What are numbers ontologically speaking?
Why is i a separate class? I assume this means the is strictly imaginary complex numbers a+bi where a=0? But why?
Transcendental condition of the possibility of experience
>>16293476numbers are abstractions
>>16293540Are those abstractions real?
>>16293540Not all abstractions are numbers though, you'll have to be more specific
>>16293476An element of a field that extends the rationals or a subset of the rationals. Relaxing this assertion gives objects that are still numbery, and can be called numbers, but the more properties are relaxed the less numbery an object is.Dropping commutativity of multiplication is considered less of a departure than distributivity.
>>16293527jesus christ you are retarded
>>16293527>I assume this means the is strictly imaginary complex numbers a+bi where a=0?yes>But why?to differentiate them from complex numbers with real parts
>>16293476information.
>>16293804k
>>16293476this diagram is retardedimaginary numbers can't be their own class, it would have to be reals and imaginary reals
>>16294133I am pretty sure it's meant to be taken as [math]\mathbb{I}=i\mathbb{R}[/math]
>>16294133>imaginary reals
>numbers are... le abstraction>bro, it's not like they *ARE* real, it's just idealizationsYou guys have no balls. Numbers are real. The platonic realm is fucking real. The world doesn't revolve around our puny finitist minds. Things don't need your consent to exist.
>>16294153based
>>16293476>What are numbersThey aren't
>>16293476Everyone is missing the most basic of everything.A number is a sign for a quantity. A collection of numbers is a collection of quantities, or a quantity of quantities. Those things that make math practical and useful are ratiocination, or that quantities syndiffeonically relate among other quantities. The next question, what are quantities? Naively identified above, these would be collections or sets. Quantities may only be expressed in terms of the syntactor. If the world were to exist without a syntactor, the ratiocination of things boils down to singleton pair cancellation until either side of an interaction is exhausted and has none more to give. Then the extra singletons in the sustained side extend to the next cancelers. This is a generic atomist explanation.What about partial quantities or circular/elliptical quantities(complex numbers, etc.) The latter is very simple to define because it is found through the studying inter-operation of quantities and is actually just a form of the previous. This is where we hit a snag. Partial quantities technically don't exist, in any form, at all. Partiality is a function of arbitrary measurement. >ah ha, got youYou might be saying something like this. There are many so-called numbers and relationships which are certainly not whole number or operations of such. Furthermore, fundamental notions like frequency require waves which must oscillate through partials. The physical space is simple enough to dismiss by the singleton argument above. In fact, most math is taken as improperly formed abstraction on top of physical measurement systems - it is improper because they want mathematical tools without inventing the mathematical substructure to make them consistent. Basically, math as we are using it isn't correspondent to the physical, but may be to some degree.Technically, even theoretical notions of spaces and numbers lines are addressed by singletons, except the singletons are numbers in some relation.1/2
>>16294864The idealized case of partial numbers is a much harder question to address. Numbers can be scaled any which way and partial additives cannot merely be dismissed, particularly in something like Fourier transforms where singletons are squished by secondary terms. My suspicion is that these questions are to be addressed, in whole, by complimentary number systems - circular/ellipticals, etc. These will boil out that there is some atomic numerical construction which addresses it. When we point to some fractional number, apparently obtained through some formal operation, the formal operation is ultimately not the reason such a number exists. It is a heuristic we have used to get there.2/2
>>16293476Numbers are logic gates literally.1 is True, and all the primes are false. Any combination of not primes generates a True sub group. Primes always generate at least one false subgroup, such that a new group has to be generated. This is also how logic gates in 3 sat work. For example, all 3 sat can be trivially true unless they have a prime subgroup which makes it to where no composite operators generate a true state for each clause. So basically, I am insane. Hope it helps
>>16294877This is why math needs to translate to True in logic truth tables. The numbers generate reality that produce a certain combination of truth tables. Do not ask me how I know this
>>16293553>>16293549all abstractions are numbers
>>16293553Just encode the abstraction in a gödel number
>>16293550Honestly, I'd accept that.
>>16293476>generate a model where each object has a space>give each space a computation space >they all generate the probability of any event occurring in any possibility space that is possible>now all numbers are simply objects that define where each model will exist over each space Big brain
>>16293476Thoughts in the mind of God
>>16293550integers were literally invented by jewish bankers so you could have a negative balance and thus be subject to usurious borrowing rates
>>16293476god created the integers (naturals) all else is the work of man.
>>16293476There is only 0, 1 and nand. Everything else are social constructs.
>>16295009No.
bloatware languages built on natural numbers (x86_64 assembly)
>>16293476A bridge between the mind and matter
>>16293476Numbers are sort of a glue. Like they hold together the social thing of trading 2 eggs for 1 scarf.
>>16293476an abstraction of quantityeverything observable has quantity
>>16293476>What are numbers ontologically speaking?Like the rest of empirical science, it's just a language, a model, used to approximate and predict observations.Sorry mathfags, as much as you want to trascend from /sci/ to /x/ and coax up to the schizos >https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/38157150/You are hardstuck here eternally.
>>16294153>numbers real>where pi>where perfect sphereThere is nothing essential. Platonic essences are supplanted by existentialism. Numbers merely form one of many representations in mathematics, which in turn are merely one of many possible representations that humans haven’t touched yet cuz our brains haven’t been imaginative enough (yet). All of this, even numbers, require us to give them any meaning, and lack meaning outside of what we give it, as they are representations that intrinsically mean nothing
