Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Numbers are Nothing

  1. #1 Numbers are Nothing 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    2 = # {0, {0}}

    Sure this can be stated as defining a number? Yes if you are able to take it as just symbols on the RS. Hewever we need to understand the symbols, which requires understanding # as "the number of the set" and to connect 2 with the RS we need to consider # as an operator instructing us to count the sets in sets. But counting relies on numbers already existing.

    0 is a number
    1 = 0'
    2 = 1'
    ect.

    suffers from the same problem (counting in 1's before 1 is defined).

    With these definitions it seems we may need to admit circular definitions for the primitive entities to operate on.


    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    This is called a recursive definition. If you define your terms carefully, a recursive definition need not contain circular elements.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    57
    Best definition of recursion I've ever read in a dictionary:

    Recursion = see Recursion

    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Numbers are Nothing 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by talanum1
    2 = # {0, {0}}

    Sure this can be stated as defining a number? Yes if you are able to take it as just symbols on the RS. Hewever we need to understand the symbols, which requires understanding # as "the number of the set" and to connect 2 with the RS we need to consider # as an operator instructing us to count the sets in sets. But counting relies on numbers already existing.

    0 is a number
    1 = 0'
    2 = 1'
    ect.

    suffers from the same problem (counting in 1's before 1 is defined).

    With these definitions it seems we may need to admit circular definitions for the primitive entities to operate on.
    The definitions are not circular, but they do rely in the axiom that each number has a successor. What you are apparently dealing with is the construction of the various number systems starting with the Peano Postulates. See Foundations of Analysis by Landau for a very terse, but efficient, treatment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    196
    I don't have access to that book now.

    Doesn't the understanding of "a number has a successor" requires an understanding of the concept: "indevisable quantum"?

    Then

    a) 0 is a number, b) each number has a sucessor and

    1 = 0' is understood as:

    the cypher 1 comes from the number 0 add an indevisable quantum, then 1 becomes a number (by b.). But "an" is replaceable by "one" or "one member of a group" or "one non-specific member of a group" and I doubt if "an" can exist wihtout this possible replacements, and it doesn't have others - check your dictionary.

    Please quote the relevant definition if there is a better one.
    It also matters what isn't there - Tao Te Ching interpreted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •