[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 31 KB, 660x574, pepefrog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11604542 No.11604542 [Reply] [Original]

Irrational numbers don't exist. They describe relations between definitions rather than describe relations between values.

>> No.11604663

>>11604542
Elaborate on this please. In particular, what do you mean by "exist" and by "values".

>> No.11604669

>>11604542
Natural numbers are a model for counting.
Rational numbers are a model for proportions.
Real numbers are a model for measuring.
Negative numbers are a model for direction, loans and complete the other number systems in a formally useful way.
Complex numbers are the natural place to ask questions about the existence of polynomial roots, plus they model plane geometry in a very nice way.

>> No.11604675

>>11604669
>NIQR
Well that is just a terrible happenstance

>> No.11604682

>>11604542
Irrational numbers are just ratios between infinitely big integers.

>> No.11604689

>>11604663
idk. values i mean any quantity. numbers are a system to describe these quantities. im high right now. i dont believe irrational numbers exist between these quantities or is a quantity. i think the are something else entirely, not a number. they describe relations between concepts that are not numbers. i don't know how to describe it, but I was just thinking why irrationals are so fucked up compared to other numbers

>> No.11604705

>>11604542
>Irrational numbers don't exist.
Correct
>They describe relations between definitions rather than describe relations between values.
Incorrect, they describe both, for exampke √17 describes the ratio between 17 and... oh fuck you're right. Well played OP.

>> No.11604708

>>11604689
>On irrational numbers
>Anon
>Among the known common classes of numbers, irrational numbers are the most fucked up one. Their unresemblance to the others is so striking, that perhaps what this class describes is not quantity but something else entirely. The absence of systematic method to present the argument should not be a basis for discarding it though, because i was just thinking this, I am high, idk man.

>> No.11604709

An irrational number is a number. But what is a number? A number is a quantity. But what is a quantity? A quantity is a relation that relates itself to itself, or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; a quantity is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself. An irrational number is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a definition. A definition is a relation between two. Considered in this way, an irrational number is still not a quantity.

In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the mathematical the relation between the mathematical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is a quantity.

Such a relation that relates itself to itself, a quantity, must either have established itself or have been established by another.

If the relation that relates itself to itself has been established by another, then the relation is indeed the third, but this relation, the third, is yet again a relation and relates itself to that which established the entire relation.

An irrational number is such a derived, established relation, a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself relates itself to another. This is why there can be two forms of quantification in the strict sense. If an irrational number had itself established itself, then there could be only one form: quantifying another, to do away with oneself, but there could not be the form: to quantify oneself.

>> No.11604711
File: 7 KB, 292x250, square-root-of-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11604711

>>11604542
Here.

>> No.11604723

>>11604689
I was thinking that there's something fishy about irrational numbers earlier today. I think it might just be that they are physically impossible. But I have no rationale for why.

>>11604705
Maybe you're just joking, but √17 does describe a relation between values, namely 17 and 1/2, you're just hiding one of them in your choice of notation.