It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Book Excerpt: 'Are Numbers Real?'

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I think this is just one of the many interesting things about numbers.


6174 is known as Kaprekar's constant after the Indian mathematician D. R. Kaprekar. This number is notable for the following property:

1. Take any four-digit number, using at least two different digits. (Leading zeros are allowed.)
2. Arrange the digits in descending and then in ascending order to get two four-digit numbers, adding leading zeros if necessary.
3. Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.
4. Go back to step 2.

The above process, known as Kaprekar's routine, will always reach its fixed point, 6174, in at most 7 iterations. Once 6174 is reached, the process will continue yielding 7641 – 1467 = 6174.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: JesusXst



I think Arabs reintroduced the notion of zero to the western world around the time of the crusades if memory serves.


Actually, zero was probably used by the pre-Columbian Olmecs of Guatamala and Mexico in the 3rd or 4th century BC, and formed the use of zero in the Mayan long count calendar. See, Mortaigne, Véronique (November 28, 2014). "The golden age of Mayan civilisation – exhibition review". The Guardian.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Well they do say that the devil is in the detail, all information is important to some degree or another, if not exactly relevant to the specifics of addition. I understand what you mean through, for all intents and purposes 1+1=2.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy

Hence the "reintroduced" part of the statement. I never said that Arabs came up with the idea themselves, just rediscovered the concept somewhat. after all "there is no new thing under the Sun".
edit on 3-12-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: roadgravel

Well they do say that the devil is in the detail, all information is important to some degree or another, if not exactly relevant to the specifics of addition. I understand what you mean through, for all intents and purposes 1+1=2.


It doesn't though, to go back to the apple example the two apples aren't identical. At some point, the idea of 1+1=2 comes down to your definition of 1.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Same thing viewed from a different perspective per chance?

Its a slippery slope there, that there reality, but we apparently have to have some constants to make sense of the mess, even if we have to create our own.

Fairs fair after all, or is it?



edit on 3-12-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darkmadness
Geometry is the basis with which we experience reality.

So, someone completely ignorant of any and all math, including 'geometry' perceives no Reality?
Care to share your reasoning in support of such an apparently outrageous assertion?
Have you some... 'alternative' definition of 'geometry'? Or 'basis'? Or 'we'? Or 'Reality'...?
*__-


'Are Numbers Real?'

"Is _____ Real?"
No matter with what you fill in the blank, the answer is 'yes'!
'Reality' is ALL inclusive!



edit on 4-12-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darkmadness
a reply to: andy06shake

Is it possible that our perspective on math could potential be a limit to our experience of the reality is presents?


Quite possibly. Language has the same effect. Your conceptual framework is limited by the language you think in.

But, as someone once said, there are concepts that humans can simply never know. You might have the smartest dog alive. She might be the canine Einstein. Could actually understand simple abstract concepts, have a vocabulary of hundreds of words, be adept at solving puzzles, have an innate grasp of small numbers as well as 'many'. Yet she will never be able to understand chemistry, or do the simplest algebra. It's just not within a dog's grasp. Similarly, humans have limits that they can't imagine, simply because the concept is beyond them.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Everyone assumes mathematics would be a kind of Universal language, just because it can transcend the problems of communications with all the different languages here on Earth..the OP started out by asking what would life be like here, if Maths were not invented here on Earth, well, our system of Maths and our thinking that any other intelligent life out there must have developed maths and comprehend numbers too, and so we could communicate based on maths rather than languages.

This doesn't necessarily follow...ET may have invented some other, completely alien system that may not bear any resemblance to what we would consider 'maths' or numbers.

They, and we would therefore have to discover, learn and translate each other species version of maths, before we could begin to communicate...which means of course, we might as well learn each's actual language to communicate, if we had to do so with each others idea of maths or numbering.


edit on 4 12 2016 by MysterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JesusXst

I think numbers fall into the spectrum of qualia or sense perceptions. (Yeshua within us.)

i.e. Numbers are to geometry as colors are to light.

And by geometry I mean, "the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something" and not the mathematical philosophy of the same name. See also: dynamic geometry.

Edit: And not to leave out math: math is a cognitive function - the cognition, or measurement, of geometric value. We conceptualize or measure with math and conceive numbers or value. What is conceptualized is the will or spirit of geometric value. i.e. I want to measure how many rocks there are, so I measure out my will for determining geometric values with mathematics thereby conceiving a number.

See, you have to think about it like infinity, free will, or the Spirit, where the number or image is the image of the measurement of will and not just of will itself. (The image is more an image or your measure than an image of infinity.) e.g. I have a calculator with a pseudo-infinite function and number set within it, and with it, I measure out 1+1 which results in 2 (2 being the image of my measure, and not the image of pseudo-infinity. Additionally, lol, this is why everything comes through as spectra or spectrums -- it is because we are within the body of someone else's image: Yeshua is within Father, we're within Yeshua, and he is within us.)
edit on 12/4/2016 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Numbers are an abstract concept that only exists in the human mind. You can't point to a number in reality, just to a symbol that represents a concept in your mind. You can tell me that 2 is a number and show me a symbol that represents the number two, but you can never show me the real number 2 (unless of course you haven't flushed the toilet yet). You could hold up two fingers and say that is 2, but that isn't the number 2. You could point at two apples and they are not the number two either.

So no, numbers are not real.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: JesusXst

I think numbers fall into the spectrum of qualia or sense perceptions. (Yeshua within us.)

i.e. Numbers are to geometry as colors are to light.

And by geometry I mean, "the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something" and not the mathematical philosophy of the same name. See also: dynamic geometry.

Edit: And not to leave out math: math is a cognitive function - the cognition, or measurement, of geometric value. We conceptualize or measure with math and conceive numbers or value. What is conceptualized is the will or spirit of geometric value. i.e. I want to measure how many rocks there are, so I measure out my will for determining geometric values with mathematics thereby conceiving a number.

See, you have to think about it like infinity, free will, or the Spirit, where the number or image is the image of the measurement of will and not just of will itself. (The image is more an image or your measure than an image of infinity.) e.g. I have a calculator with a pseudo-infinite function and number set within it, and with it, I measure out 1+1 which results in 2 (2 being the image of my measure, and not the image of pseudo-infinity. Additionally, lol, this is why everything comes through as spectra or spectrums -- it is because we are within the body of someone else's image: Yeshua is within Father, we're within Yeshua, and he is within us.)


You hit the nail on it when you mentioned and I quote you ""I think numbers fall into the spectrum of qualia or sense perceptions. (Yeshua within us.)""

i.e. Numbers are to geometry as colors are to light.

Yes they are. This I agree upon with you. Everything is a Spectrum or Subliminal Induced via Perception courtesy of our Corrupt Governments.

I know where you're coming from.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX




This doesn't necessarily follow...ET may have invented some other, completely alien system that may not bear any resemblance to what we would consider 'maths' or numbers.


If they have any method of communicating and analyzing finite pieces of information, whatever information they're communicating may be translated into numbers, equations, and functions (look up Godel Numbering). Understanding computational complexity, Kolmogorov complexity, and algorithmic probability gives us an idea of where to start in our attempts to process each other's mathematics. Essentially, we would end up attempting to establish a model of Universal Turing Machine we could both use. Even if they didn't have a concept of a Universal Turing Machine, we would. While difficult, it would be possible to apply principles of cryptography to reverse engineer their communication system.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join