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.

 

There Should be 100 Number Symbols and No Letter Symbols!!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Or a 1,000 or 10,000... number symbols with 0 Letter Symbols!!! Letter symbols form words that are inherently vague and imprecise!!! Numbers measured by a straight-line ruler or curved-line ruler are almost Infinitely more precise!!! If we thought, spoke, wrote, and otherwise communicated in numbers with an efficient classification system, imagine where science and technology would be today!!! Heart disease cures, cancer cures, war cures, stroke cures, diabetes cures... would be rampant!!! Instead, we frequently live in our own letter-word vagueness that does not solve the world's greatest problems!!!




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I don't see how. A language is a language. The ways of saying "hello" in Russian, Swahili, and C++ might be different, but they achieve the same result.

What's the difference between a symbol that denotes a numerical value, and a symbol which denotes how to communicate? Besides, letters only exist in written form. How are you going to communicate to people verbally with numbers? I thought that's what mathematics was about, to explain universal things in a universal language. How can you reduce an extremely complex verbal language into maths?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I struggle so bad with the letters on the UK TV show 'Countdown'.......there just seems to be no logic to words.......I get what you saying sort of, but would not like anymore symbols for numbers.....base 10 just seems really intuitive now.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   
How can thinking in numbers help cure war? That's right, it can't. Or are you just bad at english but good at math?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Words have VERY precise meanings, because we teach those meanings. As such, two languages can have a single word that means the same thing. The language of numbers (as has been mentioned) would simply be another language, with all the same penalties that apply.

A word quickly reduces the number of possible meanings that it could imply. If I say "Apple", then you know what I'm talking about (of course, some things are still missing 'Green Apple', 'Red Apple', 'Apple Pie', 'Apple Cider', etc).

If, instead, I replaced the language with numbers, then it would only make sense that the first number reduces the number of possible meanings (with 0 meaning place, 1 meaning person, 2 meaning thing, etc). But we have to keep breaking it down with successive focusing.

Say 5 meant "vegetable". From there, you need to know if it's a fruit, a root, a bush, a tree, etc. Say 1 means "fruit".

51

What kind of fruit? We still can't have 0-9 because there's more than 10 fruits. Fruit that grows on trees, fruit that grows on the ground, berries. Let's say 1 again.

511

Now, I can think of the following fruits that grow on trees: Apples, Pears, Oranges, Peaches, Crab-Apples, Lemons, Grapefruit, Coconuts, Bananas, and then there's all the exotic fruits (exotic for us at least). So we still need to get more specific, let's say "Red Fruit" is number 3.

5113

Now we have Apples, Crab-Apples, perhaps 1 or 2 exotic tree-grown fruit.

51131 = Apple

Saying 51131 takes a long time, a lot longer than Apple - we understand Apple in 2 syllables, instead of 5.

In a way, you can argue that words are simply numbers inside our brain, and that we've evolved a language to work it into its current state.

So why words and not numbers?

Because it all started with a specific "grunt" meaning "food" (along with probably a finger pointing in a certain direction, meaning "over there").



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
Because it all started with a specific "grunt" meaning "food" (along with probably a finger pointing in a certain direction, meaning "over there").


That still works in France!



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Yarium, a very simple example of why an all-number language system would be almost Infintely more efficient: Say you are reading and do not know what apple and pear mean. You grab a dictionary, and look at "apple" in the first part of the dictionary and discover what it means, but you have to travel to the second-half of the dictionary to find out what "pear" means. This takes a lot of time compared to what can be. In an all numbers dictionary, say 11111 means "apple", and 11115 means "pear". They have been efficiently classified based on similarity of meaning, and time would be saved in discovering their meaning. Apply this very simple concept in many other ways and imagine the efficiencies created in every world system.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
1011010101101011100010101011010100101101010100 - That was binary for, didnt words come before numbers? I cant grasp the concept of this thread... am i just bad at maths?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
1011010101101011100010101011010100101101010100 - That was binary for, didnt words come before numbers?

Or not. That is binary for: µkŠµ-

I didn't spell it, just converted it.

Ya ya, so I'm feeling a bit anal-retentive today, lol.

I'm still trying to get over the mis-logic of a thousand or ten thousand symbols to create language ............ as if 26 (EN) isn't bad enough.

Misfit

[edit on 30/9/06 by Misfit]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Thanks misfit, i didnt actually expect someone to translate that. now people know that im not actually fluent in binary... balls.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
now people know that im not actually fluent in binary... balls.

lmao

You might have gotten away with it had you thrown in a few more digits, lol.

Misfit



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Binary systems are not the most efficient systems for meaning. There are Infinitely more meanings than opened and closed. A much more elaborate numerical system would create greater meaning and efficiency.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
A much more elaborate numerical system would create greater meaning and efficiency.

How about an example of this efficiency?

Misfit



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Yarium, a very simple example of why an all-number language system would be almost Infintely more efficient: Say you are reading and do not know what apple and pear mean. You grab a dictionary, and look at "apple" in the first part of the dictionary and discover what it means, but you have to travel to the second-half of the dictionary to find out what "pear" means. This takes a lot of time compared to what can be. In an all numbers dictionary, say 11111 means "apple", and 11115 means "pear". They have been efficiently classified based on similarity of meaning, and time would be saved in discovering their meaning. Apply this very simple concept in many other ways and imagine the efficiencies created in every world system.

That only shows that a classification system would be better to identify an unknown object by using only its name.

But the name does not have to be in a numeric form.

Why wouldn't "aaaaa" mean "apple" and "aaaae" mean "pear"?

And a system like has been used since the 18th century.
That is why an apple is the fruit of the "Malus domestica" and a pear is the fruit of the "Pyrus communis", both from the "Rosaceae" family, so if we say that one is a "Rosaceae Malus domestica" and the other a "Rosaceae Pyrus communis", we are unequivocally identifying those fruits. [1]


A classification system is only easily applied in controlled situations, while words made with sounds are easily created.

If we had a common language for the last 5000 years, things would be different, but that is not our reality, and our reality is what we have to work with.



[1] Yes, apples and pears are related to roses, as many other know fruits. With a classification system that becomes obvious.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Why wouldn't "aaaaa" mean "apple" and "aaaae" mean "pear"?

And a system like has been used since the 18th century.
That is why an apple is the fruit of the "Malus domestica" and a pear is the fruit of the "Pyrus communis", both from the "Rosaceae" family, so if we say that one is a "Rosaceae Malus domestica" and the other a "Rosaceae Pyrus communis", we are unequivocally identifying those fruits. [1]


A system of "aaaaa" equal to "11111" and "aaaae" equal to "11115" would be the same, save for time it takes to write and read those symbols. However, the advantage of using numbers is the "levels of measurement" that it creates for design. Numbers best represent design and if no design existed, the Universe would not exist.

The problem with the "Rosaceae Malus domestica" and "Rosaceae Pyrus communis" is that for a person who does not know what "Malus" or "Pyrus" mean would have to scroll through 300 pages of a large dictionary to find out what each mean. A more efficient, all-number system might find the meaning on the same page or within, say, 10 pages.

An all-number, no-letter system would save time, space, and increase precision of all dictionaries, books, and all of language itself.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
A system of "aaaaa" equal to "11111" and "aaaae" equal to "11115" would be the same, save for time it takes to write and read those symbols.

Do you mean that saying "a a a a a" is slower than saying "eleven thousands, one hundred and eleven"?
Or do you mean that it would be read as "one one one one one"?
And in a language other than English, if the numbers are slower to read, what would happen?
A system like this works regardless of the symbols used, we could even use geometric figures.


However, the advantage of using numbers is the "levels of measurement" that it creates for design. Numbers best represent design and if no design existed, the Universe would not exist.

The only advantage numbers have over letters is when we want to use the numbers to do some calculations, but even then we can use letters, anyone who knows hexadecimal knows that.


The problem with the "Rosaceae Malus domestica" and "Rosaceae Pyrus communis" is that for a person who does not know what "Malus" or "Pyrus" mean would have to scroll through 300 pages of a large dictionary to find out what each mean. A more efficient, all-number system might find the meaning on the same page or within, say, 10 pages.

I used that example only to show that the system already exists, not to promote the use of that system over your system.


An all-number, no-letter system would save time, space, and increase precision of all dictionaries, books, and all of language itself.

I think you are limiting yourself when you think of letters and numbers.

They are just symbols, if you advance another step in the generalisation, you will see that we do not need numbers or letters, just ways of representing information.

Also, you are not thinking about other languages.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
The problem with the "Rosaceae Malus domestica" and "Rosaceae Pyrus communis" is that for a person who does not know what "Malus" or "Pyrus" mean would have to scroll through 300 pages of a large dictionary to find out what each mean.


Similarily, though, if someone started speaking in numbers, if I don't know what those numbers MEAN (without the 300 page NUMBER dictionary), then I'm still at the exact same loss.

Besides, exactly how is it that numbers would be more easily manipulated into saying what we feel?

If it's in the straight numbers = letters sense, then (as I've said) we're at the exact same position.

If, however, you mean "I'm 2 less happy than excited, and 1 more happy than mello, I'm cool" - then, once again, is it not just easier to say "I'm cool"? Additionally, just as some words mean different things for different people, would not saying "I'm cool" in numbers be just as easily misinterpreted for "I'm hip"?

Words are simply numbers that we have already given meaning to. Since we GIVE them meaning (the word doesn't have meaning unto itself), the meaning of the word will change from person to person, place to place, era to era. Although saying "Humbug" back in the late 1800's was just as shunned as the f-word is today, somewhere along the line it lost it's meaning. We stopped GIVING it the meaning that it had, and so the word has since died off.

It's in this way that language evolves with culture. Someone in the 1970's (or even 1980's) would likely have no clue what a Lan-line, Podcast, blog, or internet would mean. These are extremely new words. Forum nowadays tends to mean an electronic meeting and discussion place - whereas pre-internet it meant any place where people met and discussed topics.

Anyways, I could go on, but I must leave!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join