So you think you know what a number is

#1

Post by DamonHD » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 8:02 AM UTC

So you think you know what a number is
chris.improbable.org

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#2

Post by badosu » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 3:46 PM UTC

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#3

Post by manaskarekar » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

badosu wrote: post #2

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

I was expecting GEB references.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#4

Post by Maken » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 4:10 PM UTC

badosu wrote: post #2

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

Too bad, it's your old friend Unicode.

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#5

Post by DamonHD » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

manaskarekar wrote: post #3

badosu wrote: post #2

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

I was expecting GEB references. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach

Having actually done a little number theoretical stuff back in the day, I see what you mean, but prosaically this was astonishing enough for me to make the link worth posting:

Decimal characters include digit characters, and all characters that can be used to form decimal-radix numbers, e.g. U+0660, ARABIC-INDIC DIGIT ZERO.

Rigid designators vs definite descriptions for numerals, anyone?

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#6

Post by badosu » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

manaskarekar wrote: post #3

badosu wrote: post #2

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

I was expecting GEB references. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach

This is a pretty good article that could satisfy the headline: https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/large-counta...

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#7

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

Maken wrote: post #4

badosu wrote: post #2

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

Too bad, it's your old friend Unicode.

No worries, I'm sure the next version of Unicode will have a single glyph that provides a complete introduction to the topic.

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#8

Post by DamonHD » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

badosu wrote: post #2

Expecting to see some foundational mathematical logic content, was disappointed.

Terry, is that you? B^>

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#9

Post by ianbertolacci » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

  >>> int("۲۶۷۹")
  2679

Thats pretty cool.

Re: So you think you know what a number is

#10

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Apr 28, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #7

Maken wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad, it's your old friend Unicode.

No worries, I'm sure the next version of Unicode will have a single glyph that provides a complete introduction to the topic.

We need to extend Unicode to account for quantum computing and qubits. It needs to evolve into Qunicode. Text with this feature baked in could be called Quneiform. It should be stored on light-reflecting crystals that are manufactured using kilns.