mathematics is meaningless CANT EVEN TELL US WHAT NUMBERS IS
we have real NUMBERS
natural NUMBERS
complex NUMBERS
irrational NUMBERS
but no one can tell us what this NUMBER IS
DONT SAY NUMBERS ARE QUANTITY
for what quantity is an irrational number
dont say we can pont to numbers on a number line since you cant point to an irrational number -as it never terminates thus it has no end point
dont say i can draw root 2 on a 1 by 1 tryangle
you cant draw root 2 as it never terminates so has no end point
unless you can tell us what this NUMBER is that have sets of
real
complex
irrational
natural
then mathematics must be meaningless- as the philosopher colin leslie dean argues
The problem with that assertion is that numbers work wonderfully well at modeling reality. A lot of post-modern thinking like this is still stuck in the Christian paradigm of total knowledge, but since mathematics makes no claim to total knowledge the question is nonsensical. I don’t know how an atom bomb works, but they still explode quite nicely.
all that says is mathematicians dont what they are talking about even if numbers work -not being able to tell us what they are means you dont know why they work
if you dont know what numbers are then they cant model reality for how can you model reality with something you dont what it is
all this still points to deans arguments that maths and the reality it models is meaningless
But they are quantites. What do you want? Physics and math are the same thing, it’s just that one has units and one doesn’t. I already addressed this, math isn’t meaningless for more than one reason.
By the way, irrationial numbers are just a sum of an infinite series as the length of the series approaches infinity, with each part of the sum being a natural number.
Complex numbers are quantities in an onrthogonal direction to all three axes.
Numbers are class labels, or, put another way, classes themselves. Not only that, but they are classes of classes. The number of a class is the class of all those classes that are similar to it.
Or, a number is anything which is the number (label) of some class.
This is not circular, because “a number” means any number, and the second instance of “number” in the definition is a specific number, which is defined in the opening paragraph. You have asked what “a” number is.
This definition, as it it based on set theory, works for sets that are finite - all other numbers derive from this definiton - which is nothing like unusual for defintions.
I will accept that it is babble once you have read Frege, and Russell “on Frege” and have rendered your critique. Russell requires an entire chapter of a book to give his exposition of Frege’s definition. I can’t reproduce it here, as it is a long, but not complicated explanation.
But you are ignoreing much of what I said. There is a difference between “a number” and “the number” which you do not seem to comprehend.
Dude you’re right, Russell and Frege are just a couple of pompous academic assholes who didn’t know crap. You’ve got it figured out, so why not draft a paper and submit it for publication? I like the reasoning that you’ve put fourth here, and I think you could change the minds of the intellectual community with it. Go forward sir!! Tell the world that math is bullshit!! I think alot of people already agree with you.
The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
When you say meaningless, I don’t think you really mean it in the sense that it’s commonly understood. Are you just throwing it out as a pejorative in order to avoid givina a real critique of math and numbers? That’s like a badly-constructed ad hominem against math,(if math were a person I guess).
Maybe you could be clearer and more comprehensive so that I can see the truth that you’re trying to give us. Help me out, I’m here to learn.
I did read the thread, it’s you who didn’t read my post. You said “don’t say they’re quantities” and I responded by saying that they are quantities. I can’t help it you don’t like the definition.
Another way I know you didn’t really read my post is that you ignored the infinite series remark. Root 2, pi, and other irrational numbers can be represented by an infinite series of rational numbers. As the series approaches infinity, it converges to a value that is practical and meaningful.
And yes, you could have a pi [kg] missile up to a certain accuracy. If your instrumentation can accurately measure kilograms to 10 places past the decimal, just carry out pi to 11 or 12 places, make the missile mass the value of the first 10 digits of pi in kilograms, and you’ll get a ‘pi’ massed missile up to the accuracy we can obtain.