@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 1 month agonear zeromander.xyzimagemessage-square109fedilinkarrow-up1746arrow-down115
arrow-up1731arrow-down1imagenear zeromander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 1 month agomessage-square109fedilink
minus-square@cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish2•1 month 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-squareKillingTimeItselflinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month 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-square@cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish3•1 month 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’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.