Friendly neighborhood Catholic here. Greetings everyone!
So I am fairly convinced that the value of any given number on our number line is relative without definition.
Definitions:
Will clarify if necessary
Evidence:
Numbers are present on an infinite number line. In order to learn the value of the number 1 for example I was taught to count objects. One might count the number of apples for example. However upon re-examination I became aware that during counting one could also count apples and oranges at the same time. For example if there were three oranges and two apples I would still count to 5.
That is well enough for counting. That becomes a little tricky for math. For example if you counted three apples and four dollars it would be true that the value you have is 7 and the value represented is 3 and 4 and can not be added together. One can define what value they are referencing for understanding but that does not negate that both values are technically accurate.
For consideration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
It's not tricky at all. You have 3 apples and 4 dollars. You have 7 items. You have 3 red items and 4 green items. (What color are dollar bills now? I live in Korea) There is no confusion. You are attempting to add dissimilar items. You will need a common denominator. The True value is 7 what? You only get a true value of seven if 3 and 4 are true numbers.
I understand what your saying but the use of the word item is the common denominator is it not? So what is the actual value of 1 item? It could be a planet, an apple, a giraffe,......
ITEM: Definition of item (Entry 1 of 3)
1 : a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series : ARTICLE
ENUMERATION: Definition of enumeration
1 : the act or process of making or stating a list of things one after another
THING: a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity. (ALL THINGS ON YOUR LIST ARE THINGS. A is A.
You are just playing word games. Nothing to do with math.
That is something most people realize is false, before they hit puberty.
I've seen it in one form or another many times, although mostly people make a very subtle version of the mistake and immediately retract it when it is pointed out. I have a feeling that will not be the case this time.
/e:
In a weird sidenote: I once stumbled across a version of this mistake which would have resulted in an error of 10's of millions of dollars, pointing out the mistake had a major (positive) impact on my career. Which would lead to another favorite saying of mine: "details matter".
It helps to represent such things as:
1 * planets
2 * apples
3 * giraffes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is know as the factor-label method or just dimensional analysis.
How does this evidence your beliefs? You've been here a while now, and offered naught but attempts to suggest our best objective methods of understanding reality, like science, logic, and mathematics are useless subjective opinion.
So I ask again, how does any of that nonsense evidence your beliefs? .
He is basically making the assertion that if logic is not objective, nothing is objective. If math is objective then nothing is objective. Ergo, his belief in god or gods carries the same weight as belief in science and logic. He's Wrong and demonstrably so; however, he refuses to look at the results of the beliefs (God vs Logic) or admit that we do not need to know anything 100% for it to be correct or extremely useful. He is drawing a fallacy of inconsistency. The concepts being compared are nothing at all alike.
How does this evidence his deity though? Claiming falsely that science and logic are as subjective as religious beliefs, doesn't validate those beliefs at all.
@Cognostic
@Sheldon
Oh boy try to understand that I am capable of discussing things that have no motive of persuasion. I'm also a curious person. Good luck with that analysis though.
Hello again catholicray. I predicted you would do this, create a new thread since your previous two attempts hit the shoals of rocky atheism. So here we are, and naturally, I suspect your motives.
Numbers are math, and I ask, why are you not discussing this in a forum that talks math? For example, one of my favorite YouTube channels is "Numberphile", and here is one video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk_Q9y_LNzg
I ask you catholicray, are you an honest man? Because if you are, then don't beat around the bush and attempt a tricky method of demonstrating what you are really after, the difference between subjective and objective viewpoints.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4
edit: added last video
@David Killens
Are you trying to tell me that nothing else can be debated or discussed on these forums except for whether or not God exists because I'm a theist? You all bitch and moan about the endless poor evidence for the existence of God and then you question my motives for asking questions that have zero assertion of God so that we can continue to have that same stupid debate? If my motives were as you think it'd be pretty damn redundant to start this thread when I already have one concerning rationality.
"Why not post this on a math forum?"
Whether you or I like it or not, you are my peers and I respect your input. Do I need some other justification? While sifting through your taunts and jeers I've actually learned from you. There is a vast amount of knowledge I am not aware of and answers upon answers to study.
This is not aimed at everyone of course. I recognize some of you can genuinely engage with me even if we disagree.
catholicray, we are peers and you are a human being. You have a family, and I am sure a job and personal activities. And if you are a Bears fan, that's worth a gold star.
I hope you understand why I am suspicious, because I seek out patterns and behaviors in the activities in people. It is part of who I am that I constantly ask "why is this person doing that"?
And despite our occasional hard rubbing, I do wish you well personally. I do not have an axe to grind against any one person (with the exception of Jackie Oliver, that scummy little snake), and that hate and resentments are things to be cast into the past as soon as possible.
I am a Bears fan! Hallelujah! (sarcasm)
Catholicray: Wrong again. Both Sheldon and myself completely understand that you are capable of discussing things with no motive of any kind and wasting both your time and ours with your empty posts. Believe me.... we get it!
"Oh boy try to understand that I am capable of discussing things that have no motive of persuasion. "
Why then did you compare methods like science and logic directly as having parity with religious beliefs after you had made the absurd assertion they were equally subjective? You cannot blame us for making the inference that your latest absurd attack on mathematics was in a similar vein. Otherwise perhaps you could explain your motive as a theist in decrying mathematics on an atheists forum? Wouldn't a mathematics forum be a better venue for your paradigm shifting ideas, if it has no direct bearing on anything else?
What is common with the numbers 1, 2, 3?
rmfr
@Arakish Re: "What is common with the numbers 1, 2, 3?"
...*raising hand and jumping up and down excitedly*... Oo-oo-oo! I got it! They all come before 4, 5, 6.... *big proud grin*...
Gold star to Tin-Man.
However, the answer I was looking for is that, as far as I know, they are the only triple sequence of numbers that add AND multiply to give the same number.
1+2+3=6
1×2×3=6
rmfr
@arakish
Interesting problem! I tried to prove you have the only solution; and didn't because I proved there are exactly 3 solutions!
In the following, a is the smallest number in the series, so for example the series 6, 7, 8 would be a = 6 (which of course fails as a solution).
So the only series that have this property are:
----------------------------------------------
/e: I knew from the fundamental theorem of algebra that there would be 3 solutions, but non-real solutions come in pairs so I thought it would spit out 2 non-real solutions and your real solution; but apparently there are 3 real solutions.
Yes, the value of the number is dependent on the unit you associate with it. One U.S. dollar is different from one Japanese Yen and from one British Pound. The number quantifies and the unit qualifies.
I'm not sure I understand the overall reason behind the post however, unless this was it?
@Skeptical Kevin
Thank you.
What I’m trying to understand is how the language of numbers ought to be approached.
“The number quantifies and the unit qualifies”
I need some more information please?
Do numbers have a quantitative value without qualification?
Another way I might ask this is, what does mathematics tell us the value of 1 is before qualification?
If you don't have a visceral understanding of the difference between 1 piece of candy, and 2 pieces of candy; then you are going to have difficulties in the modern world.
/e and I don't think there is anything anyone can do to help you with that.
@Catholicray
Yo, dude! Since you seem to be having so much trouble with basic numbers, I have a proposition for you I think you will like. At this very moment I happen to have 5 dollars. And out of the goodness of my heart I will happily give you that 5 dollars if you give me 100 dollars. That would be a fantastic trade for you. Because those two zeros are worthless, and 5 is bigger than 1. How 'bout it, ol' buddy, ol' chum, ol' pal o' mine?
Actually, if you check the book Methods of Logic by Willard Van Ormand Quine, in that work he presents a definition of number that arises from set theory. Chapter 39 of the book is devoted to this topic, and in that work, he notes that the first work in this vein was developed by Frege as long ago as 1884. The chapter includes not only definitions of number, but of the operations "+" and "×" in terms of quantifications over suitably constructed sets. Unfortunately the board doesn't readily admit my introducing the relevant symbolism here, but in the book in question, the chapter begins on page 231. But thanks to this construction, we don't need to rely upon counting in order to define the natural numbers: we simply start with the empty set and build upwards using the quantificational calculus.
All of which renders any purported "problems" with counting null and void. Because all one needs to do is construct appropriate abstract sets.
@Callasseia
Thank you I’ll take a look at it.
A dog that barks a lot is not a good dog.