X instead of 10 (ten) MATH

>>7719310
lmao

so 11 = 10 now?

11 is 11. We don't use a 0.

>>7719310
>base 10
>11 symbols
You broke math

>>7719310
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
Someone didnt sleep last night. We start at 0.
(0,10] is set 1 of 10. Are you some faggot who wants [0,10) to be a set.

there aren't 11 symbols just ten. (X)

>>7719332
>we dont use a 0.
hue hue hue. So 2 is the new 1. Because something has to be 0.
Tfw OP introduces -0 into math

>>7719339
there are no zeros ! No "0" numeral to represent a "zero" as it has no value!

Look, we have TEN WORDS to represent each number! Why the fuck can't we have TEN NUMERALS to represent all TEN as well? We only have NINE currently, and then we start counting over again, makes no sense.


ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN

But in numbers it's 1,2,3,,5,6,7,8,9,10?

So TEN gets to be it's own WORD, but the NUMBER of ten is TWO numbers? MAKES NO SENSE

>>7719343
no zeros. Get it out of head for this

>>7719310

6285

>>7719348
So what is X-X then?

Lets count to ten in chinese characters
一,二,三,四,五,六,七,八,九,十
oh, whats that? Ten has its own symbol!
And, at least how they're used in japanese, 30=
三十, 35= 三十五
Oh. Thats three characters for a number with only tens and units.
It satisfies the things you think are weird and dumb, but presents its own weird dumb things in their place. Learn chinese or japanese if youd prefer those weird quirks to the hindu numeral ones.

>>7719352
why would you get a zero? What use is a zero? You're just erasing TEN (X) you're not actually doing math. Almost like "fuck this math sheet my dog will think it's tasty". That's what zero is, it's not math! A Zero has no value and is a waste of time.

Our education system is othing but napoleon bullshit.

>>7719349
show how you did it. Remember you are not allowed to carry the one.

>>7719348
>no zeros
Gonna be a great system. 1/infinity now breaks the laws of the universe.
Whats the derivative of a constant. How many unicorns do I own. I cant wait to see this new world order.

>>7719357
>That's what zero is, it's not math
Youve clearly never taken a math class. If I can have 4 apples I can have 0 apples (none). Math is the abstraction used to represent ever concept in the universe. A mathematical system that cant represent none is a failure and just an arbitrary system of 0 I mean 1-1 worth.

>>7719365
Zero represents nothing, it cannot be added or subtracted therefore it is not mathematical to use a zero. The concept of "nothing" is simply "without something" in relation to an object. Actual "nothing" itself cannot exist, as it's nothing! Nothing can't be measured therefore cannot be mathematically used in any way.

It's mind control. Napoleon = CIA

>>7719369
>Nothing can't be measured therefore cannot be mathematically used in any way.
This is so bad its not worth it. If you cannot mathematically represent something then your system is flawed. Math is the abstraction of the universe. You have to be able to represent everything with it including the concept of nothing. Are you saying that I can subtract 1 from 2 but not subtract 1 from 1. Its just bad and clearly not thought out. Youre limited to whole numbers. Which is a poorly underdeveloped concept and shows you havent progressed far enough in math to understand why we upgraded to natural numbers, then integers, and more.

>>7719381
a Ten - Ten in normal math is a zero. But this is a waste of time, you're simply destroying the number you started with, you are not getting a value based in "ten".

If you say "Ten pencils minus Ten Pencils" how do you represent that mathematically? There aren't ten pencils anymore, there aren't any pencils at all! It is NOT 'measurable". The object or ojbects that you were trying to measure and do math with are simply no longer there. Nothing to add, nothing to subtract, nothing to multiply and nothing to divide. It's gone.

You cannot measure something if there isn't something there to measure!

>>7719310
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X

But that's wrong.
We have a base ten number system because it goes:
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Which is 10 symbols. We can also multiply or divide in any powers of 10 easily. The same idea goes for any numeric system in any discrete base.
In truth, we should have adopted the base 12 numerics. It's far more elegant, in that 12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. This makes representing decimals such as 1/3, 1/4, and 1/6 without repeating digits.

>>7719385
10-10=0
0-10=-10
Stop being stupid please. Or does your bank account have no way of telling you when you dont have any money.

>>7719390
no because you can't have any number of pencil and say "i have zero pencil in my hand, see this pencil? It's just zero" Like they would say "how many penciels you have in your hand" in old math, you'd say "just one". In this case you'd say "just zero" when zero represents NO pencile? That's not a number. It's NOTHING. It's not applicable to any object.

You cannot have an object in your hand and say "this object is zero" by itself, without comparing it or containing any other object inside of it. Just the object itself, no other objects are part of this discussion. That lone object can never be a "zero".

Ok, you HAVE pencils in your hand right now, therefore when I say "how many pencils do you have in your hand?!" you can't say "ZERO". It is not possible to NOT have what you DO have.

>>7719395
just because the world uses ones and zeros doesn't make zero itself have a value. If i had no money in the bank account, then I just say "nothing".

You can't have a dollar in your hand and then say "i have zero dollars" because it is not a value! Our confusing system cannot represent a ten properly, but that doesn't mean we can't try to change that.

Banks do not control math and logic. Sorry. I have a mind of my own.

>>7719399
>then I just say "nothing"
Great now lets give an abstraction for the concept of nothing mathematically. Lets call it 0. Glad we all agree.
>Banks do not control math and logic
Okay youre honestly stupid at this point. In this system we couldnt begin to hope to understand how physics or any science works nor abstract that to greater mean. As stated before, the abstraction of the universe into mathematical constructs is the greatest achievement man has done.

>>7719406
if you wish to repsent "nothing" with a zero, fine. But it's not a value. ITS NOTHING.

YOU CANT EVER COUNT "NOTHING" BECAUSE THERE EXISTS NO OBEJCT TO COUNT.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS? Are you fucking mentally retarded? YOU CANT COUNT A "NOTHING" of something! NOTHING REQUIRES THAT THE OBJECT YOU ARE TRYING TO COUNT IS NOT THERE TO COUNT! IDIOT.

>>7719397
>I don't understand the concept of zero

Are you seriously this stupid?
Just because it's not measurable doesn't mean it's useless. I bet you think imaginary number i is useless, too.

>>7719409
zero is only useful to represent "nothing". But a TEN is not a "nothing", yet we right a ONE (something) and a ZERO (nothing). So we have One NOTHING? LOL

>>7719408
>if you wish to repsent "nothing" with a zero, fine. But it's not a value. ITS NOTHING.

translated:
>I don't understand vectors

I bet you can't comprehend negative numbers, either.

>>7719410
>So we have One NOTHING?

Yes. That's expressed as [math] 1 \times 0[/math]

>>7719412
negative numbers are an abstract concept and have absolutely no reason to exist. It's just more bullshit brainwashing fuckery. That's all it is.

Do you really think that 9/11 wasn't planned when even Trump is saying it was? You're a fucking idiot. You believe EVERYTHING you say and you are such fucking PUSSIES you can never accept when society gets it wrong. You are a fucking absolute shitbag and should AN HERO IMMEDIATELY.

>>7719413
You can't have "one of nothing" you fucking IDIOT. You are such liberal little babies man i swear to god. You can't fucking think.

You can't have one of NOTHING. You can have nine plus one = ten, but to write it as "one of nothing" means you are retarded.

File: 3q2oqf.jpg (29KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 409x393px

>>7719414
>negative numbers are an abstract concept and have absolutely no reason to exist

File: 3q2oqff.jpg (30KB, 412x394px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 412x394px

>>7719418
>You can't have one of NOTHING

prove it.

>>7719419
oh really? And is this why you can't take away ten objects and then tell me how many are left, which you say is zero, fine OK there's nothing left I never denied that, but now you are saying there is a negative value of something you don't even have? LOL. You can't count backwards from nothing, this is just stupid, dumbass math it's like algebra = completely fucking USELESS.

>>7719423

You're an entirely new brand of stupid. Well, either that or a troll. Reality will hit you pretty hard.

>>7719425
you dumb libtards. I feel sorry for you idiots. You government has brainwashed and lied to you since you were born and you are completely hopelessly dependent on having knowledge of math techniques that have absolutely no capability of being applied to the real world.

I have 8 rocks. You say i can take away 9 of them? But I only have eight? So i take 8 away and that's that, it's ZERO. Not a negative one (-1)

>>7719423
>but now you are saying there is a negative value of something you don't even have?
Right. Negative numbers are a comparative lack of something. Think of it like a logical operator, like the word "is".

1-1. What you're really seeing is +1-1. Combining them nullifies it to 0.

If you borrow money and spend it all, would you deny that you now have negative money? You owe money. You now have less than nothing. Now you're starving and being hounded by debt collectors. You quickly realize your net calorie gain is negative. So it's a loss framed in terms of a gain. It's dualistic.

>>7719430

Are you incapable of using non-discrete units? It's as if you've never heard of a debt, vectors, or even algebra. This is isn't even that hard a concept to grasp.

>>7719435

Don't bother. He can't grasp abstract thought because he's clearly denounced anything that doesn't have an obvious analogy to the real world.
Even if you show him, he'll just call it an illusion, call you a libtard,and then tell you to kill yourself.

Don't bother with him. People like him are beyond saving.

>>7719440
no you can't grasp it. I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Read this shit.

http://scienceandnonduality.com/conversations/is-the-foundation-of-mathematics-fundamentally-flawed/?viewuser=4343

>>7719435
you cannot subtract 9 rocks from 8 rocks. When all 8 are gone, there are no other rocks to subtract. Period.

>>7719448
> It is not a lack or absence of something, but rather the potential for everything.

This is metaphysical bullshit, and incoherent at that.

Stop thinking in terms of discrete terms and think in terms of a number of steps in one dimension.

>>7719457
go back to north korea and learn moar common core you're not dumb enough yet. Stop derailing my thread retard.

>>7719440
I feel obligated to try, because I have done and thought similar things as well. Nothing so retarded as his baseless rejection of negative quantities, but I have equally missed the bigger picture. My own issue was with the notion of using infinity as part of mathematics, and its true source was disgust with people and my own tendency towards view that universe was finite and all aspects ultimately quanitized. People would say shit like "infinite possibilities!" "There are infinite combinations!" "Infinite energy" And I just got fucking enraged and slowly withdrew and became combative. Infinity probably does not meaningfully exist.

I think they're having some kind of similar deal, but with the idea of a lack of something. This is the problem with people going around saying "The universe is math!" "Mathematics is clearly discovered..." (as though there's even a difference). It distracts people with differing views and causes a failure to appreciate the utility, application, and even a sense of beauty in higher dimensions, infinities, different ways of viewing space. That comes from someone who has said, word for word, "the majority of mathematics is an ugly hacked together mess of near arbitrary garbage that likely fails to meaningfully reflect the universe as it actually is."

Anon. Just try to realize what this logical framework really allows you to do, and what it's saying. It doesn't matter if you can't envision the comparative lack of an object (which is ridiculous because the material world as constructed by our faculties clearly has negative quantities "natively"), learn it and see how it all works.

>>7719451
What if you lost your 8 rocks, and then something happened to cause you to need 1 more than you started with?

Relative to the starting condition of 8 rocks, you now have negative 1. You lost 8, and now you need an additional one as well. Needing 9 is also having -1.

At that point you might as well just view it as having -9 though. You have -9 rocks.

>>7719465
well a decent reply. Thank you.

Ok i will reply to this respectfully.

I've already talks about rocks. Ok, let's say, cars. I have 8 cars, but you are telling I can subtract 9 cars? I don't have 9 cars, so how do you end up with a -1 car? Is the space that 9th car would be sitting in actually just a vaccuum, a black hole? I'm curious to know how you view that. Thanks.

>>7719468
then we need 9 rocks, DUH. Not -1.

>>7719465
He, like you used to, is making a value judgement rather than using his higher level rational thinking. Obviously, people are inclined to believe what they want to believe (and conversely tend to refuse to believe what they don't understand/don't like). Infinity as a concept exists, but even though it isn't a quantifiable number (or even exists on the number line at that) doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses. For example definite integrals (1/x^2) and values as the limit of some variables approach infinity. This lead to other discoveries such as the mathematical constant e, and this number also tied together complex numbers (numbers with imaginary parts) with real numbers on a quantifiable level. They have real uses for vector transformations and electrical engineering (namely AC circuits), but this is higher level thinking is done by people who are able to abstract at a young age. Unlike you, he doesn't have the inquisitive mind to ask "what if?" and instead shuts himself off entirely, satisfied with his own ignorance in his incomplete model of his little world. Let him sit in the dark.

>>7719470

Stop thinking in terms of a number of objects and think in terms of a number of steps in some direction.

>>7719474
that's what i'm doing. You can't take a step back from nothing. Because there isn't anything more to count! Nothing is already the absolute rock bottom. You can't go "lower" than zero.

If you are telling me that we cannot apply negative numbers to actual real world things, then you are saying that doing algebraic negative math is absolutely pointless, as you could only do it on paper. But what use is this? You can't apply it to anything!

>>7719346
Because of how the numeral system works. Let's have a look at the number 10120. You can easily tell what this number means when we have a zero literal. We start at the right, and the first number is zero. This means we have zero ones. The second number is two. This means we have two tens. Then one hundred, zero thousands and finally one ten thousands. So the number is ten thousand one hundred and twenty. With the x for ten system the real value of the number is not as easily and intuitively perceived.

>>7719481
it's how our BACKWARDS AND COMPLETELY ABRITRARY number system works.

My argument is that we should CHANGE the way the system works. Pretty easy to understand. Not hard...

OP this is called a base 11 number system. It would provide no benefit over a base 10 system like the one we use. Math would be the same, zeros don't magically disappear, or any other stupid bullshit that the rest of this thread has conjured up.

Base 11 is not used because it's more complicated to convert it into any other system, such as binary, hex, or decimal. Also because it serves no practical purpose to change.

Now, OP seems to have too many chromosome jam packed in his DNA, and wants to get rid of zeros. Shit won't work. Sure it looks good for addition, I guess, but in pretty much every other facet of math would break. Don't give me any of that "ohh you just arnt thinking abstract enough". No. Derivatives would break, integrals would break, division would break, algebra would break, binary systems would be non existent. Zero isn't just "nothing" it's also "not something" and by getting rid of that, you are forcing everything in math to be a real number value and that just doesn't make sense.

>>7719480

You've got it wrong.
When you step forward, you step forward from where? Some origin. one step forward, two steps forward, etc. What if you started walking backwards? 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 (the origin), -1, -2, etc. That would be negative numbers. There is a sense of direction in the opposite direction when given some frame of reference.

>>7719483
Nope not 11 base system. It is TEN based. (X)

WE DO NOT COUNT ZEROS. Zero as a CHARACTER TO TYPE ON A COMPUTER, in THIS case of mathematics, simply represents a NON-VALUE it tells us "ok this does nothing, fuck it, let's go over there and do that thing instead!"

You can't add "nothing" to something. What is 1=0? It's a 1! You can't use it to apply to anything, so why on EARTH are we using it to reprsent TEN as a ONE plus a NOTHING when One+Nothing(zero)=ONE

I think OP has legit autism. His prefrontal cortex isn't working properly, by the looks of it.

>>7719484
what is the point of doing a -1 with a 3? You can just write a 2... rather than having to remember 2 different characters. You just remember the normal number, which is 2. You make no sense.

It's like you are trying to gas your vehicle up when it already full but you insist that due to our SHITTY fucking math system that we must fill up an already full tank.

Negative values are mind control. Algebra can NOT be used in the real world. It's bullshit. All of it. The only things that make sense in our CURRENT math system is to add/multiply/subtract/divide any number ranging from a "1" to a "9". That's pretty much it.

>>7719489

-1 is written with two characters for convenience. It's actually one quantity, just like any positive number.
Stop thinking everything you don't understand is mind control. You're coming off as some a dumbass. Seriously, are you even old enough to brows the site?

>>7719495
yeah, you think having to remember the negative one value of 3 being "3 -1" instead of just the actual number itself which is 2, is convenient?

So you believe writing "-1 of 3" is more efficient than just typing "2". You are brainwashed.

>>7719499

You're the dumbass who can't even represent it properly. It's clear you don't want to learn, seeing as not only you're not only so willfully ignorant but also straw-manning. I'm not going to teach someone who shows no respect.

>>7719501
yeah i can't represent it when you HAVE to think "3 and -1" to understand how you are even using negative math! That's MORE efficient to you than just writing a "2" or two. You're an idiot.

>>7719506

You can't represent it because you have the wrong idea. You yourself admitted you don't understand it.
And since I'm leaving, you probably will never understand it. Enjoy your limited little world where you can't count past 9 or below 1. Goodbye.

>>7719508
I do understand what you are saying. It's you that doesn't understand what you are saying.

>>7719310
628HALFX

628<

Or 628>

Or 628\

Or628/

Fives = halfx

>>7719515
sadly your post there was the most intelligent one, besides mine of course.

File: images (2).jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>7719517
'Preciate it, buddeh.

>>7719310
What you just did is create a new base for the number system. Shit's been done a long time ago. If you're interested, look up hexadecimal digits.

>>7719346
We have exactly ten numerals
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
End of thread.

>>7719527
0 is not a number. A number is a count of something, a zero is nothing, or the absence of a thing to count.

>>7719530
OP, what number satisfies this equation 2+x=2?
OP, what number satisfies this equation x+3=2?

>>7719533
2+X = 2X (or how you're used to thinking of it which would be 30, but again WE DONT NEED NO FREAKING ZEROS)

x+3 = 13

>>7719535
shit sorry i fucked up. I meant to write 12 for the first, i was thinking differently. Yeah because i'm redoing the whole math system which includes how we look at how things are added but nevermind. I got confused.

2+X = 12

x=3 = 13

>>7719521
Well mem'd you cancer.

>>7719536
You misunderstood me.
What value of x will satisfy the equation 2+x=2?
What value of x will satisfy the equation x+3=2?

For the record, 2+12=14, or 13 in your base 1 to A (A being 10).
And 13+3= 16.

>>7719539
OOOOOH. Lol. Well thanks for adding to the merry confusion. Merry Halloween btw!

>>7719541
So, will you answer the question? I will refer to the numbers in your base 11 system as 0rx (as in 0rx10 = 11), to avoid confusion. The r stands for retarded

FOUR SIMULTANEOUS ROTATIONS!

File: 1450076342339.jpg (68KB, 530x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 530x600px

>>7719353
When it comes to math and most things in Japan, they use the standard 0123456789 digits. The kanji for numbers are used more traditionally (e.g. 三十三間堂 - '33 length hall', a Buddhist temple full of statues), though the kanji system still exists, is taught and understood by everyone in Japan. Though I'm sure a fellow weeb such as yourself already knows all of this *le fedora tip* :^)

>>7719482
No. This current system goes from the most significant digit to the least significant. The Romans had X, and they couldn't really do multiplication easily. We can with the way this number system works. Also, this number system is better than all the ones before it, because it is the only one to really remain. You shouldn't innovate backwards into something we had that didn't work, but rather make up something useful and new, maybe we can try that.

>>7719693
lol listen to this guy who thinks he knows an Ancient Roman.

I already explained it. Get rid of zeros, and only have X to represent TEN. So instead of 2 numbers to reprsent a TEN (10), you only have one. More efficient is more efficient.

Hey guys OP here just wanted to also mention I'm a massive faggot

>>7719759
this

and I would also like to add that doing this same type of shit with TWELVE base numbers results in better 3rds that never find a forever-repeating decimal. a third of 10 is 3.33333333+foreverinifninty

Whereas a third of 12 is 4, etc.

>>7719310
http:/ /www.calculand.com/unit-converter/zahlen.php? zs= 11

>>7719399
Lmao is this guy for real

christ, this thread is still up?
Man, this autist just can't learn can he.

>>7719425
Being bad at math != bad shit happens to you in real life, so I think he'll continue onlike anyone =^)

>>7719530
The amount of times you got out of your basement is a count of something. And it is zero, therefore zero is a count of something.
You're not onto something, you're just pretending to be smart.

>>7720553
zero means what you are trying to count is zero. Youc an't look at something and say "hey that's zero there, i see it there" it does not exist. It's nothing. It's a relative concept, which means it depends on an actual real number of an actual real object in the actual real world to be useable. But you cannot count it. 0+0 = 0 ?

That equation is useless and redundant. Zero is zero, period. There is no reason to attempt to do math with it, it does not add value.

This is counting

1+2=3. Why is this counting and not 0? Because counting involves adding new numbers to each preceding number. That means i can go 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X. (ten)

but with zero, i can't add anything to it. The fact that you can write "0" doesn't mean you can count with it. Just because you retards can count how many "zeros" you can type in your word processor, doesn't mean it has any value.

In the case of counting "zeros" (0) in this thread....

0000000000

Of course I can count them, but then we are OBJECTIFYING A PHYSICAL OBJECT, in this case it's photons on your fucking screen, if you printed out, it's ink on your fucking piece of paper. But those are actual things that have value, the meaning behind zero however DOES NOT.

if 0+0+0+0+0=ZERO in MATH, then what we are doing by counting zeros isn't related to the actual PROPOSED mathematical definitino of zero, which, as I just demonstrated, cannot add any amount to any other number.

0+0+0+0+0+INFINITY_0= ZERO. PERIOD.

But again, if you were to count the PHYSICAL SYMBOL of zeros, well then yes that's math, but you can't do the math with it with just 0.

So the first zero is actually a 1, the second zero is a 2. 1+1=2. But mathematically speaking you couldn't look at those 2 zeros and go, 0+0=2, as in math YOU FUCKING KNOW that you can't do that. you can do a "1 zero + 1 zero = 2 zeros" but you cannot go "zero + zero = two" It is not possible and stfu and stop playing semantical bullshit games. Just stfu and accept it.

>>7719310
You're sort of right that saying "base 10" is retarded, and it should in fact be stated "base ten"

It's just a way of representing base 10, changing it is redundant. I have no reason to think your system wouldn't work (even if you're a bit confused by the number 11) but it has no real reason.

The 0 isn't redundant, because our numbers are representing;

..001
..002
. . . .
..008
..009
..010

and so on. It's just easier to only include the other zeros when they're relevant, like in the number 10.

>>7722020
>"0+0 = 0 ?"
>"That equation is useless and redundant."

>I have no sheep in my paddock
>I have not put anymore sheep in my paddock
>I still have no sheep in my paddock

>"but with zero, i can't add anything to it"

>I have no sheep in my paddock
>I found one sheep outside my paddock
>I'll put it in my paddock
>I now have one sheep in my paddock
>0+1=1

Yeah, we get it, zero means nothing. Give us an ACTUAL reason NOT to have a digit to represent it.

>>7722026
base X

>>7722047
it's a symbol not a digit. Your computer does not "process zeros". In a series of transistors, the 0 is not "read" because it does not contain an electrical charge.

It's like if i have a series of light switches on the wall for 8 lights, i turn on any 2 of them, well the other switches aren't doing anything.

You don't fucking read. I already said zero (0) is a fine thing to describe the "absence of something". Sure, but in math it cannot add value to numbers. Math is a real verifiable thing, zero is a relative abstract, CONCEPTUAL thing.

Zero itself cannot be "added" subectracte, divided or multiplied to anything, it's just zero by itself, therefore making the use of it in equations absolutely 100% totally pointless. It's redundant.

>>7722047
oh and btw, your equation is uselss as i just stated. You just have "1". You don't need to think "zero + 1" you just have 1, there is no reason to think "i had zero but i have this sheep here now, wait I can't say it's "1 sheep" gotta do what the schools brainwashed me to do " Ok let's waste time and say, zero and how many sheep do I have? 1 ok but we can't say 1 sheep yet, ok ZERO SHEEP + ONE SHEEP = ONE SHEEP?

Why dont' you just say "1 sheep" instead of "zero sheep + 1 sheep = 1 sheep". It's redundant and fucking insane.

>>7722060
>>7722047
I'd be up for using Base Sheep.

>>7719310

So much autism

You're really getting your terms mixed up. Kek, you're just a faggot trying to be smart. There's a reason why they leave the big boy maths up to those who go to university.

>>7719530
0 is a number. It's a digit, an idea, a concept. It can be used for high-end math. On a Cartesian or real-imaginary plane, the origin (i.e. 0,0 or 0+0i) is still a place. It doesn't have a QUANTITY, but that does not mean it can't be QUANTIFIED.

An example if you can't get your head around this distinction:
>I'm in a car moving at 10m/s
>It has a speed
>The quantity/amount/magnitude of that speed is 10 (or whatever equivalent number in the units you choose to express speed in)
>I have quantified the speed (i.e. measured) and found the quantity to be 10
>I'm in another car
>It is not moving
>It's speed is 0m/s
>It does not have a speed
>I have quantified that speed and found it to be nothing
>I will express this as 0 (because notation saves a fuck-load of time)
>I have QUANTIFIED the speed but it does not have a QUANTITY (i.e. amount/magnitude)

>>7719482
Read up on how bases work and the history of additive number systems (e.g. Roman numerals) and positional number systems (e.g. bases). You'll understand a lot more and spew a lot less shit out of your mouth (hopefully).

>>7719489
>"what is the point of doing a -1 with a 3?"
>I am in debt to the bank by 1 dollar
>I found 3 dollars
>I put it in the bank
>Now I have 2 dollars in the bank

>"Negative values are mind control"
Yeah and trigonometry is the iloominati, isn't it?

>"Algebra can NOT be used in the real world"
>My friend says he has 20 apples
>He was originally given 3 apples, then he doubles his amount of apples by buying some more, leaving him with the 20 apples he currently has
>How many apples did he start with?
>(x apples + 3 apples) doubled equals 20
>(x+3)*2=20
>(x+3)=20/2
>(x+3)=10
>x=10-3
>x=7
>The friend started with 7 apples
If you do not understand this, I can only conclude that you're a troll. I would call you autistic but you can operate a keyboard to coherently express your crazy ideas so you can't be that.

>>7722057
>"it's a symbol not a digit"
It's a digit, you knob-head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29
First line.
Also:
"0 fulfils a central role in mathematics as the additive identity etc etc."

>"the 0 is not "read" because it does not contain an electrical charge"
Read my distinction between quantity and quantification (i.e. measurement). It doesn't record a charge yet it still interprets the absence of charge as something to record.

>"You don't fucking read"
I do read. I passed first grade and I'll be damned if my ability to read isn't recognised.

>"Zero is a concept"
Yeah, it is, but so is infinity. HAEV I BLOWEN UR MEIND YET?

>>7722060
No your equation is useless! ;-; Yeah, of course you'd just think there were one (1) sheep, but if you want to express the idea that there were no (0) sheep to being with, 0 is a handy digit to use.

>>7722083
it is not a digit. It is a relative concept. You cannot count "zero" of something. I can't say "look what i have in my hand, it's zero coins in this hand here" and my friends are just going to look at me like I'm fucking insane. Because i'd have to be to waste my time saying that shit, unless of course it were to make them laugh at me. If that's what I wanted ok, but to do math, you cannot count zero. Counting things have value, 0 is not a count of anything, it is the ABSENCE of an object you are trying to count. It's really that simple. Stop trying to heal your bruised ego with semantics and quack logic by trying to beat a dead horse. Stop trying to give meaning to something, of which it's ONLY meaning is in fact - NOTHING. It's NOTHING. THere is no more meaning to NOTHING other than NOTHING. PERIOD.

>>7722095
the computer does not process zeros. It can only REPRESENT a zero, it CANNOT process them. So if you were to read something in a hexeditor, you would see the 1s and 0s yes, but they are representations. When the computer tries to read a PURE binary string but ONLY to display the DATA on that binary string, as of course we ARE using a hexeditor, it can ONLY read the 1s. It is programmed to light up only the ones as it reads them. The spaces of "ZEROS" are only representations that are relative to the ones. How do we know this? Because no file can exist without at least a few 1s. Might be a small file, but if it doesn't ones it cannot be a file. It is nothing but empty space, devoid of any code whatsoever for the computer to read.

For a computer to read a file, it must have 1s in there somewhere to tell the computer what to do. The zeros cannot be read. Honestly you need to take a computer class and understand how computers work. You are thinking about this all wrong and I dont have time to hold your hand to explain it to you.

>>7722122
>what is an and gate
Jesus anon.

>>7719399
>"Our confusing system cannot represent a ten properly"
>System is base 10
>Base 10 means that the position of numbers is expressed in powers of 10, beginning at 10^0 for the ones units (because in any base n, n^0 = 1)
E.g. 123 is 3*10^0 + 2*10^1 + 1*10^3
= 3*1 + 2*10 + 1*100
= 3 + 20 +100
= 123

>"relative concept"
Do you know what the word relative means? You sound like someone trying to act smart and you're not doing a good job of it.

>"and my friends are just going to look at me like I'm fucking insane"
Your friends are going to look at you like you're insane, yes, but it will be because you're trying to convince them that '0' is black magic and nobody needs it. Seriously though, yeah, they'd think you were weird for saying you had 'zero coins in your hand' . You're right, that's just because it's a WEIRD THING TO SAY. It's just socially weird, but it has NOTHING to do with the validity of what you're saying.

>"Counting things have value, 0 is not a count of anything, it is the ABSENCE of an object you are trying to count. It's really that simple."
You do know that there are people in big buildings who do maths beyond 1st grade math? It's not just counting things.

>"Stop trying to heal your bruised ego"
My ego has nothing to do with this. This is anonymous, I couldn't care less what strangers thought of me, someone they can't even identify.

>"Because no file can exist without at least a few 1s...For a computer to read a file, it must have 1s in there somewhere to tell the computer what to do. The zeros cannot be read."
If you wipe a hard drive, it'll be full of 0s. Put it in the computer and it will detect the hard drive. It will know it's there, it will be able to tell there's no information on it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The computer has the 1s that tell it what to do with the hard drive.

File: images.jpg (9KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x200px

>>7722122
>"Honestly you need to take a computer class and understand how computers work"
I thought we were discussing the number 0, not computers. Of course now that you've realised you've lost that debate you'll move onto something you think you'll win at.

>"I dont have time to hold your hand to explain it to you."
Kek I've just wasted your time *le funny troll face XD*

>>7722139
more fucking useless tripe.

Zero (0) represents NOTHING. This means you cannot "add it" to anything.

You are adding nothing but useless fucking data bits in your thread there, typing 0s and of course, not doing math with it. You're just completely obsessed with this "zero" thing, because it doesn't do anything, you've been told it does by your liberal teachers and therefore you can't accept it completely. You are infatuated with the concept of their being nothing, but this does not mean it is useful in math at all. Get rid of all the zeros in your fucking post, and your math will still be the same. Using zero to do math is USELESS. It does not add value to the numbers so why are you using it when I can do the SAME EQUATION without using them at all? ITS POINTLESS AND STUPID TO ADD ZEROS TO ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU JUST END UP GETTING A ZERO INSTEAD OF ANOTHER NUMBER, so why the hell did you add a zero in the first place? IT DOESNT ADD ANYMORE VALUE TO THE EQUATION! ITS FUCKING REDUNDANT!

File: sd.jpg (456KB, 1365x639px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 1365x639px

>>7722146
Bro, it's not like I jerk off to zero. I don't have some infatuation with it. I am trying to explain it's use, practicality and why we have it. Have you read up on positional and additive number systems? They alone are reason enough for 0 to exist and use day-to-day.

>"getting rid of all the zeros in your fucking post, and your math will still be the same"
Lol nup.
E.g. 123 is 3*1^ + 2*1^1 + 1*1^3
= 3*1 + 2*1 + 1*1
= 3 + 2 +1
= 123

Show that to someone and they'll truly call you insane.

The fact that adding or subtracting a 0 to or from a number doesn't change the original number does not mean that 0 is useless. Calm down, the fact that you've thought of a different number system does not make you a special snowflake. You simply added another digit (X) which made it base 11, then got rid of 0 for some reason and tried to justify it. Your system might work, but this one does too. It's easy for people to understand, simple and intuitive. I think you just missed the lesson in 1st grade where they covered the number 0.

It is used in math. The definite integral of 0 to 5 of the function f(x)=x+5 with respect to x measures area between the curve of the function f(x)=x+5 and the x-axis from the origin (0) to 5. See pic related. 0 has a use. The origin of a Cartesian plane (0,0) means that there is no magnitude in the x or y direction. The number line ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3... is the same thing, just in one dimension, with a forwards and backwards, as opposed to the plane where you have two dimension, with an up, down, forwards and backwards.

>>7722175
it's use is only to represent there being nothing. Which means it is useless in MATHEMATICS. Nothing is an absolute concept, which means TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY *NOTHING*, but can only be used in RELATION TO SOMETHING. you can't add nothing to nothing, AS THERE ISNT SOMETHIGN TO ADD! ITS NOTHING!

PEEEERRRIIIOOOOOD.

kek
>"absolute concept, which means TOTALLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"
The adjective form of absolute (the first one) does not mean the same thing as the adverb form (the second one you used).

>"you can't add nothing to nothing"
Do I need to bust out Base Sheep again?
>I have no sheep in my paddock
>I did not put anymore sheep in my paddock
>I still have no sheep in my paddock
>0+0=0

Calm down, man. Please. Overthinking it doesn't help, trust me. Many of my friends freak out when they don't understand a relatively complex topic such as group theory or complex numbers because they always understood things taught to us in HS. I don't freak out when I don't understand something. I sit there, I listen. I take my notes, I talk to my professors, I do a bit of research and try to put things in terms I can understand (e.g. Base Sheep). I don't force the ideas, I take breaks to exercise and chill out, even if it's something simple like talking a walk to a restaurant and asking to be sat somewhere quiet so I can think quietly. I'm the top of my classes and I can confidently say I do about half as much work as my friends do, who stress out infinitely more times than I do.

Saying "PEEEERRRIIIOOOOOD" and getting angry proves nothing. You've been on the internet for too long.

>>7719627
>japanese basically always use [foreign thing,] [japanese thing] is only used for traditional purposes
I see this all the damn time and its always an exaggeration or an overstatement. I dont know enough about the use of numbers there to say anything seriously, but Wikipedia says chinese numbers are used in most vertical writing, and I know ive seen them in signs or logos before.

Shit, this is still here? At first I was sure this was bait, but I don't know if anyone is dedicated enough to keep it up for this long.

>>7722275
Well I went to Japan, I hardly saw tradition numbers. It's just a lot more convenient for them to use Arabic numerals when do math and whatnot.

Japan has a type of vertical writing done on something called genkoyoushi paper. I don't know what the Chinese called it but it's pretty much the same thing. But in Japanese, when you want to express an elongated sound in an English word, you use the katakana script for the English word and elongate the sound with a simple vertical line like so: 一. But that line also represents the kanji for one, prounounced いち (ichi), so context is key. And it's trendy to use katakana for Japanese words so you might see a clothes store - in Japanese hiragana script (used for Japanese words) it would be ふくや literally meaning clothes store - written in katakana as フクヤ (fukuya). Identical pronunciation. Just a weird thing they do to try and be more western I guess.

Vertical writing can be seen in books or menus and it wouldn't be viewed as out of place but they tend to use standard left to right in normal every day life on signs and chocolate wrappers.

China and Japan share all the same characters (as Japanese adopted Chinese characters) so they share the same meanings. However in Japanese, the characters are pronounced differently depending on whether or not they're with any other kanji characters. E.g. by itself, day (日) is pronounced ひ (hi). But when it is with another character, like 毎 (mai, meaning every), it is said as にち (nichi). So 毎日 is pronounced as まいにち (mainichi).

When it comes to numbers, pronunciation doesn't change whether it's just a single character or multiple ones.
一 (ichi) means one
三 (san) means three
四 (yon) means four
六 (roku) means six
十 (jyuu) means ten
百 (hyaku) means one hundred

31 would be 三十一 and said as 'san jyuu ichi'
604 would be 六百四 and said as 'roku hyaku yon'
364 would be 三百六十四 and said as 'san hyaku roku jyuu yon'

File: image.jpg (62KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 736x552px

Is OP describing the number system we use for counting(quantifying?) the years? there is no year 0. is the numbering system for the years base 10?

>>7722482
OP is just trying to create a system that does not use the digit 0 because he doesn't like/understand/want to use it. There is a year 0. It was 2015 years ago. And yeah, years are base 10. Just about all numbers you encounter are base 10. Other bases include base 2, otherwise known as binary, which is just 1s and 0s, but binary has no use beyond computers.

Kek it's this >>7719310 faggot again trying to argue against 0.

>>7722275

Kanji numbers are like roman numerals in the west. They're used whenever you want something to look cool.

File: image.jpg (15KB, 200x110px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x110px

>>7722525
i see. thank you. while agree there was a year 2015 years ago that we could call year "0" it seems anno domini or common era systems don't use it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)

so is OP describing the anno domini/common era system?

File: image.jpg (65KB, 516x566px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 516x566px

while OP may potentially be an asshole his ideas aren't wild. writing was invented 5500 years ago (3600BC) and 0 was invented 1400 years ago (600s AD). the majority of our history of writing there was no 0. Pythagorean theorem is older that 0.

>>7722588
yeah and i revised my theory.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X

That's our first ten.

our second ten is:

21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,2X

We skip over "1", because the first, or "one" ten was already counted.

This makes it easier. So 100 would now be XX. Of course I've already stated in this thread if you are going to use TEN-BASE math we need to not count higher than TEN (X) itself, but instead use groups of ten so the XX (hundred) can just be written as "X" again.

Man this is awesome :)

>>7722690
This is even dumber than your original idea

>>7722714
yeah i know i'm pretty smart.

21 = (old 11) 22=(old 12) and up to 2X (old 20 or TWENTY)

So we just drop the words "eleven twelve thirteen (all the way through) nineteen" and give it "twenty one" which equates to 11 value wise.

Just use base 11 you fucking retard
holy fuck

>>7719310
>we just invented the concept of 0
Gee guys lets remove the concept of 0.

No my good sir. This is not a good concept. No sir this is a lazy concept. No sir we severely need the 0.
Perhaps sir you should get acquainted with mathematics a bit more before you spout your dumb shit.

I do realize that it is most likely a troll though or a pot monkey.

>>7719310
>0 has no purpose
Holy fuck

>>7722690
>So 100 would now be XX
Kek no it wouldn't be, it would be 9X.

>>7722570
Op's not talking about years at all. He just doesn't understand the usefulness of expressing the concept of nothing as 0 and the usefulness of negative numbers and is trying to create his own crackpot number system which is basically base 11 without a fucking 0 which is needed for ANY base to function coherently and consistently.

Pretty amusing how /sci/ likes to constantly shit on philosophy for being 'useless', but then a thread like this with an idea as useless as this gets 127 replies.

>>7723589
i fixed it. We no longer use 11,12,13,14,15 etc. We go directly from X (TEN) to 21. This allows proper categorization. So if HUNDRED means TEN TENS, then easy to write "XX". Easy.

>>7719310
Congratulations. You're now in base 11.

>>7722179

Einstein has proven that everything is relative and there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference.
Your point is moot.
When you say "there is one can of soda", one more than what? Obviously, you need a frame of reference even with your 'absolutes'.

>>7719343
negatives, zeros, and decimals do not exist, heathen

>>7723719

You've obviously never worked with electricity or AC circuits. Protip: if you think zero is weird, just wait until you come across imaginary numbers.

>>7719346
Why do you type like a dizzy faggot?

>>7722020
How would you write the number (1+1/1000)?

>>7723694
no zeros. base ten represented as a numeral X

>>7719310
I've never heard an argument for base 11 before, just dozenal (base 12)

File: ezdonzalit2.png (73KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x768px

>>7724274
yes i said before I use base 12 to do math. I'm trying to get people to think differently though about the symbols we use. Hard to throw 2 things in there at once.

In dozenal though, you'd have something like

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X,[],/\

"eleven" would be a square, "twelve" would be a triangle. Of course "ten" is still the old X.

Attached pic is my logic chart for base 12 counting.

File: 1450181065337.jpg (84KB, 590x798px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 590x798px

>>7724387
>Dozenal Counting System (using base 3)
>Dozenal
>Base 3
Pick one, faggot

>>7724392
base 3 logic IS dozenl. 1,2,3. and then, 3,6,12

3 is fundamental to math. Look at this video explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfEiJJGv4CE

File: 1449732362952.jpg (38KB, 465x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 465x600px

>>7724395
>links to a Numberphile video
Nice meme.

Dozenal comes from dozen which means twelve. Dozenal is base 12, you fuckwit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_notation#Other_bases_in_human_language

>>7724387
>that picture
What the fuck am I reading?

>>7724401
and i'm using the number 3 to count with 12. What's your point?

>>7724424
>"base 3 logic IS dozenl"
>"i'm using the number 3 to count with 12"
Do you not know how to use words correctly?