fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 6 months agonear zeromander.xyzimagemessage-square109fedilinkarrow-up1748arrow-down115
arrow-up1733arrow-down1imagenear zeromander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 6 months agomessage-square109fedilink
minus-squareKillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up25arrow-down1·6 months agoi mean, mathematically speaking, every number that isn’t zero, is further away from zero, than the number before it. So there is a point to the statement of “approaching zero” as well “near zero” and “about zero” since 100 probably isn’t about zero. Also CS nerds would like to fight you about floating point values.
minus-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·6 months agoWhoa slow down there buddy. Proposing numbers before numbers like they are a given.
minus-squareKillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·6 months agoas far as we can tell, mathematically, they are a given, and they never stop. I’ll wait for you to find the end of pi.
minus-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·6 months agoI’m not saying the numbers stop. But there are numbers where concepts like “closer to zero” or “number before [another number]” don’t apply. For example There is no sensible way to define a less-than for the complex numbers and thus they can’t be ordered.
minus-squareKillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 months agoi would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it. You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
minus-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·6 months agoWhat do you mean by independent? There is no more general and independent notion of ordering than a less-than operator. The article above oulines a mathematical proof that no such definition exists in a consistent way for the complex numbers.
i mean, mathematically speaking, every number that isn’t zero, is further away from zero, than the number before it.
So there is a point to the statement of “approaching zero” as well “near zero” and “about zero” since 100 probably isn’t about zero.
Also CS nerds would like to fight you about floating point values.
Whoa slow down there buddy. Proposing numbers before numbers like they are a given.
as far as we can tell, mathematically, they are a given, and they never stop.
I’ll wait for you to find the end of pi.
I’m not saying the numbers stop. But there are numbers where concepts like “closer to zero” or “number before [another number]” don’t apply.
For example There is no sensible way to define a less-than for the complex numbers and thus they can’t be ordered.
i would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it.
You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
What do you mean by independent? There is no more general and independent notion of ordering than a less-than operator. The article above oulines a mathematical proof that no such definition exists in a consistent way for the complex numbers.