Is one 1?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Is one 1? » Is one 1?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Is one 1?

Fido
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 873

Posted 10/24/07 - 10:25 AM:	#21
Pwrong wrote: Yes, and maybe. By definition, every equivalence relation must have x = x for all x. You seem to have missed the point. There are several meanings of '=', and as soon as you choose one you will know whether or not 1 = one. Note that no matter what your choice, 1 = 1. I think one as applied to living beings means only indivisiblity, and not equality. One doesn't mean indivisibility or equality. It means the cardinality of a set containing one element, like {x}. When applied to living beings it means the cardinality of {Pwrong} or {Fido}. Bark Bark....This is actually an intelligent answer (below), especially the last line. I can't find constants, even in the speed of light, even if the speed of light is an upper limit; but it is as close as we can find to a constant. I must disagree about the indivisibility of one. We have a unitary existence as one person with one life in one group, in one country, on one planet with one moon and one sun in one galaxy in one universe. Most of our concepts are one(exceptions being conceptual manifolds). We all have one justice even if humanity has many words for it. Aristotle was wrong to say the line between vice and virtue was one that divides all of mankind. It is possible to divide vice from virtue, but not to divide humanity so easily as humanity comprises the whole. When one is the whole, and being the whole constitutes existence, or identity -then it cannot be divided. Math either works with an unreality or works with a larger sense of the whole, such as a whole consisting of a hundred that could then bear division by some element. Individuals are wholes that cannot be divided without damage. Individual apples can be divided, but no complete apple can be made out of any number of half apples. This is a reality, and if math relies upon the infinite division of wholes into fractions it is unreal. Conceptual wholes, and individual wholes, ones if you will, are individuals, indivisible that once divided -are destroyed. Math 1 is not a true unit, and not truly one, but a sign that can say one without the full significance of one. It has me thinking of something Karl Marx said, like there is no 110%. We see it all the time even today. But 100% is the greatest possible percent, as cent is the ancient Arian word for hundred, with hundred coming from the Goths. I just realized I put my cart before your horse. Sorry Bark bark bark...Fido [quote] We can keep a ruler at a constant temparature so it doesn't expand. Not all light waves are the same length (radio waves are longer than gamma waves for instance), but they do all travel at the same speed in a vacuum and it is possible to measure this accurately. Time flows at one second per second, if it changed for no reason it wouldn't make a difference.

Fido
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 873

Posted 10/24/07 - 07:06 PM:	#22
I saw a theoretical physicist on the t.v. this evening and he said the speed of an electron is a constant. May be we could base all time and distance units on that.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 538

Posted 10/24/07 - 07:41 PM:	#23
I think that one in language and 1 in math are different in that "one" actually means something in language whereas in mathematics it is merely a symbol which can be manipulated in a specific way in accordance to specific rules of manipulation of symbols. Like we know that for any element of a "a" of a Field X, we have that 1a=a=a1. And that for every element except 0 there is an inverse element such that aa^{-1}=1=aa^{-1}. This is only "one" definition but it is clear that all we are given is a way of manipulating 1 and not a definition for what 1 is.

Fido
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 873

Posted 10/25/07 - 04:13 AM:	#24
mrousseau wrote: I think that one in language and 1 in math are different in that "one" actually means something in language whereas in mathematics it is merely a symbol which can be manipulated in a specific way in accordance to specific rules of manipulation of symbols. Like we know that for any element of a "a" of a Field X, we have that 1a=a=a1. And that for every element except 0 there is an inverse element such that aa^{-1}=1=aa^{-1}. This is only "one" definition but it is clear that all we are given is a way of manipulating 1 and not a definition for what 1 is. I agree with this. For most social, or linguistic purposes there is no number smaller than one. While mathematics is a subset of philosophy, and 1 is a subset of one, for the purposes of math a fractional reality is essential, and one is bounded on either side by the microcosmic and the cosmic infinites. I do not see math, however it is calculated, as being more real or as real as the reality it hopes to illustrate. I also think that socially there is a perfectly good reason that there are no common words to signify a fractional existence. Life appears as units or in multilples of units. Life is the purpose of language, and language is of little use when it denies or defeats that purpose for its inventors. Of course, math is an invention as well, and one that often defeats the desires of those who use it. But we think of equasions being equal to a number rather than meaning something. While two verbs- to be, and to have- are sufficient to conjugate all other verbs, I think humanity has some place to hide in the general that the specific does not afford. The more specific we are the less human we are, and the more specific we make our science and the creations of science, like computers, and robots; the more endangered humanity becomes, and possibly unhappy. It has become impossible to say the check is in the mail with a straight face. The Bank knows how much I have before I do. It is almost possible to believe that the financial and economic powers are able to calculate the value of a life just as the SS could calculate their profit from a prisoner through slavery, and up the chimney. I get tired of every body looking at me like a big dollar sign they can squeeze a few cents out of, but what help am I going to get from people who get lost in numbers like bums get lost in drugs?

Pwrong
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Perth, Australia

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 251

Posted 10/26/07 - 08:47 AM:	#25
I saw a theoretical physicist on the t.v. this evening and he said the speed of an electron is a constant. May be we could base all time and distance units on that. Are you sure he said that? That's not true at all. Electrons can travel at any speed from 0 to c, depending on their energy. Maybe he said the speed of photons, or the charge on an electron? For most social, or linguistic purposes there is no number smaller than one. Um, yes there is. I also think that socially there is a perfectly good reason that there are no common words to signify a fractional existence. If you were half the man I am, you'd realise that such words are very common The more specific we are the less human we are, and the more specific we make our science and the creations of science, like computers, and robots; the more endangered humanity becomes, and possibly unhappy. I think it's a bit unfair to call mathematicians like me less human, just because we're more specific. Animals are less specific than humans aren't they? The Bank knows how much I have before I do. Of course they do, they're holding on to your money for you. They're in a better position to count it.

PeeGee
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
Location: I am omnipresent

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 231

Posted 10/26/07 - 09:36 AM:	#26
I don't see how one and 1 can be different. To me it's akin to translating a word into a foreign language [that does have the term in its vernacular]. So one = 1 = ichi = un = ein, etc etc. All of the terms mean exactly the same thing.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

Fido
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 873

Posted 10/26/07 - 11:34 AM:	#27
PeeGee wrote: I don't see how one and 1 can be different. To me it's akin to translating a word into a foreign language [that does have the term in its vernacular]. So one = 1 = ichi = un = ein, etc etc. All of the terms mean exactly the same thing. Your reply reminds me of a question the German gene police often put to other loyal Germans who might not have had a job, or had too many children illegitemately. It was which is heavier, one pound of steel, or one pound of feathers? Everyone knows which is heavier who has ever dropped a feather on their toe. But, the wrong answer to that might get you in the sterilization line. along with 350,000. 1 is 1 in math only, and in consideration of what it is refering to. One pound, one inch to use language. Or of course in pure math as 1 to 1. Language precedes math, but I guess, not by much since in the West our number words are very old. I am guessing that applied to life it refers to essense, as one is the most and the least a person can be. The only way an entity can be less than one is if the concept is redefined, as in one (half) apple; or if one is considered a fraction of some other group, as in one man is one hundredth of a hundred men. Things can be divided, beings cannot.

boethian
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 42

Posted 10/26/07 - 04:20 PM:	#28
"The only way an entity can be less than one is if the concept is redefined" Yes, but that is about the concept of the entity not the concept of the number. If you call an entity "less than one" you are still using the exact same concept of number. I'd be very interested to see how you imagine legitimately different concepts of one/1. I suspect you are still missing the crucial distinction.

Fido
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2006

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 873

Posted 10/27/07 - 09:34 AM:	#29
boethian wrote: "The only way an entity can be less than one is if the concept is redefined" Yes, but that is about the concept of the entity not the concept of the number. If you call an entity "less than one" you are still using the exact same concept of number. I'd be very interested to see how you imagine legitimately different concepts of one/1. I suspect you are still missing the crucial distinction. I think that is what we do everytime we say all people should be considered equal before the law and everywhere else. Do not get me wrong. I believe people are equal and should have and equal right accross the board. I base this on a 99% + equality of genes in all people. Realistically speaking, if equality of people referes to a numeric quality we are all doomed by some hypothetical standard of quality. It is our basic, general and genetic equality which should result in our political equality, and no specific predetermined prejudice of equality. The fact is that politically, some people are more equal, because of money or power in institutions in society. Once basic equality is dispensed with there is no saying how far the inquality might progress. The force of social expectations is not like the force of gravity on a pendulum which might result in stasis. Let me see if I can put this another way. Once a conserved quality is recognized math works on the reality, but also always works as math, applied only to numbers. But how far that math, applied only to math can be taken into the unknown, and then applied to some future reality is always in doubt. If math is incorrect applied to some reality, it can be corrected. How does one correct math if both the reality it is applied to and possible errors are unaccounted for, as in infinity problems?

boethian
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 42

Posted 10/27/07 - 12:28 PM:	#30
I don't see how legal equality has much to do with mathematical identity. Just because we use the same words like "equality" does not mean we are talking about the same thing. If you want to turn this into a political discussion, better ask elsewhere. I won't argue with your connection between political equality and genetic similarity, for example, but I will say you would need an argument for that (but not here!). You can correctly or incorrectly apply math. At that point I would say it is something else. I think you need to narrow your thoughts and try to understand the concepts separately before seeing how they relate.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.