Mathematicians dont know what numbers are

[ladyjane]

Mathematicians dont know what numbers are and thus dont know what they are talking about
they dont know whether irrational numbers are real or exist
they cant tell us what a number is
dont say numbers are quantity -for what quanity does an irrational number quantify as it never terminate
dont say you can draw root 2 on a 1 by 1 tryangle- as you cant as root 2 never ends so there can be no limit to the line

[Anthem]

You tried this before. And you were proven wrong before.

Can’t someone delete this/ban him for being repetitive?

[ladyjane]

And you were proven wrong before.

so tell us what a number is

[Anthem]

I tell you in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=161587

You won’t see me in here again, use the one above if you want to be an idiot.

[ladyjane]

For instance, pi.
Pi, in a perfect circle, is the QUANTITY of diamaters that fit in the circumference.

how can it
even anthem says irrational numbers never converge to a final number
so it cant be even a perfect circle can not have pi diameters-impossible as ph has no final end number

[ladyjane]

You have a right triangle, with the two legs of length 1 unit.
The root of 2, or 2^(1/2), is the quantity of units in the hypotenuse.

it cant be as root 2 has no final number it cant be a quantity as how can you have a quantity

that has no limit

[Anthem]

@ladyjane

how can it
even anthem says irrational numbers never converge to a final number
so it cant be even a perfect circle can not have pi diameters-impossible as ph has no final end number

I stand corrected. Only when I’m misquoted will I be back in this thread.

I did NOT say that. I said that if we could get to the end, there would be a number in the final decimal place, but we can’t get there.

It was just to illustrate how ignorant you are on the subject.

[ladyjane]

tortoise says

Unless you can show me why that is a pre-requisite for a quantity, the argument can be disregarded.

quantity definition

http://www.answers.com/topic/quantity?cat=health

The measurable, countable, or comparable property or aspect of a thing.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quantity

An exact amount or number

since an irrational number never ends then it has no finite limit therefore it does not exist on a number line
therefore something cant have it as its measure
if you cant measure it
'it cant be a anything let alone a quantity
you cant not say a line has the length/quantity pi units as pi units never ends thus it cant have that quantity
pi cant be a quantity since it dont exist

[ladyjane]

So, then, a quantity is “an exact amount” (omit “number” because the word is meaningless).
Now, from the same site quoted above, one of the definitions of “amount” is “quantity”.
Therefore, the words are interchangable.

from u now give

a quantity is “an exact amount”

one of the definitions of “amount” is “quantity”
therefore

a quantity is "an exact quantity
quantity =quantity
that is meaningless

you say a number =quantity
but
quantity=An exact amount or number

therefore
number =An exact amount or number
ie number = number
ir circular argument

that is meaningless
i rest my case

now you see why dean claims all products of human thinking end in meaninglessness

[ladyjane]

You said that a quantity is “an exact amount”.
But, amount means quantity.
So, essentially, you said that a quantity is an exact quantity.
That presupposes that quantities are not necessarily exact.
Therefore, you’re arguing against your own presupposition.
Therefore, you fail.

look you said a number is a quantity
i gave you the definition of quantity
and it is circular
thus your definition of number is meaningless

[ladyjane]

You gave me a circular definition.
That’s your definition.
Your definition is meaningless.

i gave you the definition for 2 independent sites
now you say

A quantity is a sum of units
but
sum =
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sum

An amount obtained as a result of adding numbers.

ie a number = quantity = adding numbers of units

haaaaha now your definition is circular
thus dean is correct all thinking ends in meaninglessness

[Muscular_philosopher]

Although Ladyjane is unaware of this…Ladyjane is making the case for Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

[ladyjane]

Therefore, in the definitive sense, linguistics itself is circular.

sorry when i ask what is a number
and all you can say boils down to a circular definition
ie number =number
my thread is proven correct
as you dont know what a number is
so all thinking as dean says ends in meaninglessness

[ladyjane]

one thing is for sure you definition of numbers’
is circular
thus meaninglessness
thus you dont know what numbers are

[ladyjane]

Try observing the definition of “quantity”.

hey u are a mystic
you can observe irrational numbers
so what pi look like -seeing it dont exist as it has no end number

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

Haha, will the madness ever end?

What was with all the threads on sex and man’s members LadyJ? is that math?

[Muscular_philosopher]

A number is part of a set. A numeral is a name of a natural integer. It’s merely a word.
In reality there is only ‘one’. It’s a multiple of ‘one’s’ everywhere you look.

So I can tell you what a number is. It’s a name of a part of a set.

[ladyjane]

A numeral is a name of a natural integer.

a numeral = a number
integer = number
so we get
a number is the name of a natural number
circular meaninglessness
you dont know what numbers are

[MagsJ (Surya Loka)]

Try an abacus, LadyJ: it’ll give you an idea of how numbers came about to quantify an amount - a progression from visually seeing amounts to being able to quantify them verbally, perhaps when people started bartering rather than hunting/gathering…

Most math works / it makes life easier for us: it is used in industry to shape our world - what’s the problem?

[Muscular_philosopher]

@ladyjane

A numeral is a name of a natural integer.

a numeral = a number
integer = number
so we get
a number is the name of a natural number
circular meaninglessness
you dont know what numbers are

Wrong. A numeral is the symbol for a natural integer. Like Bill is a name for a person. A number is part of a set.

And you are looking for a system with no logical blemishes. You should know the axiomatic method leaves basic objects undefined. This allows us to get past primitive questions like yours.

Undefined concepts, in math, settles questions about the concept embodied in the undefined term.

And if everything is meaningless, like you say, your posts are as well.