31–40 of 211 posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve mentioned in a comment above, I find nothing natural in doing operations related to zero i.e. related to nothingness, meaning that I see “adding” and “zero times” as an oxymoron (you cannot associate an action, “adding”, to nothingness, i.e. to “zero”).
Well by that logic if you have nothing, there's nothing you can do to it, so you will always have nothing, which reconciles quite nicely with multiplying numbers by 0 resulting in 0.
Q: "How many times has it rained this week?"
A: "It has rained zero times"
Zero is a perfectly natural state.
I can understand how natural numbers can be “constructed” (for lack of a better word) as a byproduct of counting, what I could never understood on a deeper level are negative numbers, I can’t see how a number i.e. a count can be lower than zero. Maybe related, while I can also partially understand multiplication (syntactic sugar for adding) I could never understand multiplication by zero, meaning how come when you mu…
I don't have a good explanation of what zero is in this context... Would someone else have a way to explain it (i.e maybe related to the nullspace?).
I can understand how natural numbers can be “constructed” (for lack of a better word) as a byproduct of counting, what I could never understood on a deeper level are negative numbers, I can’t see how a number i.e. a count can be lower than zero. Maybe related, while I can also partially understand multiplication (syntactic sugar for adding) I could never understand multiplication by zero, meaning how come when you mu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't multiplication by 0 natural? If i'm at a party and everybody wants 2 beers, then if there is 1 person I need 2 beers (1 * 2), 2 people need 4 beers (2 * 2), but 0 people need 0 beers (0 * 2).
“Zero people” and “needing” is an oxymoron, nothing (zero) can’t be associated to any natural thing (like “needing”), that’s what I was trying to say in my not so clear comment above. Writing this down I realized we’re still trying to write in fancier words what the pre-Socratics had a clear understanding of 2500+ years ago, and speaking of the Greeks is too bad that Wolfram didn’t mention Plato by name in the first…
If you have 5 empty bags, 5 x 0 = 0.
The word "finger" did not occur so I skipped it.
I mean numbers are fingers but they're also a kind of song "one two three.." you map on things.
Numbers may be (or not, it may depend on our biology) a good initial concept, but maybe something else may be developed, something more "correct" to deal with the tasks of describing reality, something like metric vs imperial units.
The idea of integrating time to your vision of reality in the way it is used in the Ted Chiang's The story of your life (the movie Arrival was based on it) could be a good approach.
I can understand how natural numbers can be “constructed” (for lack of a better word) as a byproduct of counting, what I could never understood on a deeper level are negative numbers, I can’t see how a number i.e. a count can be lower than zero. Maybe related, while I can also partially understand multiplication (syntactic sugar for adding) I could never understand multiplication by zero, meaning how come when you mu…
Isn't multiplication by 0 natural? If i'm at a party and everybody wants 2 beers, then if there is 1 person I need 2 beers (1 * 2), 2 people need 4 beers (2 * 2), but 0 people need 0 beers (0 * 2).
Language is funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't multiplication by 0 natural? If i'm at a party and everybody wants 2 beers, then if there is 1 person I need 2 beers (1 * 2), 2 people need 4 beers (2 * 2), but 0 people need 0 beers (0 * 2).
“Zero people” and “needing” is an oxymoron, nothing (zero) can’t be associated to any natural thing (like “needing”), that’s what I was trying to say in my not so clear comment above. Writing this down I realized we’re still trying to write in fancier words what the pre-Socratics had a clear understanding of 2500+ years ago, and speaking of the Greeks is too bad that Wolfram didn’t mention Plato by name in the first…