In article <sfg1t3$t58$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote in message
> news:sffu9m$13s6$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:37:39 +0100 Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> > wrote:
> >>Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available dimensions.
> >
> > Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.

> Where I worked in my first job, the head of department was called Bill
> Taylor but people referred to him as j-omega. Then I saw his initials J W
> T and it dawned on me: the universal j-omega-t term used in many
> electronic engineering equations - they use j rather than i for
> sqrt(-1), because i tends to be used for instantaneous current. I think
> he must have become an electronic engineer by nominative determinism ;-)

I had a collegue - Jim Cooke - his ininitials were JWC - another J omega C

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <sfg3sk$9c0$2@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/2021 11:26, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 11:21:13 +0100 "NY"<me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
> >> message news:sfg0mq$ifc$1@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 17/08/2021 09:19, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:12:43 +0100 Owen Rees<orees@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not.
> >>>>> We
> >>>>
> >>>> Neither is having 2 cows an abstraction. And so we go in a circle.
> >>>>
> >>>>> As for numbers, why do we use the same sequence of numbers for
> >>>>> counting different kinds of things? There are significant
> >>>>> advantages in doing so but it is not fundamentally necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> What?
> >>>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_tan_tethera
> >>
> >> It's interesting that the sheep-counting numbering system uses a lot
> >> of multi-syllable words for 1-10, whereas we only have one word seven
> >> that has two syllables. By the time you get to 20 you have a *lot* of
> >> syllables to express a number. Though French takes the piss with
> >> contortions such as quatre-vignts-dix-sept.
> >
> > Some parts of the francophone world saw sense and use octante instead
> > of quatre vingt.
> >
> >
> And nonante instead of quatre vingt dix

and what is wrong with four score & ten?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:595d6237eecharles@candehope.me.uk...
>> And nonante instead of quatre vingt dix
>
> and what is wrong with four score & ten?

As a set phrase taken from the Bible (probably King James version), nothing.
But counting in anything other than units of ten (we have ten
fingers/thumbs) is absurd unless there is a good reason for it such as the
fact that computers inherently use binary logic so base 2 or multiples
thereof (eg base 16) makes more sense. Quite where other bases (12 for
feet/inches, 14 for pounds/stones, 16 for ounces/pounds) came from is a
mystery - I blame sheer cussedness ;-) The real problem with the use of
other bases is that for 14 and 16 they didn't invent new symbols for digits
greater than 9, so you get either one or two digits in the same column,
rather than always just one digit.

If humans had been born with 12 digits, we would have learned to count and
do arithmetic in base 12 and would have invented symbols for 10 and 11 (as
expressed in base 10) so we wouldn't have problems. But doing base n (n <>
10) arithmetic when base 10 has been instilled into your knowledge of
arithmetic is where the problem starts.

In article <sfg7ra$631$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>> and what is wrong with four score & ten?

>As a set phrase taken from the Bible (probably King James version), nothing.

That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
"ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.

The famous phrase with "four score" is Lincoln's opening to the
Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.

-- Richard

"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:sfg9o5$um$1@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> In article <sfg7ra$631$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> and what is wrong with four score & ten?
>
>>As a set phrase taken from the Bible (probably King James version),
>>nothing.
>
> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.
>
> The famous phrase with "four score" is Lincoln's opening to the
> Gettysburg Address:
>
> Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
> continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the
> proposition that all men are created equal.

Apologies, I read "four score" as "three score" (and ten). I'd forgotten
that Lincoln used the term "four score". I wonder if it was in wide use or
whether it was an extension of the Biblical "three score".

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:01:25 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:13:26 -0000 (UTC), MrSpud_Fbyeq@ov00mymhsmu.eu
>wrote:
>>I'm not talking about mathematics that does a good enough job of predicting
>>how various laws of physics pan out over time, I'm talking about the
>fundamental
>>underpinnings of reality itself. If mathematics is incomplete as Godel showed
>>it was and it needs various hacks such as complex numbers to work plus
>>oddities such as pi being transcendental when it describes a real physical
>>ratio, reality itself cannot be based on mathematics as we know it.
>
>To take just one example, the minimum distance there can be between
>physical particles depends on the geometry of spheres, which does
>depend on properties of mathematics. Whether it's oranges in a box or
>atoms in a crystal lattice, there is a maximum packing density that
>depends on mathematical rules. Physics is subservient to mathematics.

No, mathematics describes physics. Or at least most of it. Its bugger all use
for understanding quantum mechanics for example other than at a probabalistic
level. Maths decribes, it doesn't explain.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:06:49 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
><mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote in message
>news:sfg2rt$16r9$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>It's interesting that the sheep-counting numbering system uses a lot of
>>>multi-syllable words for 1-10, whereas we only have one word seven that
>>>has
>>>two syllables. By the time you get to 20 you have a *lot* of syllables to
>>>express a number. Though French takes the piss with contortions such as
>>>quatre-vignts-dix-sept.
>>
>> Some parts of the francophone world saw sense and use octante instead of
>> quatre vingt.
>
>Exactly: septante, huitante and nonante (some/all used in Belgium,
>Luxembourg and Switzerland) would seem far simpler and more logical. I
>wonder why mainstream France has never adopted these improvements and has
>stuck with (the equivalent of) four-twenties seventeen that than ninety
>seven.

I suspect the Academie Francais has a lot to do with that.

On 17/08/2021 10:08, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:37:39 +0100
> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 17/08/2021 09:17, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:29:20 +0100
>>> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:02:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>> in <sfd625$1d5r$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>> I can show you minus 3 feet - dig a hole.
>>>>
>>>> People had been diging holes quite successfully for a long time before
>>>> the idea of negative numbers emerged. You can get along quite well with
>>>> positive numbers measured in a different direction, you do not need the
>>>
>>> Numbers going in a different direction is all negative numbers are.
>>
>> It's still very flat-earthy, blinkered and linear.
>
> Not really. Its exactly what they are.
>
>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available dimensions.
>
> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.

That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:35:48 +0100
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>On 17/08/2021 10:08, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:37:39 +0100
>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 17/08/2021 09:17, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:29:20 +0100
>>>> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:02:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>>> in <sfd625$1d5r$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>>> I can show you minus 3 feet - dig a hole.
>>>>>
>>>>> People had been diging holes quite successfully for a long time before
>>>>> the idea of negative numbers emerged. You can get along quite well with
>>>>> positive numbers measured in a different direction, you do not need the
>>>>
>>>> Numbers going in a different direction is all negative numbers are.
>>>
>>> It's still very flat-earthy, blinkered and linear.
>>
>> Not really. Its exactly what they are.
>>
>>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available dimensions.
>>
>> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.
>
>That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.

Ah ok, you're losing the argument so its time for goalpost moving is it? Unless
you really are claiming that the complex plane somehow maps onto 1 of the 3
spacial dimensions?

In article <sfgcnc$7ae$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message

>>>> and what is wrong with four score & ten?

>>>As a set phrase taken from the Bible (probably King James version),
>>>nothing.

>> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
>> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
>> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.
>>
>> The famous phrase with "four score" is Lincoln's opening to the
>> Gettysburg Address:
>>
>> Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
>> continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the
>> proposition that all men are created equal.

>Apologies, I read "four score" as "three score" (and ten). I'd forgotten
>that Lincoln used the term "four score". I wonder if it was in wide use or
>whether it was an extension of the Biblical "three score".

You weren't wrong about "fourscore" (or "four score"). It is indeed
common in the King James. It's "fourscore and ten" for ninety that
isn't used.

But it's tricky to search for examples, because there are so many
variant spellings. I just found that the King James *does* have it
once - in the Apocrypha - as "fourescore and ten" and Wycliffe has it
with that spelling in Chronicles, and there's even a case of
"fourescore and eightene" in Coverdale.

-- Richard

On 17/08/2021 12:50, NY wrote:
> Quite where other bases (12 for feet/inches came from is a mystery
>
> If humans had been born with 12 digits, we would have learned to count and
> do arithmetic in base 12

The dozen is the largest number that can be counted on one hand[1] and
thus the gross is the number that can be counted on both hands.

There is a distinction between counting methods and written numbers.

[1] Move your thumb in turn across the segments of each finger and you
get to 12. Carry the 12 onto the other hand and you count up to 144.

Jim

On 17/08/2021 13:23, Richard Tobin wrote:
> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.

Isn't that just a function of the person who translated it. I doubt
whether the original <insert old language> used that phrase.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:23:44 +0100
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>On 17/08/2021 13:23, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
>> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
>> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.
>
>Isn't that just a function of the person who translated it. I doubt
>whether the original <insert old language> used that phrase.

A bit like "Ye" and in Ye Olde Shoppe. No one ever said "Ye" , its spelt that
way because printing presses imported from Germany back in the middle ages
didn't have the letter thorn available so y was used as the nearest
substitute. Then eventually "th" took over for that sound anyway. In icelandic
thorn is still used.

On 17/08/2021 14:44, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:35:48 +0100
> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 17/08/2021 10:08, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:37:39 +0100
>>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 17/08/2021 09:17, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:29:20 +0100
>>>>> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:02:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>>>>> in <sfd625$1d5r$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>>>> I can show you minus 3 feet - dig a hole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People had been diging holes quite successfully for a long time before
>>>>>> the idea of negative numbers emerged. You can get along quite well with
>>>>>> positive numbers measured in a different direction, you do not need the
>>>>>
>>>>> Numbers going in a different direction is all negative numbers are.
>>>>
>>>> It's still very flat-earthy, blinkered and linear.
>>>
>>> Not really. Its exactly what they are.
>>>
>>>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available dimensions.
>>>
>>> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.
>>
>> That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.
>
> Ah ok, you're losing the argument so its time for goalpost moving is it? Unless
> you really are claiming that the complex plane somehow maps onto 1 of the 3
> spacial dimensions?

Of course you can if you want to.

You started this by confirming that numbers can be mapped onto a
one-dimensional line with direction, so why not use one of the others
for the imaginary component?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:32:27 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:01:25 +0100
>Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:13:26 -0000 (UTC), MrSpud_Fbyeq@ov00mymhsmu.eu
>>wrote:
>>>I'm not talking about mathematics that does a good enough job of predicting
>>>how various laws of physics pan out over time, I'm talking about the
>>fundamental
>>>underpinnings of reality itself. If mathematics is incomplete as Godel showed
>>>it was and it needs various hacks such as complex numbers to work plus
>>>oddities such as pi being transcendental when it describes a real physical
>>>ratio, reality itself cannot be based on mathematics as we know it.
>>
>>To take just one example, the minimum distance there can be between
>>physical particles depends on the geometry of spheres, which does
>>depend on properties of mathematics. Whether it's oranges in a box or
>>atoms in a crystal lattice, there is a maximum packing density that
>>depends on mathematical rules. Physics is subservient to mathematics.
>
>No, mathematics describes physics. Or at least most of it. Its bugger all use
>for understanding quantum mechanics for example other than at a probabalistic
>level. Maths decribes, it doesn't explain.

Perhaps I didn't describe what I meant very well. By "mathematics" I
meant the properties of numbers. Our notation is simply a way of
describing them, but the properties themselves are what they are
regardless of our descriptions. Our mathematical notations and symbols
may describe what we observe in the physical world, but some things
are possible in the physical world and some things are not, so
something must determine this. There are plenty of things that are
only physically possible in particular ways because the relevant
numbers work the way that they do. I offered an example above, and
there are plenty more. It may turn out that since the possible
arrangements of atoms and molecules depend on geometry, and since the
properties of matter depend on these arrangements, maybe all of
physical reality ultimately depends on what is mathematically
possible.

Rod.

In article <sfgk8k$s5k$2@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
>> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
>> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.

>Isn't that just a function of the person who translated it. I doubt
>whether the original <insert old language> used that phrase.

Yes, the word for seventy in the Hebrew (sibim) is related to the word
for seven, not three twenties and ten. Similarly in the Greek of the
New Testament - the King James's "six hundred three score and six" in
Revelation is "hexakosioi hexekonta hex".

The same is true of many of our well-known biblical phrases - their
distinctiveness generally comes from the English of 4-500 years ago,
not from the Hebrew.

-- Richard

In article <sfgh0p$6da$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <jimwarren@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>The dozen is the largest number that can be counted on one hand[1] and
>thus the gross is the number that can be counted on both hands.

It's fairly easy to get to 1023 on both hands, though it takes a bit
of practice to bend all the fingers independently!

-- Richard

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:06:49 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> I read of a German spy (or maybe a British resistance worker) who was
> unmasked in Belgium because he mistakenly used the French four-twenties
> seventeen notation instead of the ninety seven notation, blowing his cover
> as a Belgian. One of those "oh shit" moments like in the film "Went the Day
> Well" when the German invaders, masquerading as British soldiers, were
> unmasked when one gave a child a bar of chocolate with the word Schokolade
> (the German spelling) embossed on it.

It happened in The Great Escape too, where one of the Germans wished 'Hudson'
good luck and he said 'Thank you very much' and his cover was likewise blown.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 12:21:14 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

> and what is wrong with four score & ten?

I expect you'll know by the time you get there.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:16:38 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sffr96$1ppp$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:19:11 +0100
>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:04:27 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>in <sfd66b$1f2e$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>In what way are complex numbers ugly? If you have a simpler way to
>>>
>>>Using a value that cannot exist can hardly be said to be elegant.
>>
>>On the contrary. The usefulness of complex numbers has already been
>>discussed. Defining complex numbers by introducing one constant is very
>>elegant.
>
>You think they're elegant? I guess thats just personal taste. I happen to
>think they're a pig ugly hack.

My description is partly personal opinion and partly what the various
mathematicians I have met and worked with over the years tend to
describe as elegant.

>
>>>As I've already said twice - though apparently being able to read properly is
>>>optional on this group - the human brain probably isn't up to that task.
>>
>>Human brains have created a simple and elegant way to construct the
>>complex numbers by introducing a single constant. Repeating the
>>assertion that that construction is in some way unsatisfactory does not
>>strengthen the argument.
>
>See above.

No additional information detected.

>
>>>Break a stick in 2 - you have 2 halves. Is that too complex for you?
>>>Pun intended.
>>
>>In that example you have two shorter sticks and, for a real stick, the
>>pieces will not be identical. You do not need the concept of 'half'
>>unless you want to describe or reason about what could be or has been
>>done to the stick. Even if you have the concept of "half a stick" you do
>>not necessarily have the more general concept of "half" that can be
>>applied to other things.
>
>You're just playing with semantics in order to try and win the point. It
>doesn't change anything - I could give you half a stick, half a banana or
>half cake. Its still a half.

In that statement, you have just abstracted the general concept of
'half' from the various examples in order to describe the three kinds of
half as having something in common.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:17:56 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sffrbk$1qp7$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:29:20 +0100
>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:02:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>in <sfd625$1d5r$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>I can show you minus 3 feet - dig a hole.
>>
>>People had been diging holes quite successfully for a long time before
>>the idea of negative numbers emerged. You can get along quite well with
>>positive numbers measured in a different direction, you do not need the
>
>Numbers going in a different direction is all negative numbers are.

Not to mathematicians.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:35:31 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sfgl03$1pqb$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:23:44 +0100
>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>On 17/08/2021 13:23, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> That phrase doesn't appear in the King James version - it uses
>>> "ninety". "Threescore years and ten" does of course as the standard
>>> human lifespan in Psalms 90:10.
>>
>>Isn't that just a function of the person who translated it. I doubt
>>whether the original <insert old language> used that phrase.
>
>A bit like "Ye" and in Ye Olde Shoppe. No one ever said "Ye" , its spelt that
>way because printing presses imported from Germany back in the middle ages
>didn't have the letter thorn available so y was used as the nearest
>substitute. Then eventually "th" took over for that sound anyway. In icelandic
>thorn is still used.

The use of Y for thorn due to the lack of the letter in the printing
press could be described as a 'hack' - an expedient stopgap where, with
a bit more time and effort you could have done the thing properly.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:19:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
in <sffrdu$1s3b$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:12:43 +0100
>Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 14:25:11 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>>in <sfdsg7$20q$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
>>>richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>>>In article <sfd69d$1g7m$1@gioia.aioe.org>, <mickspud@downthefarm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Having 2 of something is not an abstraction.
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is. That you see something in common between 2 cows and
>>>>2 pigs requires abstracting away from the animals themselves. It's
>>>>just an abstraction you're familiar with.
>>>
>>>If counting is an abstraction purely because its a way of refereing the
>>>real world then everything is an abstraction - eg , whats a cow? Its just a
>>>collection of atoms after all and atoms are just quarks. Which rather renders
>>>the whole term meaningless and this argument moot.
>>
>>The concept 'cow' is an abstraction, a specific actual cow is not. We
>
>Neither is having 2 cows an abstraction. And so we go in a circle.

Having 2 cows is an abstraction. Farmer Alice and Farmer Bob can each
have two cows - they are not the same cows so the "having two cows" that
they have in common is an abstract concept.

Can you tell how many cows they have between them without ever having
seen the cows? How does that work?

Suppose that Farmer Alice sells her two cows and buys two other cows.
Does she still have two cows? Pay particular attention to the word
'still'.

Meanwhile, I am off to study the Ship of Theseus.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:59:47 +0100
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>On 17/08/2021 14:44, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 14:35:48 +0100
>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 17/08/2021 10:08, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:37:39 +0100
>>>> Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/08/2021 09:17, mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:29:20 +0100
>>>>>> Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 08:02:13 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com wrote
>
>>>>>>> in <sfd625$1d5r$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>>>>>>> I can show you minus 3 feet - dig a hole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People had been diging holes quite successfully for a long time before
>>>>>>> the idea of negative numbers emerged. You can get along quite well with
>>>>>>> positive numbers measured in a different direction, you do not need the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Numbers going in a different direction is all negative numbers are.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still very flat-earthy, blinkered and linear.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. Its exactly what they are.
>>>>
>>>>> Complex numbers are just utilising another of the available dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> Those other dimensions only exist in the human mind.
>>>
>>> That's odd. Most people I know physically exist in at least three.
>>
>> Ah ok, you're losing the argument so its time for goalpost moving is it?
>Unless
>> you really are claiming that the complex plane somehow maps onto 1 of the 3
>> spacial dimensions?
>
>Of course you can if you want to.
>
>You started this by confirming that numbers can be mapped onto a
>one-dimensional line with direction, so why not use one of the others
>for the imaginary component?

Why are you babbling? Do you think it will distract from the nonsense you've
already written?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 17:32:17 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 13:32:27 -0000 (UTC), mickspud@downthefarm.com
>wrote:
>>No, mathematics describes physics. Or at least most of it. Its bugger all use
>>for understanding quantum mechanics for example other than at a probabalistic
>>level. Maths decribes, it doesn't explain.
>
>Perhaps I didn't describe what I meant very well. By "mathematics" I
>meant the properties of numbers. Our notation is simply a way of
>describing them, but the properties themselves are what they are
>regardless of our descriptions. Our mathematical notations and symbols
>may describe what we observe in the physical world, but some things
>are possible in the physical world and some things are not, so
>something must determine this. There are plenty of things that are
>only physically possible in particular ways because the relevant
>numbers work the way that they do. I offered an example above, and
>there are plenty more. It may turn out that since the possible
>arrangements of atoms and molecules depend on geometry, and since the
>properties of matter depend on these arrangements, maybe all of
>physical reality ultimately depends on what is mathematically
>possible.

Or maybe maths is the best we can do to describe reality but is an
incomplete description. AFAIK maths has nothing to say about things such as
the quantum double slit paradox for example.