Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?

[CuriosOne]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions.

Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?

No, the number is geometry based, and it looks like it's in 3d looks like oragami..

On another note, I'm seeking legal advice on cyber bullying...There are some members here that are purposely creating problems for me making it very hard for a scientific conversation..

[Bufofrog]

27 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

There are some members here that are purposely creating problems for me making it very hard for a scientific conversation.

You are the one who making a scientific discussion difficult, if not impossible.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

On another note, I'm seeking legal advice on cyber bullying...There are some members here that are purposely creating problems for me making it very hard for a scientific conversation..

Although nothing would amuse me more than the picture of you being preyed upon by legal counsellors, I'd advice you to think it twice.

In a previous post you bitterly complained about not being offered a job, as some kind of reward for your brilliant thinking. Set your priorities right, is all I can say. I don't wish you any wrong, in spite of your misled smugness and total disregard of the efforts of many users trying to help you to the best of their --our-- abilities.

The bullying that you mention is about a post by @iNow on another thread that didn't even mention you.

I almost forgot: numbers are not geometrically motivated. They come first. You can study their properties with topology --a basis of neighbourhoods-- or with geometry --distance, metric--. If you have n-tuples of numbers, then you can introduce angles, also from the metric.

Edited December 13, 2020 by joigus

[CuriosOne]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions.

Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?

Yes its a question, "any base system"  works, as any base system can be created out of thin air...The better one or more efficient is the winner..

So why doesn't anyone tell me this?

I'm not concerned about binary numbers, computers and etc...This did not exist long ago when science was being formulated...I feel sorry for today's students that need to deal with this "simple" issue.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?"
Because they are what you get if you take a whole something, and fracture it.

[joigus]

36 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

So why doesn't anyone tell me this?

Because you couldn't be farther off the mark. That's not what bases are about. I and others have been telling you until we're blue in the mouth.

You're using the oldest trick of the game, which is non-sequitur. It's as if someone tells you,

"Mountains arise from mechanical tensions and thermal processes in the Earth's interior"

and you say,

"Then why are elephants winged creatures?"

1st) Elephants are not winged creatures (a false premise embedded in a question is called a sophism)

2nd) The question does not follow from the previous statement at all (that's called a non-sequitur)

If you think for a moment most users here don't see right away what you're trying to do, you're quite wrong.

You're not discussing in good faith. It's not about disagreement. It's about you not being intellectually honest. 

You're free to keep playing your game for as long as you want, but you're just calling for action from the mods and very justified annoyance from other users.

Have a good day.

Edited December 13, 2020 by joigus

[CuriosOne]

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Although nothing would amuse me more than the picture of you being preyed upon by legal counsellors, I'd advice you to think it twice.

In a previous post you bitterly complained about not being offered a job, as some kind of reward for your brilliant thinking. Set your priorities right, is all I can say. I don't wish you any wrong, in spite of your misled smugness and total disregard of the efforts of many users trying to help you to the best of their --our-- abilities.

The bullying that you mention is about a post by @iNow on another thread that didn't even mention you.

I almost forgot: numbers are not geometrically motivated. They come first. You can study their properties with topology --a basis of neighbourhoods-- or with geometry --distance, metric--. If you have n-tuples of numbers, then you can introduce angles, also from the metric.

Your talking about "manifolds" hyper cubes and the fourth dimension?

Now that I understand that a base numeral system is another word for a

positive integer,  I will research this, however eluded it might be from i as -1 of which we all know is pi ratio based....

 

The bullying comment was on my thread, so its directed to me however we want to do the algebrea on it....It should not by no means ellude peacfull and civil conversation between adults as it's very childish, especially on something science based...Knowledge varies from person to person for any reason at all, it's what makes life intresting

And i can careless who likes me or not at the end of the day it's just me myself and I.

 

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Because you couldn't be farther off the mark. That's not what bases are about. I and others have been telling you until we're blue in the mouth.

You're using the oldest trick of the game, which is non-sequitur. It's as if someone tells you,

"Mountains arise from mechanical tensions and thermal processes in the Earth's interior"

and you say,

"The why are elephants winged creatures?"

1st) Elephants are not winged creatures (a false premise embedded in a question is called a sophism)

2nd) The question does not follow from the previous statement at all (that's called a non-sequitur)

If you think for a moment most users here don't see right away what you're trying to do, you're quite wrong.

You're not discussing in good faith. It's not about disagreement. It's about you not being intellectually honest. 

You're free to keep playing your game for as long as you want, but you're just calling for action from the mods and very justified annoyance from other users.

Have a good day.

I was just told any base numeral system can be created "out of thin air" and that calculus uses no base system...

Who's not discussing in good faith again?

 

 

[iNow]

If you feel you’re being bullied, then report the post to staff so they can handle it appropriately

[joigus]

28 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Your talking about "manifolds" hyper cubes and the fourth dimension?

No, no, no.

First come numbers.

Then comes topology (neighbourhoods in a set defined by the relation \( \subseteq \) "contained in")

Then comes geometry (defined by distance, a number assigned to pairs of "points": \( d\left(x,y\right) \))

From metric (distance) come angles, defined as ratios of distances, as @Sensei has told you.

Topologies are possible to define even when there is no notion of a metric.

Numbers don't have geometry built in them.

You need numbers first. How else could you define the distance, which is a positive number?

Topology is more primitive. You only need a notion of inclusion, open and closed sets, etc.

Closed set: contains its boundary

Open set: does not contain its boundary

Edit: Dimension you can define with vectors (tangent space) or with analysis (number of real variables necessary to describe your set analitically).

And so on...

What a wasted effort!

Edited December 13, 2020 by joigus

[CuriosOne]

18 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, no, no.

First come numbers.

Then comes topology (neighbourhoods in a set defined by the relation ⊆ "contained in")

Then comes geometry (defined by distance, a number assigned to pairs of "points": d(x,y) )

From metric (distance) come angles, defined as ratios of distances, as @Sensei has told you.

Topologies are possible to define even when there is no notion of a metric.

Numbers don't have geometry built in them.

You need numbers first. How else could you define the distance, which is a positive number?

Topology is more primitive. You only need a notion of inclusion, open and closed sets, etc.

Closed set: contains its boundary

Open set: does not contain its boundary

Edit: Dimension you can define with vectors (tangent space) or with analysis (number of real variables necessary to describe your set analitically).

And so on...

What a wasted effort!

This sounds more on the line of my insight...It makes better sense, its syncronized information... 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

Now that I understand that a base numeral system is another word for a

positive integer, 

No.

That's silly.

All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.
A number base is a positive integer.
But not all positive integers are used as number bases.

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

I will research this,

I have already pointed out a good place to start- twice.
It's clear that you are refusing to learn from it  or you are not bright enough to understand it. Which is it?

Why are you stubbornly failing to learn?

[CuriosOne]

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

That's silly.

All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.
A number base is a positive integer.
But not all positive integers are used as number bases.

I have already pointed out a good place to start- twice.
It's clear that you are refusing to learn from it  or you are not bright enough to understand it. Which is it?

Why are you stubbornly failing to learn?

It's not me, it's the premis of the science model...

Anyone can create a cooridinent system like anyone can creat a "base & numeral system." 

I keep asking is base 10

Counting by 10s??

Or is base 2 County by 2s??

Simple as 1 2 3, and I get answer that sound like ""alien technology.""

Earth please??? 

Edited December 13, 2020 by CuriosOne

[swansont]

1 hour ago, CuriosOne said:

 

I keep asking is base 10

Counting by 10s??

Or is base 2 County by 2s??

Simple as 1 2 3, and I get answer that sound like ""alien technology.""

Earth please??? 

You keep asking, in multiple threads that all overlap 

Answered here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123871-did-issac-newton-know-about-numeral-systems/?tab=comments#comment-1162468

 

[CuriosOne]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

You keep asking, in multiple threads that all overlap 

Answered here

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123871-did-issac-newton-know-about-numeral-systems/?tab=comments#comment-1162468

 

This was until I knew about the freedom  of cartography and how anyone is free to make one that's reliable..

[Country Boy]

Joigus: 

"CuriosOne, I've never seen anyone who understands so little and claims to understand so much at the same time.

I'm very nearly done with you too."

That's why I have come to the conclusion that CuriosOne does understand all of this and just thinks it is funny to pretend to be stupid!

[Jd1]

This thread gets rather confusing and off path. I thought the original question was "Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?". Anyway I came across a commercial website which had some useful info around whole numbers and fractions between them.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Phi for All
No advertising, please.

[studiot]

7 hours ago, Jd1 said:

This thread gets rather confusing and off path. I thought the original question was "Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?". Anyway I came across a commercial website which had some useful info around whole numbers and fractions between them.

Hello Jd1 and welcome.

Yes that was the topic.

The former member did not have enough Maths knowledge to appreciate the simple explanation, and you have not indicated your level of Maths.

I can't see that the decimal - fraction converter in your link is any use either.

Here is a simple correct Mathematics answer to the question, you may appreciate.

 

Consider the whole number system   :    0, 1, 2 ...

That is all the numbers in the system are whole numbers.

The system is sometimes called the counting numbers.

In this number system there are no numbers between 0 and 1 or indeed between any adjacent two whole numbers.

 

Now consider what we call the rational number system, which includes all possible fractions.

That is all the numbers in the rational number system are fractions, so in this system the whole numbers appear as fractions where the denominator (bottom number) is 1.

So in this system   [math]0 = \frac{0}{1}[/math]   and  [math]1 = \frac{1}{1}[/math]

 

One property of the rational number system is that between any two rational numbers there are more rational numbers.

So the is nowhere where there are two numbers that do not have more fractions between them, no matter how finely you divide the gap up.

We denote this property by saying that the rational numbers are dense.

Further the rational number system is the simplest number system with this property.

 

The counting numbers are not dense

Edited August 22, 2021 by Phi for All
commercial link removed by moderator