Nope, sorry, wrong on both (on all) counts.The source of your suffering (both physical and psychological) is the misidentification of Self to be a convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.
But the cause all of your psychological suffering is thought.
Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
 henry quirk
 Posts: 7717
 Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Re: sounds like a problem
 RCSaunders
 Posts: 1770
 Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
 Contact:
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Mathematics, like logic and language, is a human invention, a means of identifying some facts of reality. Specifically, math begins with the discovery that when one has many things there is a method of discovering how many. By assigning a different symbol to each item one has in a collection, the last symbol assigned will be how many one has. Both the symbols and the, "how many one has," are called, "numbers," and the method is called counting.
There is nothing mystical or ontological about numbers and they do not exist, "through counting," they exist as the epistemological method of counting. They do not exist at all except as epistemological concepts, like language, invented by human beings.
It is a perfectly valid method and works because we live in a world of multiple existents and numbers are our method of identifying those multiplicities.
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:49 amMathematics, like logic and language, is a human invention, a means of identifying some facts of reality. Specifically, math begins with the discovery that when one has many things there is a method of discovering how many. By assigning a different symbol to each item one has in a collection, the last symbol assigned will be how many one has. Both the symbols and the, "how many one has," are called, "numbers," and the method is called counting.
There is nothing mystical or ontological about numbers and they do not exist, "through counting," they exist as the epistemological method of counting. They do not exist at all except as epistemological concepts, like language, invented by human beings.
You contradict your self as a method of counting by default they exist as an element of it. As an element of it, by default, they are developed for counting.
As conceptual they exist fundamentally as forms through which we connect and seperate phenomenon. They are inseperable from forms, specifically spatial, in the regard that all forms we count (be it abstract or physical) are spatial in nature in that they have shape or "image".
It is a perfectly valid method and works because we live in a world of multiple existents and numbers are our method of identifying those multiplicities.
And those existences are forms by nature, thus always have a spatial nature inseperable from number. The most basic way of quantify a phenomenon is a looping process between the subject and object where the object itself, always having shaping and form, is a complex or simple loop.
Re: sounds like a problem
Think of a problem you have in your life. Would that problem exist without the thought? Obviously (to me anyway) not. The thought is the problem.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:04 pmNope, sorry, wrong on both (on all) counts.The source of your suffering (both physical and psychological) is the misidentification of Self to be a convoluted combination of thoughts and sensations.
But the cause all of your psychological suffering is thought.
It's self evident.
 henry quirk
 Posts: 7717
 Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Roy
Without the thought (thinking) I wouldn't exist. I like being, and I like being as I am.Think of a problem you have in your life. Would that problem exist without the thought?
So: no, the thought (thinking) is not the problem, but the solution.

 Posts: 2145
 Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Numbers are grounded in counting ones, not zeros. We count [1]’s. Zero counts as no [1]’s.
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Why would it matter? Why couldn't I just count zeros?commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:28 pmNumbers are grounded in counting ones, not zeros. We count [1]’s. Zero counts as no [1]’s.
0, 00, 000, 0000, 00000, ...
Works just as well as 1's, right?
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Because when you count you equivocate it to 1.wtf wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:31 amWhy would it matter? Why couldn't I just count zeros?commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:28 pmNumbers are grounded in counting ones, not zeros. We count [1]’s. Zero counts as no [1]’s.
0, 00, 000, 0000, 00000, ...
Works just as well as 1's, right?
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Type Error.
When you count digits '0000' is treated as a string.
When you are comparing 1 to 0000 you are treating the both as numbers.
https://repl.it/repls/BraveBlankEvaluations
Code: Select all
print('0000' == 1) # => False
print(len('0000')) # => 4
print(type('0000')) # => <class 'str'>
print(type(1)) # => <class 'int'>
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:26 pmType Error.
When you count digits '0000' is treated as a string.
When you are comparing 1 to 0000 you are treating the both as numbers.
https://repl.it/repls/BraveBlankEvaluationsCode: Select all
print('0000' == 1) # => False print(len('0000')) # => 4 print(type('0000')) # => <class 'str'> print(type(1)) # => <class 'int'>
You are quantifying zero, whether as an individual or string, zero is equated to a number (specifically 1 considering all non zero numbers are grounded in one) strictly because you are observing "multiples" of zero...when you count you are multiplying (ie how many times an object exists).
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
This shows an astonishing lack of understanding.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:26 pmhttps://repl.it/repls/BraveBlankEvaluationsCode: Select all
print('0000' == 1) # => False print(len('0000')) # => 4 print(type('0000')) # => <class 'str'> print(type(1)) # => <class 'int'>
Surely you know that Python is an interpreted language. That means that when Python encounters a string like 0000 the parser operates in a manner exactly as defined by the programmers of the Python interpreter. In this case the string 0000 is interpreted as the integer 0. This is simply an arbitrary choice on the part of the language designer, enforced by the implementers of the particular Python interpreter you used.
We could just as easily define a variant of Python, call it Mython, where everything is pretty much the same but strings of the form 0, 00, 000, 0000, ... are interpreted as standing for the integers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., respectively. [Then how would we notate zero? Clearly we'd need to fill in some details here but they don't matter at the moment].
In the Mython interpreter, the Boolean expression
Code: Select all
0000 == 4
and the expression
Code: Select all
0000 + 00000
It's perfectly obvious and basic that there is nothing mathematically or ontologically fundamental about the way we choose to represent small positive integers. The fact that this is not immediately obvious to you speaks volumes about your ignorance and your obsessive belief that your modest programming skills, akin to being a grease monkey an oil change shop, somehow give you insight into mathematics and philosophy.
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Are you abusing Cunningham's law again?
I think you are confusing the various features of the Type system (static/dynamic typing, strong/weak typing) with Python being an interpreted language. It has nothing to do with any of what you are trying to argue.
Strings are not Integers. Neither in Python (interpreted language) nor in C++ (compiled language).
https://repl.it/repls/WonderfulUsableDictionaries
Code: Select all
#include <iostream>
int main() {
/* This compares two integers  returns 1*/
std::cout << ( 0000 == 0 ) << std::endl;
/* This compares an integer to a string  returns 0 */
std::cout << ( '0000' == 0 ) << std::endl;
}
This is demonstrably false since programming languages actually treat Strings and Integers as distinct data types. The interpreter will never convert a string into an integer for you unless you explicitly tell it to. This is called type conversion a.k.a casting.
When you work your way up to Algebraic data types you might actually understand your confusion.
https://repl.it/repls/RadiantMediocreComputergames
Code: Select all
# This is a string
a = '0000'
print(type(a)) # => <class 'str'>
# This is an integer
b = 0000
print(type(b)) # => <class 'int'>
# A String is not an Integer
print(a != b) # True
# Cast string to integer
print(int(a) == b) # => True
Do you know of any Programming languages which can't tell the difference between Strings and Integers? Obviously, you can't tell the difference in Mathematics.
You could do that, but you are still going to have to figure out how to tell the difference between the Integer 00 and the String 00. Because Strings and Integers are different TYPES of objects.
What's the difference you ask?
00 + 00 = 4 (addition)
'00' + '00' = '0000' (concatenation)
'00' != 00
You would know this if you actually started from UNTYPED Lambda Calculus and worked your way up to Types.
Naturally. You are welcome to use Roman numerals for all I care. So long as you aren't dumb enough to invent a language which is unable to tell the difference between the integer 5 and the English letter V.
The fact that you think it's not obvious to me speaks volumes indeed.
What I have insights into is the entire field of Computation and Programming Language Theory. From that vantage point your precious Mathematics is just one of the very many paradigms of Computation  it's symbolic computation.
There are many other paradigms of computation none of which have anything to do with Mathematics. The full list (for your education) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compariso ... _languages
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:41 am, edited 4 times in total.
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Completely missing the point of what I wrote. Missing every aspect, nuance, and subtlety of what I wrote, at every level of meaning. A display of obliviousness that literally precludes intelligent conversation.\
Nice to see you again @Skepdick. Hope you're having a great Thanksgiving. May 2020 bring you a little selfawareness and insight.
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
Nothing of what you said was nuanced or subtle. It's so obvious to me that I wonder why you even felt the need to explain it or make a point about it.wtf wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:20 amCompletely missing the point of what I wrote. Missing every aspect, nuance, and subtlety of what I wrote, at every level of meaning. A display of obliviousness that literally precludes intelligent conversation.\
Nice to see you again @Skepdick. Hope you're having a great Thanksgiving. May 2020 bring you a little selfawareness and insight.
The fact that you actually can't tell the difference between Strings and Integers (or characters and digits) is precisely the bug in your Mathematical brain.
Formalists start with Alphabets. We invent the numbers later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_ ... languages)
Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.
The distinction is completely arbitrary and is implemented by the writers of the interpreter. It's not Godgiven or fundamental in any way. You have a very narrow perspective. I'll let you have the last word.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests