# Philosophy of Mathematics - Numbers Watch

Announcements

Ok, here goes...

Do numbers start from 0 and go both ways infinitely, or do they have an indefinite beginning?

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

Do numbers start from 0 and go both ways infinitely, or do they have an indefinite beginning?

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**mathematics is bull******?
0

reply

Report

#2

The field of mathematics is indeed human construct, that does not stop it becoming one of the most important.

0

reply

Report

#3

The number 5 doesn't "exist" as a physical object obviously, mathematics is just a language we use to count objects.

0

reply

Report

#4

(Original post by

Ok, here goes...

Do numbers start from 0 and go both ways infinitely, or do they have an indefinite beginning?

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**Zuza K**)Ok, here goes...

Do numbers start from 0 and go both ways infinitely, or do they have an indefinite beginning?

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**mathematics is bull******?
0

reply

Report

#5

**Zuza K**)

Ok, here goes...

Do numbers start from 0 and go both ways infinitely, or do they have an indefinite beginning?

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**mathematics is bull******?

For me, infinity is a number as it is a measurement (like 1, 2, 3....) that I use in calculations (i.e. measurement = number).

0

reply

Report

#6

(Original post by

Working numbers go both ways indefinately as a measurement, but for some people believe infinity is not a number at all.

For me, infinity is a number as it is a measurement (like 1, 2, 3....) that I use in calculations (i.e. measurement = number).

**ThePricklyOne**)Working numbers go both ways indefinately as a measurement, but for some people believe infinity is not a number at all.

For me, infinity is a number as it is a measurement (like 1, 2, 3....) that I use in calculations (i.e. measurement = number).

0

reply

Report

#7

**Zuza K**)

Ok, here goes...

Do numbers start from 0 and go both ways infinitely, or do they have an indefinite beginning?

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**mathematics is bull******?

The answer to the actual mathematical portion of your question is that it depends on how you order the set of numbers (and what that set is, but I think it's fairly safe to assume you mean the real number line).

Your second part appears completely unrelated to the first part, but oh well. Whether or not numbers exist is a legitimate philosophical question but if you take a moment to consider that you're posting this question on a computer it should be entirely evident that that in no way implies mathematics is bull.

**ThePricklyOne**)

Working numbers go both ways indefinately as a measurement, but for some people believe infinity is not a number at all.

For me, infinity is a number as it is a measurement (like 1, 2, 3....) that I use in calculations (i.e. measurement = number).

1

reply

Report

#8

(Original post by

Infinity is not a number. If anything infinity is probably more of a flaw than a strength.

**AishaGirl**)Infinity is not a number. If anything infinity is probably more of a flaw than a strength.

It is a number for the purpose of measurement. If it is removed from the definition I've stated in the previous sentence, then a lot of maths won't make sense.

There are more than one definition of a number. To say categorically that infinity is not a number (any definition) is not scientific IMO.

0

reply

Report

#9

(Original post by

It's a strength. Helps mankind work a whole load more stuff than before. Same with 0. Nobody today would call it a flaw, but they did in the past even calling it satanic. I guess ol' infinity would have to hang out a bit longer until it gets acceptance.

It is a number for the purpose of measurement. If it is removed from the definition I've stated in the previous sentence, then a lot of maths won't make sense.

There are more than one definition of a number. To say categorically that infinity is not a number (any definition) is not scientific IMO.

**ThePricklyOne**)It's a strength. Helps mankind work a whole load more stuff than before. Same with 0. Nobody today would call it a flaw, but they did in the past even calling it satanic. I guess ol' infinity would have to hang out a bit longer until it gets acceptance.

It is a number for the purpose of measurement. If it is removed from the definition I've stated in the previous sentence, then a lot of maths won't make sense.

There are more than one definition of a number. To say categorically that infinity is not a number (any definition) is not scientific IMO.

While yes this does absolutely converge, it doesn't actually in the real world because you cannot have infinitely many items. The concept works, but the reality would never work.

Planck length is deemed to be the smallest physical size an object can be, that geometric series would go beyond that size, forever getting smaller which simply isn't possible. At least as far as we know.

Infinity is basically the plug that just so happens to fit the mathematical hole... in reality this is a flawed concept.

Maybe someone like RDK with more knowledge can weigh in.

0

reply

Report

#10

**ThePricklyOne**)

It's a strength. Helps mankind work a whole load more stuff than before. Same with 0. Nobody today would call it a flaw, but they did in the past even calling it satanic. I guess ol' infinity would have to hang out a bit longer until it gets acceptance.

It is a number for the purpose of measurement. If it is removed from the definition I've stated in the previous sentence, then a lot of maths won't make sense.

There are more than one definition of a number. To say categorically that infinity is not a number (any definition) is not scientific IMO.

Objectively though inifinity is not a number and can't be treated like one.

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**Zuza K**)OR, a counter argument, numbers are man made and have no physical substance, which means numbers do not exist, therefore

**mathematics is bull******?Scientific reasoning involves having an idea, create a model to test it, if it works - keep, if it doesn't - discard. The fact that numbers have stood the test of time and still enable mankind to make great discoveries/advances in all fields - would suggests that numbers are useful. And not bullsh*t at all.

Numbers, like language are symbols representing an idea. For mankind to advance from the stone age, we need symbols to represent more and more abstract ideas, not just the things we can experience directly (see, touch, feel etc.).

0

reply

Report

#12

(Original post by

To say infinity is not a number is not scientific at all. This is simply because science is not concerned with the nature of infinity - this is mathematics which is not a science in my opinion.

Objectively though inifinity is not a number and can't be treated like one.

**B_9710**)To say infinity is not a number is not scientific at all. This is simply because science is not concerned with the nature of infinity - this is mathematics which is not a science in my opinion.

Objectively though inifinity is not a number and can't be treated like one.

Physics is concerned with infinity, and a lot of the maths in both Physics and Maths are the same. You do mechanics in school Maths, right? That's Physics. And Physics doesn't work if you remove all the algebra (that's Maths).

0

reply

Report

#13

(Original post by

Mathematics is a squarely a science, and it underpins all the other sciences. Physics isn't going anywhere without Mathematics. It's definately a TSR popular opinion that Maths is not science. No Mathematician or Physicist holds that opinion. One of my lecturers is a physicist who's escaped the physics lab doing space research to teach Mathematics in IT. I do Mathematics in IT, but I'm getting a whole load of Physics from this dude, which goes to show there is a lot of overlap between the 2 subjects. So if Maths isn't a science, then neither is Physics.

Physics is concerned with infinity, and a lot of the maths in both Physics and Maths are the same. You do mechanics in school Maths, right? That's Physics. And Physics doesn't work if you remove all the algebra (that's Maths).

**ThePricklyOne**)Mathematics is a squarely a science, and it underpins all the other sciences. Physics isn't going anywhere without Mathematics. It's definately a TSR popular opinion that Maths is not science. No Mathematician or Physicist holds that opinion. One of my lecturers is a physicist who's escaped the physics lab doing space research to teach Mathematics in IT. I do Mathematics in IT, but I'm getting a whole load of Physics from this dude, which goes to show there is a lot of overlap between the 2 subjects. So if Maths isn't a science, then neither is Physics.

Physics is concerned with infinity, and a lot of the maths in both Physics and Maths are the same. You do mechanics in school Maths, right? That's Physics. And Physics doesn't work if you remove all the algebra (that's Maths).

Physics would be nothing without algebra as you said but algebra would still be exactly the same without physics.

0

reply

Report

#14

(Original post by

Mechanics is applied maths that does come under physics. Physics is dependent on maths but maths is completely independent of physics. Physics uses maths as a tool to describe results and stuff. But maths isn't the study of 'real' things/object in the world - like physics and all the other branches of science. Physics is most definitely a science - all because it used maths doesn't mean that maths has to be a science - which in my opinion would be wrong to say.

Physics would be nothing without algebra as you said but algebra would still be exactly the same without physics.

**B_9710**)Mechanics is applied maths that does come under physics. Physics is dependent on maths but maths is completely independent of physics. Physics uses maths as a tool to describe results and stuff. But maths isn't the study of 'real' things/object in the world - like physics and all the other branches of science. Physics is most definitely a science - all because it used maths doesn't mean that maths has to be a science - which in my opinion would be wrong to say.

Physics would be nothing without algebra as you said but algebra would still be exactly the same without physics.

Besides, Maths is not independent from physics. The advances made in Physics (and IT) is finding its way back into Maths. Which is why it is possible for a Physicist doing hard core Physics can jump ship and teach Maths and IT. He won't be able escape the lab coat to teach Eng Lit. Eng Lit is definately not a science (its an Arts subject and just as good as a Science IMO).

0

reply

Report

#15

(Original post by

But that doesn't support your argument that Maths is not a science. Independence of one subject from another is not proof that one of the subjects is not a science. All the universities of the world agree that Maths and Physics are Science subjects (STEM).

Besides, Maths is not independent from physics. The advances made in Physics (and IT) is finding its way back into Maths. Which is why it is possible for a Physicist doing hard core Physics can jump ship and teach Maths and IT. He won't be able escape the lab coat to teach Eng Lit. Eng Lit is definately not a science (its an Arts subject and just as good as a Science IMO).

**ThePricklyOne**)But that doesn't support your argument that Maths is not a science. Independence of one subject from another is not proof that one of the subjects is not a science. All the universities of the world agree that Maths and Physics are Science subjects (STEM).

Besides, Maths is not independent from physics. The advances made in Physics (and IT) is finding its way back into Maths. Which is why it is possible for a Physicist doing hard core Physics can jump ship and teach Maths and IT. He won't be able escape the lab coat to teach Eng Lit. Eng Lit is definately not a science (its an Arts subject and just as good as a Science IMO).

__"?__

**and Mathematics**
0

reply

Report

#16

**ThePricklyOne**)

But that doesn't support your argument that Maths is not a science. Independence of one subject from another is not proof that one of the subjects is not a science. All the universities of the world agree that Maths and Physics are Science subjects (STEM).

Besides, Maths is not independent from physics. The advances made in Physics (and IT) is finding its way back into Maths. Which is why it is possible for a Physicist doing hard core Physics can jump ship and teach Maths and IT. He won't be able escape the lab coat to teach Eng Lit. Eng Lit is definately not a science (its an Arts subject and just as good as a Science IMO).

What is your definition of science?

1

reply

Report

#17

**ThePricklyOne**)

Mathematics is a squarely a science, and it underpins all the other sciences. Physics isn't going anywhere without Mathematics. It's definately a TSR popular opinion that Maths is not science. No Mathematician or Physicist holds that opinion. One of my lecturers is a physicist who's escaped the physics lab doing space research to teach Mathematics in IT. I do Mathematics in IT, but I'm getting a whole load of Physics from this dude, which goes to show there is a lot of overlap between the 2 subjects. So if Maths isn't a science, then neither is Physics.

Physics is concerned with infinity, and a lot of the maths in both Physics and Maths are the same. You do mechanics in school Maths, right? That's Physics. And Physics doesn't work if you remove all the algebra (that's Maths).

0

reply

Report

#18

(Original post by

By IT, are you more so talking about computer science?

**_gcx**)By IT, are you more so talking about computer science?

0

reply

Report

#19

(Original post by

This is a subjective argument so you can't really say whether it is or isn't a science - but it is my opinion that maths is not a science.

What is your definition of science?

**B_9710**)This is a subjective argument so you can't really say whether it is or isn't a science - but it is my opinion that maths is not a science.

What is your definition of science?

0

reply

Report

#20

(Original post by

My definition is the same as the one used to separate STEM subjects from Arts subjects in research and academia. But there are some Arts subjects that sits very close to Science in that they have rules that operate in a way that can be defined mathematically.

**ThePricklyOne**)My definition is the same as the one used to separate STEM subjects from Arts subjects in research and academia. But there are some Arts subjects that sits very close to Science in that they have rules that operate in a way that can be defined mathematically.

It says it's a Bachelor of Arts (BA), not a Bachelor of Science (BSc)

Help what do I do?

1

reply

X

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top