Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:13:02 UTC No. 16293527

Why is i a separate class? I assume this means the is strictly imaginary complex numbers a+bi where a=0? But why?

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:17:50 UTC No. 16293533

Transcendental condition of the possibility of experience

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:20:16 UTC No. 16293540

>>16293476
numbers are abstractions

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:26:01 UTC No. 16293549

>>16293540
Are those abstractions real?

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:26:01 UTC No. 16293550

Everything outside of Q is a jewish hoax

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:28:33 UTC No. 16293553

>>16293540
Not all abstractions are numbers though, you'll have to be more specific

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:35:39 UTC No. 16293565

>>16293476
An 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.

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 19:25:29 UTC No. 16293804

>>16293527
jesus christ you are retarded

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:47:58 UTC No. 16293909

>>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

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 23:45:29 UTC No. 16294102

>>16293476
information.

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 23:57:24 UTC No. 16294116

>>16293804
k

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:25:15 UTC No. 16294133

>>16293476
this diagram is retarded
imaginary numbers can't be their own class, it would have to be reals and imaginary reals

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:31:01 UTC No. 16294136

>>16294133
I am pretty sure it's meant to be taken as [math]\mathbb{I}=i\mathbb{R}[/math]

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:37:27 UTC No. 16294141

>>16294133
>imaginary reals

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:47:56 UTC No. 16294153

>numbers are... le abstraction
>bro, it's not like they *ARE* real, it's just idealizations
You 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.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 01:05:16 UTC No. 16294173

>>16294153
based

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:30:45 UTC No. 16294736

>>16293476
>What are numbers
They aren't

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:19:09 UTC No. 16294864

>>16293476
Everyone 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 you
You 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

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:20:24 UTC No. 16294865

>>16294864
The 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

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:33:43 UTC No. 16294877

>>16293476
Numbers 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

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:35:30 UTC No. 16294880

>>16294877
This 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

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:37:27 UTC No. 16294882

>>16293553
>>16293549
all abstractions are numbers

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:44:14 UTC No. 16294890

>>16293553
Just encode the abstraction in a gödel number

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:49:51 UTC No. 16294893

>>16293550
Honestly, I'd accept that.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:54:14 UTC No. 16294897

>>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

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 16:58:40 UTC No. 16294901

>>16293476
Thoughts in the mind of God

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:02:27 UTC No. 16294904

>>16293550
integers were literally invented by jewish bankers so you could have a negative balance and thus be subject to usurious borrowing rates

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:21:37 UTC No. 16294988

>>16293476
god created the integers (naturals) all else is the work of man.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:37:25 UTC No. 16295009

>>16293476
There is only 0, 1 and nand. Everything else are social constructs.

B00T at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 18:38:53 UTC No. 16295011

>>16295009
No.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:41:37 UTC No. 16296370

bloatware languages built on natural numbers (x86_64 assembly)

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:50:58 UTC No. 16296381

>>16293476
A bridge between the mind and matter

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:56:21 UTC No. 16296388

>>16293476
Numbers are sort of a glue. Like they hold together the social thing of trading 2 eggs for 1 scarf.

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:56:47 UTC No. 16297568

>>16293476
an abstraction of quantity
everything observable has quantity

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:07:11 UTC No. 16297575

>>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.

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:15:41 UTC No. 16297580

>>16294153
>numbers real
>where pi
>where perfect sphere

There 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