fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 7 months agonear zeromander.xyzimagemessage-square105fedilinkarrow-up1739arrow-down115
arrow-up1724arrow-down1imagenear zeromander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 7 months agomessage-square105fedilink
minus-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 months 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-squareKillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·7 months 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-squarecucumber_sandwich@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·7 months 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.