Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do Numbers exist?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

And yet even if the Numbers are indeed subjective, I don't know anyone who would argue that the equation is false, or untrue.

I haven't met anyone who would claim because the Numbers and the equations are mind dependent then they are "relative", practically meaningless.

((Side note Plato was 430 BC and so much ahead of his time. When I re read his ideas on numbers I could not help but imagine the universe as a computer program, and the forms he spoke of were like Classes in Object Oriented Programming. And all we see are instantiations of these forms as objects (ha pun objects in OOP and objects in real life))
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:04:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Two minor problems get in the way of answering 'donumbers exist'. The first is nnailing down what 'number' means'- the other is nailing down what 'exists' means!
With the natural numbers 1,2,3....etc we can say that 3 is what a collection of 3 dogs, 3 wide men and the sides of triangle have in common. But does something that is the common feature of such sets 'exist' in the same way a table or chair exists? I am not sure '3' exists in way a paticular table or chair does, so do we stretch the meaning of 'exists' so it includes 'table and chair' sort of existence and the '3' sort of existence, or exclude 3 from the 'things that exist' club?
And if its not bad enough with the natural numbers, others worse when we consider zero, negative numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, transfinite numbers..
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 7:04:20 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Two minor problems get in the way of answering 'donumbers exist'. The first is nnailing down what 'number' means'- the other is nailing down what 'exists' means!
With the natural numbers 1,2,3....etc we can say that 3 is what a collection of 3 dogs, 3 wide men and the sides of triangle have in common. But does something that is the common feature of such sets 'exist' in the same way a table or chair exists? I am not sure '3' exists in way a paticular table or chair does, so do we stretch the meaning of 'exists' so it includes 'table and chair' sort of existence and the '3' sort of existence, or exclude 3 from the 'things that exist' club?
And if its not bad enough with the natural numbers, others worse when we consider zero, negative numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, transfinite numbers..

Say we have a collection of round objects or blue objects. Does 'round' exist?

It doesn't make sense to sat the objects are round but round doesn't exist. Natural numbers as descriptors must exist becuase how can we discern a characteristic if it doesn't exist.

But numbers include entities that don't describe concrete objects we can hold in space. Yet they have properties. Properties that dictate how they interact with other numbers and the result of these interaction reliably predict functions of concrete objects. Such as equations in chaos theory or pertubations that utilize imagionary numbers. Or pi an irrational number that reliably describe spheres (that are concrete holdable objects).

If something is non-existent it has no properties. Numbers have properties therefore it follows they exist.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 11:05:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Also the repetition of the same thing wouldn"t be an abstract, it would seem. Such as days, and years.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:02:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

And yet even if the Numbers are indeed subjective, I don't know anyone who would argue that the equation is false, or untrue.

I haven't met anyone who would claim because the Numbers and the equations are mind dependent then they are "relative", practically meaningless.

((Side note Plato was 430 BC and so much ahead of his time. When I re read his ideas on numbers I could not help but imagine the universe as a computer program, and the forms he spoke of were like Classes in Object Oriented Programming. And all we see are instantiations of these forms as objects (ha pun objects in OOP and objects in real life))

Most mathematicians are Mathematical Platonists. I don't see any other way of making sense of it. I would be interested in hearing a reasonable argument from the other side of the issue.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 5:32:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

Although I have not read Plato myself and I know there are different ways to read him, at least in contemporary discussion about abstracta the view that abstracta depend on minds is called conceptualism. Platonism on the other hand is the view that abstracta depend neither on the physical nor the mental.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:04:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Do 'centres of gravity' exist? Every shape has a cofg, but you can't buy a pound of cofgs - not even on e-bay.
If you are doing something with a shape-such as balancing it on the point if a pencil - it's much easier to deal with a single cofg than with gravity acting on each individual atom separately, but does a cofg exist or is it a convenient fiction for calculation purposes?
Numbers could be like cofgs, of dubious actual existence but too useful to do without.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 5:40:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

And yet even if the Numbers are indeed subjective, I don't know anyone who would argue that the equation is false, or untrue.

I haven't met anyone who would claim because the Numbers and the equations are mind dependent then they are "relative", practically meaningless.

((Side note Plato was 430 BC and so much ahead of his time. When I re read his ideas on numbers I could not help but imagine the universe as a computer program, and the forms he spoke of were like Classes in Object Oriented Programming. And all we see are instantiations of these forms as objects (ha pun objects in OOP and objects in real life))

'Subjective' has several meanings in philosophical discourse, so without further information about which definition you have in mind, I won't comment on whether maths is subjective.

However, I would maintain that 2 + 2 = 4 is a relative truth. The statement may be true in the system we normally use, but it's obviously false in modulus 2 arithmetic, where 2 + 2 = 0.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:11:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 5:40:55 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

And yet even if the Numbers are indeed subjective, I don't know anyone who would argue that the equation is false, or untrue.

I haven't met anyone who would claim because the Numbers and the equations are mind dependent then they are "relative", practically meaningless.

((Side note Plato was 430 BC and so much ahead of his time. When I re read his ideas on numbers I could not help but imagine the universe as a computer program, and the forms he spoke of were like Classes in Object Oriented Programming. And all we see are instantiations of these forms as objects (ha pun objects in OOP and objects in real life))

'Subjective' has several meanings in philosophical discourse, so without further information about which definition you have in mind, I won't comment on whether maths is subjective.

However, I would maintain that 2 + 2 = 4 is a relative truth. The statement may be true in the system we normally use, but it's obviously false in modulus 2 arithmetic, where 2 + 2 = 0.

However, the numeral "2" refers to different things in these systems. It is only relative if we equivocate two different definitions.
What is not relative is the falsehood of "2+2=10" in the regular decimal numeral system.
In short: We can interchange the symbols we use, but the logical relations behind them stand unaltered.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:22:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 5:40:55 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

And yet even if the Numbers are indeed subjective, I don't know anyone who would argue that the equation is false, or untrue.

I haven't met anyone who would claim because the Numbers and the equations are mind dependent then they are "relative", practically meaningless.

((Side note Plato was 430 BC and so much ahead of his time. When I re read his ideas on numbers I could not help but imagine the universe as a computer program, and the forms he spoke of were like Classes in Object Oriented Programming. And all we see are instantiations of these forms as objects (ha pun objects in OOP and objects in real life))

'Subjective' has several meanings in philosophical discourse, so without further information about which definition you have in mind, I won't comment on whether maths is subjective.

However, I would maintain that 2 + 2 = 4 is a relative truth. The statement may be true in the system we normally use, but it's obviously false in modulus 2 arithmetic, where 2 + 2 = 0.

Self-correction. There is nothing wrong with 2 + 2 = 4 in mod 2, as 0 and 4 are equivalent.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:23:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I presume you mean modulo 2, not modulus 2. However modulo 2 is essentially binary and would only have the symbols 0 and 1 - the symbol 2 would have no meaning.
Not that it affects the gist of what you said- I'm just being pedantic.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:26:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:11:48 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 4/22/2016 5:40:55 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:27:52 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Plato conjectured that Numbers existed. That they were abstract objects. Archetype like. That they were the paint brush and ruler of the creator.

As an Abstract entity, one may say that Numbers exist in the mind only. And therefore are "subjective": dependent on a mind. If this is the case that would make such equations like 2+2 =4 a subjective statement.

And yet even if the Numbers are indeed subjective, I don't know anyone who would argue that the equation is false, or untrue.

I haven't met anyone who would claim because the Numbers and the equations are mind dependent then they are "relative", practically meaningless.

((Side note Plato was 430 BC and so much ahead of his time. When I re read his ideas on numbers I could not help but imagine the universe as a computer program, and the forms he spoke of were like Classes in Object Oriented Programming. And all we see are instantiations of these forms as objects (ha pun objects in OOP and objects in real life))

'Subjective' has several meanings in philosophical discourse, so without further information about which definition you have in mind, I won't comment on whether maths is subjective.

However, I would maintain that 2 + 2 = 4 is a relative truth. The statement may be true in the system we normally use, but it's obviously false in modulus 2 arithmetic, where 2 + 2 = 0.

However, the numeral "2" refers to different things in these systems. It is only relative if we equivocate two different definitions.
What is not relative is the falsehood of "2+2=10" in the regular decimal numeral system.
In short: We can interchange the symbols we use, but the logical relations behind them stand unaltered.

I don't think the numeral '2' refers to different things in these systems, because I don't think they refer to anything at all. (As you can probably tell, while I was away, I have been converted to formalism. :P)

You stated that 'What is not relative is the falsehood of "2+2=10" in the regular decimal numeral system.' But that was kinda the point I was making... Mathematical truths are relative to the system.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:27:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
That number 1. A singular object. 1 can doth be applied to any type of object. If 1 exists what are a multiplicity of 1s? I bestow upon you numbers.
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 7:16:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Mathematical truths are relative to the system...
That is not surprising if the different systems are defined to have different truths. Mod 2 arithmetic is defined so 1+1 is 0, which is not true in regular arithmetic but that was the point of inventing mod 2 arithmetic...
The non relative mathematical truth is 1+1 mod 2 is 0.
A similar example is working in bases. 17(decimal) labels a point on the number line that has the same properties whether it is labeled 17 or 11(hex) or 21(octal). That number or poimt on the number line) is prime regardless of the base used to represent it.
So i would say that mathematical truths are not ',relative' if they are properly specified, such by including which 'mod' or base it refers to.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 7:37:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

But how can we say that pi exists in the real world? We cannot find anything in the physical world that is a perfect, ideal, Euclidean circle.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:34:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

yea but isn't it just an abstract expression of an true amount? that if written, though no one known has exhausted it, it's still a measured amount. the decimal representation of 1/3 goes pretty far or 2/3 for that matter. but a third of a pie is a physical third of a pie.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:41:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:34:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

yea but isn't it just an abstract expression of an true amount? that if written, though no one known has exhausted it, it's still a measured amount. the decimal representation of 1/3 goes pretty far or 2/3 for that matter. but a third of a pie is a physical third of a pie.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here dp. But 1/3 of a finite thing, the food "a pie", isn't the same thing as the fraction 1/3 is in math. 1/ 3 in math is merely a way of expressing an equation where as 1/3 of a pie is addressing how a finite thing has been equally divided and 1 represents the 1 out of the 3 equal pieces made. It wasn't a mathematical equation being applied to a pie. If it were the exact same expression there would have to still be some pie left because 1/3 expressed mathematically has no "end" solution, therefore leaving food on the plate....lol if that's what you are saying then disregard of course.
It would be an equivocation fallacy to say that 1/3 of a "food product (pie)" is defined the same way as the fraction 1/3, because they aren't the exact same thing.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:46:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 10:58:22 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 7:04:20 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Two minor problems get in the way of answering 'donumbers exist'. The first is nnailing down what 'number' means'- the other is nailing down what 'exists' means!
With the natural numbers 1,2,3....etc we can say that 3 is what a collection of 3 dogs, 3 wide men and the sides of triangle have in common. But does something that is the common feature of such sets 'exist' in the same way a table or chair exists? I am not sure '3' exists in way a paticular table or chair does, so do we stretch the meaning of 'exists' so it includes 'table and chair' sort of existence and the '3' sort of existence, or exclude 3 from the 'things that exist' club?
And if its not bad enough with the natural numbers, others worse when we consider zero, negative numbers, real numbers, complex numbers, transfinite numbers..

Say we have a collection of round objects or blue objects. Does 'round' exist?
Look up at a full moon, that's called round. Look at a sky, that's called blue. What can I look at that's called a number? Hint an apple by itself isn't called 1 apple, its called an apple. When asked how many we then say 1 because it represents a relationship between there being 1 apple or 4. I can't think of anything I can look at and it be the "1". Doesn't that make it non existent?
It doesn't make sense to sat the objects are round but round doesn't exist. Natural numbers as descriptors must exist becuase how can we discern a characteristic if it doesn't exist.

But numbers include entities that don't describe concrete objects we can hold in space. Yet they have properties. Properties that dictate how they interact with other numbers and the result of these interaction reliably predict functions of concrete objects. Such as equations in chaos theory or pertubations that utilize imagionary numbers. Or pi an irrational number that reliably describe spheres (that are concrete holdable objects).

If something is non-existent it has no properties. Numbers have properties therefore it follows they exist.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:56:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Plato's idea is that while there are no perfect circles in the physical realm, perfect circles exist in the 'realm of (perfect) forms' which we can come into contact with by our intellect.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:21:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Numbers have properties therefore they exist.... I wonder...

What is it that has the properties of being like a horse but with a single long horn on its forehead? Unicorns do not exist yet we can say what properties apply to them and which don't. Sherlock Holmes has the property of living at 221b baker street. He does not have property of lining at 10 downing Street.... I think I need convincing that having properties is a,sufficient guarantee of existence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:10:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:34:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

yea but isn't it just an abstract expression of an true amount? that if written, though no one known has exhausted it, it's still a measured amount. the decimal representation of 1/3 goes pretty far or 2/3 for that matter. but a third of a pie is a physical third of a pie.

1/3 goes on forever because of the base 10 system. And it repeats. But in another base, say base 3.. 1/3 is .1

Pi doesn't repeat. It's decimal is a never ending random distribution. No matter what base. It's also a transcendental number. The sum of infinite series also result in pi.

Because it repeats with no discernible pattern ((out to I think 10,000 so far I think)) it can't be measured out. You can't mark it off with a ruler. Or cut a piece of wire to that length.

And pi is not the only transcendental irrational number sqrt(2) is also one.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:11:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 7:37:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

But how can we say that pi exists in the real world? We cannot find anything in the physical world that is a perfect, ideal, Euclidean circle.

What about a perfect right angle triangle, in which the hypotenuse is square root of 2.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:23:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:41:19 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/22/2016 9:34:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

yea but isn't it just an abstract expression of an true amount? that if written, though no one known has exhausted it, it's still a measured amount. the decimal representation of 1/3 goes pretty far or 2/3 for that matter. but a third of a pie is a physical third of a pie.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here dp. But 1/3 of a finite thing, the food "a pie", isn't the same thing as the fraction 1/3 is in math. 1/ 3 in math is merely a way of expressing an equation where as 1/3 of a pie is addressing how a finite thing has been equally divided and 1 represents the 1 out of the 3 equal pieces made. It wasn't a mathematical equation being applied to a pie. If it were the exact same expression there would have to still be some pie left because 1/3 expressed mathematically has no "end" solution, therefore leaving food on the plate....lol if that's what you are saying then disregard of course.
It would be an equivocation fallacy to say that 1/3 of a "food product (pie)" is defined the same way as the fraction 1/3, because they aren't the exact same thing.

I disagree.

1/3 is the amount of a finite objects. For a long time people thought that numbers were a 1 to 1 analog to real objects. And they held a conjecture that Every number or entity could be expressed by a ratio. that is to say a fraction.

As mathematical techniques increased, especially after the 1800's it was confirmed that there were some numbers that could never be expressed as a ratio.

1/3 is a real and finite amount. The .3 repetition of it is because the base 10 system. 3 does not evenly multiply to 10.

But the fraction is not infinite. And in bases that 3 does evenly multiply to, they have non repeating decimals of 1/3
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:28:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Sqrt(2) is irrational but not transcendental.
As per my previous post, perfect cubes, perfect triangles and so on can be found in Plato's realm of forms, to the left of the frictionless surfaces and the right of the perfectly elstic billiard balls. Considering the realm of forms as real is what defines platonism.
Stronn
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 3:19:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

Actually pi can be written as 1 base pi. Or 1/2 base 2*pi, and so on.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 3:27:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:11:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/22/2016 7:37:24 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

But how can we say that pi exists in the real world? We cannot find anything in the physical world that is a perfect, ideal, Euclidean circle.

What about a perfect right angle triangle, in which the hypotenuse is square root of 2.

That doesn't exist either...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 3:34:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:23:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/22/2016 11:41:19 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/22/2016 9:34:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/22/2016 6:50:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2016 11:01:58 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Heard that some time ago, it"s a thought for sure, but maybe physics or someone who knows it could clear that. And there is something to what we go by like 10"s so to speak and there has been societies that go by a different system. In a case like that maybe it"s abstract.

But if you look at it in something like physics amounts of something effect something else whereas a different amount of something would not, or at least not the same effect. that would be reality and not an abstract.

It seems amounts are what they are but the unit of measure of that amount is on us.

Pi is an irrational number. It can not be written as a ratio. This is true no matter what base is used. In base 10, pi is 3.14... it is a different irrational number in other bases

yea but isn't it just an abstract expression of an true amount? that if written, though no one known has exhausted it, it's still a measured amount. the decimal representation of 1/3 goes pretty far or 2/3 for that matter. but a third of a pie is a physical third of a pie.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here dp. But 1/3 of a finite thing, the food "a pie", isn't the same thing as the fraction 1/3 is in math. 1/ 3 in math is merely a way of expressing an equation where as 1/3 of a pie is addressing how a finite thing has been equally divided and 1 represents the 1 out of the 3 equal pieces made. It wasn't a mathematical equation being applied to a pie. If it were the exact same expression there would have to still be some pie left because 1/3 expressed mathematically has no "end" solution, therefore leaving food on the plate....lol if that's what you are saying then disregard of course.
It would be an equivocation fallacy to say that 1/3 of a "food product (pie)" is defined the same way as the fraction 1/3, because they aren't the exact same thing.

I disagree.

1/3 is the amount of a finite objects. For a long time people thought that numbers were a 1 to 1 analog to real objects. And they held a conjecture that Every number or entity could be expressed by a ratio. that is to say a fraction.
As mathematical techniques increased, especially after the 1800's it was confirmed that there were some numbers that could never be expressed as a ratio.
Ratio is merely how 2 numbers compare to each other in a numerical system. Name a system where there are 2 numbers that have no comparison that can be made between them. I'm lost.....
1/3 is a real and finite amount. The .3 repetition of it is because the base 10 system. 3 does not evenly multiply to 10.
So what base does it not repeat and in that base does 1/3 represent an equation reduced to simple expression or does it merely explain the dividing of separate numbers that aren't compared to each other?
But the fraction is not infinite. And in bases that 3 does evenly multiply to, they have non repeating decimals of 1/3....
3 evenly multiply into what? What's the relationship in this base between 1 and 3?