When is 1 not 1?

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Is Italy relatively safe now or is the fool still in power?

Ciao Erik!
No.
The fool says he won.
Anyway.
Do you know what it means?

Sorry all.
I think i did freeze the thread out.

It means that he doesn't want to go away.
And if somebody knows a bit of recent history we are facing another little stupid small man who thinks he can keep power probably at any cost.

Anyway...........this is ot.
So i'd like to know about Fredrik studies about religion.
That is very interesting.

Ciao a tutti!
Gianluigi

I knew this would get onto religion eventually.
Our mathematics suggest that there is no such thing as nothing, therefore ultimately that leads us to believe that once created, we can never die. We have somewhere to make the distinction between existing and not existing, but once existing, there is no end. As I said before, of course this is only a quirk of our adopted mathematical system and not necessarily a completely investigated (mathematically) philosophy. Once we accept existance, we (mathematically) have to accept creation from a non-existing state, which requires the influence of a body outside of our existance limits. And that is always the problem we end up coming back to. But mathematics is a man made language and totally inadequate and over simplistic, but there is a strong possibility that we can never fully explain zero whichever numerical system is used, so therefore we still struggle with existance. The other flaw is the assumption, of course, that we exist, which may be totally false. It also assumes that existance has to start, whereas is might not. But if we accept that existance exists, then we will have to accept that it never ends - so for us that means that there is no getting off.
So in a nutshell, if you believe you are alive, then you will exist in an afterlife. You cannot erase that you existed.

Without wishing to bore everyone, many of these problems take centuries to solve because the basic adopted "truths" are accepted, and then found to be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by TimCarter50:
So the real question is: what's the difference between 0 and 1? Tip: its not 1.

What if it is actually 1?
The simplist answers are usually right. Question why it isn't 1 rather than look for what it is if it isn't!

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
But mathematics is a man made language and totally inadequate and over simplistic,

Hi Rasher!
Math is not only a man made language, but with physics and chemistry it's the tool we have to write the translation of phenomenons.
Math is everywhere and we can say that all the things we see are a series of numbers as a result of a formula.
Formula is the frame and numbers are the substance.
What makes us different from the rest of the "things" is our capability to understand the formula.
The more we get into the formulas the more we get into evolution.
The hebrew alphabet is a series of numbers and the Torà is a formula.
So, someone said, the more we get into evolution the more we get into god.

Ciao
Gianluigi

quote:

Originally posted by Gianluigi Mazzorana:
[QUOTE]the more we get into evolution the more we get into god.

Ciao
Gianluigi

...and the more we get into God the more we lose the plot. I hope the guy who started this thread does not come back with the 'difference between 0 and 1 is God' as that would be most tedious.

Mathematics is an abstraction that helps describe things around us.
I would disagree that it is the "frame" or numbers the "substance", rather it is a convenient language by which to imperfectly express phenomenon in our world. The simple formulae such as F=ma and V=IR only describe the first order behaviour of systems. There are other effects at play.
But I digress.
Was mathematics “invented” or “discovered”?
Probably both.
There are some interesting applications of math that was developed by folks in the 1700s that are now “useful” given the technology advances. Laplace transforms, for example. And Fourier gave us quite a bit of useful stuff, especially for communications, CD players, etc.
But there is so much math developed that seems (to me) to serve no other purpose than to justify math’s existence and “perfection” – all academic and nothing applicable.
...
Trying to get back on track
...
Anyway, I’ll take a crack at it. Mind you, this has been implied in previous posts, so I’m not claiming any original credit for this.
Obviously, using a number line solution gives us “1” for the question posed.
The difference between 2 & 3 is “something”, same for the difference between 1 & 2. “Something” and “something”.
The difference between 0 & 1 is the difference between “nothing” & “something”.

Now, tell us the answer so we can rest easy.

David

Ahhh
it all came to me now!
The answer is:
not on(c)e

Regards
Rickard

Hi David!
I do prefer to think that math discovers, evenif math rules come from a series of trials and errors.
But this is the path that everyone of us follow even in small thing.
To enlarge the concept i wrote before i'd write about Bifonacci's numbers' series and golden section.
But there's a lot about that on the net and i'd like people to read about it because the matter is really interesting.

If you consider a number like a "quantity" then you'll get at the point that makes people think that 0 is nothing.
This is because in our life, when we think about a number, we think about a quantity.
But if we consider a number like a "name" which has been given to a function even 0 get its importance and place in the "construction".

Another example is computer language.
In computers 0 and 1 have two different functions: "off" and "on".
So a number like 0 doesn't mean "nothing" anymore but get its place in a commands' series.
So 0 loose its common meaning of "nothing" and become "something".
We could not write a command using only the number 1.
We need the opposite to give the number 1 its meaning and the opposite, which in this case is 0, needs its opposite to find its meaning in existing.
So 0 is a value which not necessary means "nothing" and is different because of its function.

quote:

Originally posted by NaimDropper:


[QUOTE] Mathematics is an abstraction that helps describe things around us.

Yes, I think maths is just another type of language with which we describe or model 'reality' and insofar as conventional 'reality' is just a model then maths is a model of a model and is therefore imperfect even when the maths is seemingly perfect. This is where mathematicans and scientists go wrong becasue they think that if the maths is 'right' they are explaining reality. There is not the slightest evidense to support String theory but as long as someone can get the maths right there is a Fields medal to be had.

I have never subscribed to the view that the so called 'laws' of the universe were 'out there' waiting to be tripped over and 'discovered' like a foreign land is discovered by an explorer, I think we invent them.

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
I have never subscribed to the view that the so called 'laws' of the universe were 'out there' waiting to be tripped over and 'discovered' like a foreign land is discovered by an explorer, I think we invent them.

"It's turtles all the way down"

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:


"It's turtles all the way down"

Mark

Que? You have lost me on that one Mark.

quote:

"It's turtles all the way down"

Ah, The Great A'Tuin. & all that flat earth.

Life is to short.

The answer to me is 1, and when someone has a way better answer that I can actually understand, fine, I await that answer.

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron: quote:
Originally posted by Chillkram:


"It's turtles all the way down"

Mark


Que? You have lost me on that one Mark

try this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Mark

I'm really just backing up what you were saying Erik and, in fact, it is pretty much the self same discussion I was having with a friend last night over a bottle of wine.

Unfortunately I can't quite find the maths to back up the turtle theory!

Mark

quote:

Unfortunately I can't quite find the maths to back up the turtle theory!

Terry Pratchet did, and describes it all exceptionally well in his books.

Ask a computer this question & I think you will find its reply a vast selection of 1s & 0s.

quote:

originally posted by erik scothron:
Yes, I think maths is just another type of language with which we describe or model 'reality' and insofar as conventional 'reality' is just a model then maths is a model of a model and is therefore imperfect even when the maths is seemingly perfect. This is where mathematicans and scientists go wrong becasue they think that if the maths is 'right' they are explaining reality. There is not the slightest evidense to support String theory but as long as someone can get the maths right there is a Fields medal to be had.

quote:

originally posted by Steve2701:
quote:
Unfortunately I can't quite find the maths to back up the turtle theory!


Terry Pratchet did, and describes it all exceptionally well in his books.

Perhaps Terry Pratchet is elligible for a field medal, then!

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron: quote:
Originally posted by Chillkram:


"It's turtles all the way down"

Mark


Que? You have lost me on that one Mark

try this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Mark

Ah yes, thank you Mark, I remember the old lady and the turtle in A Brief History of Time but not the exact quote.

If numbers are treated as general terms, the set of 1 will have the extension of all things one, 0 will have an empty extension.

I seem to remember smoking saved Russell's life?

quote:

Originally posted by TimCarter50:

OK....here we go.

What's the difference between 2 and 3? I'm sure some of you will say 1.

OK, what's the difference between 1 and 2? 1 again?

So the real question is: what's the difference between 0 and 1? Tip: its not 1.

Do we get an answer then, Tim?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:
The answer to me is 1, and when someone has a way better answer that I can actually understand, fine, I await that answer.

Steve,

same for me.

If you start with any integer, and repeatedly subtract 1, you will eventually reach 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, zero.

Any other answer is sophistry which is not using the layman's definition of numbers. In other words, about as misleading as most of the questions asked on QI (which is still a great programme fot all that).

cheers, Martin

Yep,

I'm with Martin on this one.

Numbers have been around for about 10,000 years as far as we know. But zero (as a number concept) has only been around for a couple of thousand.

Zero is a brilliant idea. As Martin says, It's what's left when you subtract 1 from 1. (or 2 from 2; or 3 from 3 etc)

Of course zero also seems to conjure up "nothingness" in the sense of "absence of anything" and sometimes conjures up the idea of "nothingness" in the sense of "infinitely small".

But, as with many aspects of number, there a few "paradoxes" and an awful lots of "play on words". My guess is that we are being asked to identify either a paradox or a play on words.

Cheers

Don

What they said.

If I have no apple(s) and someone gives me one apple, I have one apple; if he takes it away, I have no apple(s) again.

"One and One is One" got to Number 3 in 1973



Don't need nobody just me and you.
Like the way you walk
Like the things you do
Got no confusion with you by my side
And when It's time to go I'm satisfied.

Oh one and one is one
Oh one and one is one.

So let it ride yeh let it be
In this old world just you and me
We'll go flying each and every night
Carry your picture on every flight.

Oh one and one is one
Oh one and one is one.

And when I call you an that telephone
My heart skips a beat if you're not at home
Yeh when I call you on that blue telephone
I can hear your voice calling me back home.

Oh one and one is one
Oh one and one is one

Or as Charles said to Camilla in a moment of intimacy: "One would like to give one one."