only when I disagree with them. I guess when you're talking about abstract concepts without any scientific method you can think as far outside the box as you want to be and still be right, but if as an engineer I look for practical solutions within the vicinity of the box then "I'm wrong", or I haven't really really considered your view, just pretended to when I was responding and refuting to the best of my abilities. You say you're going to school to learn game design (and FYI, my qualifications are worth less than the paper they're printed on, going to college for game design is not a good idea). You should be focused on what you can do, can make. We are not users of tools, we are makers of tools.

 

[Jack Jack]

It's a cultural thing that we need a discrete notation. I can easily imagine a world were everyone is so pedantic that they always use continuous notation.

Think about Plato's philosophy. In Plato's philosophy, there exist a transcending idea about a perfect lion, and we recongnise that form in the imperfect lions of our world.

Therefore, as no lion in the real world is the "perfect, transcendental" lion, you are technically incorrect, according to that philosophy, to count the lion you see and say : there is one.

As that lion is not the perfect lion (which is exactly one lion), only a pale image of it, you would count the lion you see as 0.X, where X represent how "close to perfect" the lion is.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

It's a cultural thing that we need a discrete notation. I can easily imagine a world were everyone is so pedantic that they always use continuous notation.

Think about Plato's philosophy. In Plato's philosophy, there exist a transcending idea about a perfect lion, and we recongnise that form in the imperfect lions of our world.

Therefore, as no lion in the real world is the "perfect, transcendental" lion, you are technically incorrect, according to that philosophy, to count the lion you see and say : there is one.

As that lion is not the perfect lion (which is exactly one lion), only a pale image of it, you would count the lion you see as 0.X, where X represent how "close to perfect" the lion is.

You should really revise Plato's philosophy.

Other than that, nothing exists but me; ''we'' cannot prove the existence of anything but ''ourselves''. Therefore, no lions.

 

[Jack Jack]

You should really revise Plato's philosophy.

Other than that, nothing exists but me; ''we'' cannot prove the existence of anything but ''ourselves''. Therefore, no lions.

Well, that is what Plato's philosophy would be like if Greek mathematicians knew about irrational numbers and the difference between continuous and discrete sets of number.

Beside, I don't really care if that is an accurate depiction of Plato's onthology. It still help me to explain a context where you would use an irrational number to count physical objects.

 

[Aqueos]

Intellectual intesmectuall, I operate on a cetain level and I'm not figuring it out. You contradict yourself and nothing we say is ever something you won't argue against.

 

[Jack Jack]

uh... please explain?