|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
|
*starts a Pythagoras cult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
FFR Player
|
its pretty obvious negative numvers were just made up...but so is most math, languages, physics, etc etc...the point is we have invented things to better explain the world..mathmagicians just needed numbers to the left of zero on a number line and that is the negatives
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,088
|
well duh...if its a werd it has to be real
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
FFR Player
|
profound...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
|
didnt the mayas have their own way of math? with astronomy based theories?...i seem to remember something like that i dont know why. the mayans were probably the smartest people/civilizations in the world. they even made their own calendar and were able to preditct certain events just by using it. and they were like only 35 seconds away from their prediction. well if they were able to use math, then it must mean math exists. yeah i dont wanna go into a deep theory or anything so ill just leave my post unthoughful.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
You thought I was a GUY?!
|
I think the idea of zero is neat. It isn't a natural number because it isn't positive (or negative). It is nothing, if you have zero of something, you don't have anything, but then again, if you dont have anything, how can you have zero of it? And if there was zero of it, you are measuring something that doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,088
|
0 exists, its a real number
(Makaveli) |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Oh man Cenright I totally agree. If you're counting zero of something and there's nothing there then... what are you counting? uh yea
also mr "guest" if that is your real name... I'm pretty sure every number is real but "i" (the square root of negative one for dumbums out there) EDIT: I just made a minor change which made me appear to be retarded...
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Player
|
Afro i think you mean to say the square root of negative one... Otherwise it would be one for the square root of one which is a real number...
-----Soccr743----- |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 | |
|
FFR Player
|
thanks for puttin me in there cen (i assume)...if youre counting zero of something you are counting that something...for instance if i were counting the amount of pants i have on right now i have 0...im still counting pants...i dont understand where you guys are coming from there i guess
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,088
|
wow soccr743, you just totally proved my stupidity and now i'll just go back and change my post so everyone who reads your post will think you're insane...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Sorry peoples that guest was me. My cruddy computer has like logged me out or something like 3 times already.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Player
|
that was a psycedelic mushroom theory there,almost had a trip without any drugs.
__________________
Cornstalk Remanants |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Interesting theory, but there's a paradox in your logic.
Quote:
If 1 is true, then how can 2 be true? If addition means you're using subtraction with negative numbers, and subtraction doesn't exist, then addition must be something entirely different- doing something (not subtraction) with positive numbers, which do exist. The same idea applies if you look at the reverse of this, namely, Addition doesn’t exist because it is just subtracting negative numbers, which don’t exist. Subtraction doesn’t exist either. It is just adding negative numbers, which don’t exist. If addition doesn't exist, how do you add negative numbers? See my point? Very good though- but you forgot about geometry. That still exists- that doesn't need operations. Well, I know some of it does (Addition Property of Equality) , but some of it doesn't (points, lines, planes, etc.) One more thing- logic still exists, too. No operations there! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,526
|
Quote:
__________________
DELETE THIS ACCOUNT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
You thought I was a GUY?!
|
Yes maka, it was me. I knew it was you that wrote it, so I helped you out.
When you are working with zero, you are working with a place holder. It is kinda a stupid idea maka, but let me put a conversation before you. ---I have zero pants. ++Where are these pants you dont have? ---I dont have them. ++Then they dont exist? How can you measure something that doesnt exist? ---With zero. ++So you are using a number to say how many pants you dont have, even though you dont have any. Can you have -1 pairs then? That is where the idea comes from. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |
|
FFR Player
|
no i wouldnt answer like that...
---I have zero pants ++where are these pants you dont have ---right here ++i dont see them ---thats because i have zero ==im taking my pants off right now ++ gross --- less than three
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
FFR Player
|
well, i guess no one liked my rebutal there
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 8
|
Ahh... Set Theory... a pretty interesting part of mathematics.
The basis of addition and the natural numbers is particularly intriguing. Once you have the foundation of the basic concepts of sets of objects and/or ideas, you can define a non empty set (we'll call it S) such that there exists a function from S x S to S (we'll call it +) such that a+b=b+a and a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c where a, b, and c are elements of S, not necessarily distinct. From there you can define the "less than" function on this function + by a>b implying there exists an element c in S such that a+c=b. By extension, you can define "less than or equal to", "greater than", and "greater than or equal to". From here, you can show that: (1) Every non-empty subset of our set S must have a unique least element. This means that there must exist some element in S (we'll call it f) such that f<g, where g is any and all elements of S. (2) For any two elements in S (we'll call them p and q), exactly one of "p<q", "p=q", and "p>q" must be true. Using this information, you can prove many theorems about addition. Also, you can prove that the second smallest element (the element that would be the smallest in case that the smallest of the original set were to be removed) of S is equal the smallest element plus itself. From there, you can show the third smallest element to be equal to the second smallest element plus the smallest element. In doing such, we have given definition to our assumed set, which we call the Natural Numbers. Using the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0 and the base 10 convention popularized by Fibonacci, we form a numeral system by which it can be shown that any natural number can be expressed. So... addition doesn't exist? I beg to differ. Mathematics is merely a system of laws created by human beings to express and explain various concepts that they understood intuitively. ~Nethri, a math major who sucks at FFR |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|