## Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

henry quirk
Posts: 9275
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

### Re: sounds like a problem

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.
Nope, sorry, wrong on both (on all) counts.
RCSaunders
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:28 am 1. Numbers exist through counting.
...
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.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:28 am 1. Numbers exist through counting.
...
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.

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.
roydop
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

### Re: sounds like a problem

henry quirk wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 10:04 pm
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.
Nope, sorry, wrong on both (on all) counts.
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.

It's self evident.
henry quirk
Posts: 9275
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

### Roy

Think of a problem you have in your life. Would that problem exist without the thought?
Without the thought (thinking) I wouldn't exist. I like being, and I like being as I am.

So: no, the thought (thinking) is not the problem, but the solution.
commonsense
Posts: 2839
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.
wtf
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

commonsense wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:28 pm Numbers are grounded in counting ones, not zeros. We count [1]’s. Zero counts as no [1]’s.
Why would it matter? Why couldn't I just count zeros?

0, 00, 000, 0000, 00000, ...

Works just as well as 1's, right?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

wtf wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:31 am
commonsense wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:28 pm Numbers are grounded in counting ones, not zeros. We count [1]’s. Zero counts as no [1]’s.
Why would it matter? Why couldn't I just count zeros?

0, 00, 000, 0000, 00000, ...

Works just as well as 1's, right?
Because when you count you equivocate it to 1.
Skepdick
Posts: 5222
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:44 am Because when you count you equivocate it to 1.
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'>
``````
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6253
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:26 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:44 am Because when you count you equivocate it to 1.
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'>
``````

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).
wtf
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

Skepdick wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:26 pm 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'>
``````
This shows an astonishing lack of understanding.

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
``````
evaluates to True

and the expression

Code: Select all

``````0000 + 00000
``````
evaluates to 9, or perhaps 000000000. We'd use a format specifier to decide which form of output representation we want.

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.
Skepdick
Posts: 5222
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am This shows an astonishing lack of understanding.
Are you abusing Cunningham's law again?
wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am 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.
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;
}
``````
wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am In this case the string 0000 is interpreted as the integer 0.
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.

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
``````
wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am This is simply an arbitrary choice on the part of the language designer, enforced by the implementers of the particular Python interpreter you used.
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.
wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am 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.
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.

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.
wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am It's perfectly obvious and basic that there is nothing mathematically or ontologically fundamental about the way we choose to represent small positive integers.
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.
wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:53 am 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.
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.
wtf
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:17 am
Strings are not Integers. Neither in Python (interpreted language) nor in C++ (compiled language).
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 self-awareness and insight.
Skepdick
Posts: 5222
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Numbers Grounded in Counting 0s, Thus Number/Math Has No Foundations.

wtf wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:20 am 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 self-awareness and insight.
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.

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.