@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 4 months agonear zeromander.xyzimagemessage-square105fedilinkarrow-up1723arrow-down114
arrow-up1709arrow-down1imagenear zeromander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 4 months agomessage-square105fedilink
minus-square@cucumber_sandwichlinkEnglish6•4 months agoWhoa slow down there buddy. Proposing numbers before numbers like they are a given.
minus-squareKillingTimeItselflinkfedilinkEnglish2•4 months agoas far as we can tell, mathematically, they are a given, and they never stop. I’ll wait for you to find the end of pi.
minus-square@cucumber_sandwichlinkEnglish2•4 months agoI’m not saying the numbers stop. But there are numbers where concepts like “closer to zero” or “number before [another number]” don’t apply. For example There is no sensible way to define a less-than for the complex numbers and thus they can’t be ordered.
minus-squareKillingTimeItselflinkfedilinkEnglish1•4 months agoi would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it. You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
minus-square@cucumber_sandwichlinkEnglish3•4 months agoWhat do you mean by independent? There is no more general and independent notion of ordering than a less-than operator. The article above oulines a mathematical proof that no such definition exists in a consistent way for the complex numbers.
Whoa slow down there buddy. Proposing numbers before numbers like they are a given.
as far as we can tell, mathematically, they are a given, and they never stop.
I’ll wait for you to find the end of pi.
I’m not saying the numbers stop. But there are numbers where concepts like “closer to zero” or “number before [another number]” don’t apply.
For example There is no sensible way to define a less-than for the complex numbers and thus they can’t be ordered.
i would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it.
You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
What do you mean by independent? There is no more general and independent notion of ordering than a less-than operator. The article above oulines a mathematical proof that no such definition exists in a consistent way for the complex numbers.