Daily reminder that no mathematician took negative numbers seriously until like 300 years ago
Negative numbers are fucking absurd though, and that was a mistake
No one has -3000 money, you owe 3000 money
Anyone who thinks negative numbers aren't absurd is welcome to draw a picture of -4 sheep to prove me wrong
>>7974244
Who said numbers had to be tangible things in the universe? As long as it has uses to us, we will use it. You can't have 'i' sheep, but using imaginary numbers has many valid uses such as in quantum mechanics. You have a very narrow mindset of maths and numbers in general.
>>7974244
Negative four dollars famalama. The idea of debt made numerical.
>>7974244
>No one has -3000 money, you owe 3000 money
Yeah but when you're modelling this with equations and whatnot it's convenient to have some property of an amount that signifies whether the money is owned or owed, negativity does this.
>>7974244
>draw a picture of a negative scalar
You can't draw a picture of a unicorn either, doesn't mean it's not real.
>>7974244
See >>7974347
Why you people think natural numbers are a universal thing is beyond me.
The only thing that is universal in math is the idea that objects exist and we can group these objects into sets. The natural numbers are just a shorthand for a certain type of object based on this. Numbers are just another object with certain properties. Therefore I can define negative numbers, fish numbers, cow numbers, WHATEVER THE FUCK NUMBERS, and it's still correct, it's all just fucking definitions do you fucking get it?!
>>7974377
Essentially what I'm telling you is that the idea of having a single dollar and the mathematical concept of "1" are only coincidentally correlated. That correlation is useful in everyday life, sure, but that's it.
>>7974244
You can't intrinsically have -3000 money. But you CAN have -3000 money relative to someone else.
>>7974244
You can't have 3.5 sheep either. We should only use the natural numbers according to OP.
>>7974425
It's a good point really. However, zero is rather abstract. You don't have any amount of sheep if you have none, so let's not assign a numerical value to that.
The positive integers are all that you need.
>>7974244
>hurr durr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_number#History
>>7974244
Negative four as requested.
>>7974244
You can't have pi sheep, sqrt(2) sheep or e sheep either, so let's get rid of those as well. Absolutely absurd numbers.
>>7974544
100 posts too late. I'll just hand in my crown now.
>>7974557
Well okay pi and 2^(1/2) sheep are pretty difficult to have, but how can you deny the base of all natural sheeparithms?
>>7974456
Whoa there. A "positive integer" is a math term for a kind of "number". You need to define that.
Shouldn't be too difficult to define, since we all know what it is right? I can count the positive integers, right? 1, 2, 3, 4...
Oh wait no that definition took literally thousands and thousands of years to get right and is the pinnacle of set theory (or category or type) with a carefully chosen set of axioms. Please don't discard all of mathematics.
>>7974244
Please tell that to my bank OP.
>>7974244
>Negative numbers are fucking absurd though, and that was a mistake
No, they are fictitious. Irrational numbers are absurd or "surds". Get your terminology right.
>>7974585
>they are fictitious
Positive, natural numbers are equally fictitious and abstract.
Try to understand.
Having a single sheep only coincidentally and for lack of rigor means you have "1" sheep. "1" sheep is just a shorthand. The "1" doesn't actually mean you have a single, physical, sheep, it's just something we all understand when you say it. The concepts of counting sheep and natural numbers ARE COMPLETELY UNRELATED.
>engineers will not understand this
>>7974571
>that definition took literally thousands and thousands of years to get right
you mean starting from the first humans? i guess so but then so did everything else humans do
>>7974622
Expanding on this.
Let's say I gave you a toy model of the White House, and the model was perfect. If someone asks you what your toy is, you might very well answer "that's the White House."
Now let's say I gave you another toy model almost exactly the same but this time it was painted green. When asked what that one is, you might answer "it's a green White house." And someone might say "well that's stupid because there is no green White House."
But you've got a model of one in your hands.
This is analogous to the negative and positive numbers.
Just because your White House looks like the real White House doesn't mean it is.
Just because I can count four physical sheep in terms of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4) doesn't mean I have 4 sheep. It's just a tool, a model.
That's why saying we should limit math to that which is observable is silly.
>>7974629
No. We didn't know what a natural number was (a positive integer), in the sense of what we mean today, until 1917.
This definition took thousands of years to get right, literally up until 1917.
We knew how to count, but that's different. Stop conflating the two.
>>7974629
Our current, full definition, of a positive integer was finalized in the 20th century. That took thousands of years to get right.
>>7974352
good post
>>7974244
> I can't grasp abstract concepts and so I shitpost on /sci/ instead of getting a degree
>>7974244
>no mathematician took negative numbers seriously until like 300 years ago
But the Chinese did?
it's called abstraction brah
>I find this aspect of mathematics shallow and pedantic! It offers nothing for a real mathematician and needlessly makes math classes unintuitive!
>lists something that's a trivial, shorthanded notation that allows mathematics and physics to account for any and all points of reference.
"No one has -3000 money....you just have -3000 fucking money."
>>7974244
>Daily reminder that no mathematician took negative numbers seriously until like 300 years ago
300 years ago people thought that sickness came from an imbalance of the humors. What's your point?
A negative slope is pretty fucking reasonable.
If the numbers of sheep are steadily declining you have a negative fucking number..
>>7974271
>but using imaginary numbers has many valid uses such as in quantum mechanics
And 3-D vector transformations...
And in smooth spherical and linear interpolations...
And electrical engineering with A/C circuits...
And in solving differential equations...
And in the unifying concept that is Euler's Identity...
The list just goes on.
They're really anything but "imaginary". Someone really ought to give a new name to them.
>>7974950
Supersymmetric numbers.
This has to be the stupidest thread masquerading as a serious thread ever posted on /sci.
>>7974972
OP can't even get his history right.
>>7974244
>Anyone who thinks negative numbers aren't absurd
Yet OP's IQ is a negative number.
>>7974244
I wonder exactly what do you do when you have 1000$ in your back account but you owe 2000$.
How much is your value then?
>>7975037
Then he would owe them $1000 dollars. It's not rocket science pal.
>>7975044
I didn't ask you what you owe, I already gave you that answer. I asked you what would be your net value.
But I am not surprised that you don't know basic reading comprehension. It is almost to be expected from a meme poster.
>>7975048
Yes and his net value is that he owes $1000. Can you not understand this?
>>7975054
>his [NET VALUE] (a numerical figure)
>is 'that he owes $1000' (a written statement)
I do wonder now how would you turn that written statement of 'he owes $1000' into a contained, maybe even shortened, purely numerical figure.
Oh man, too bad Einstein isn't with us anymore. Maybe we can contact Terence Tao, although he would take years to figure this one out too.
>>7975062
Good question my dear boy. The answer is that you cant. Because negative numbers don't exist. Show me some negative money and I'll concede otherwise you're wrong.
>>7975067
rekt.
et al.
>>7975067
Mfw that kid got BTFO so hard he didn't even respond. Nice on OP.
>>7974352
Underrated
>he doesn't understand complex planar number rotation
Wow what an idiot
>>7974950
>Complex numbers
>>7974244
>No one has -3000 money, you owe 3000 money
Then why does your bank balance say -3000 dollars?
How are those student loans coming along?
>>7974507
Lrn2neg-numbers
>>7974562
You should be proud of it, it was a great post desu
>>7974244
Given two pairs of natural numbers x = (a, b) and y = (c, d). Consider the pair (x, y) part of a relation ~ if a + d = c + b. The relation ~ is an equivalence relation. Now take the quotient set ℕ×ℕ/~ and call that the integers.
See, you don't need to use all those scary negative numbers if you don't want to, just stick to plain and simple natural numbers.
>>7974244
this graphics isn't ending in my PC
why?
>>7974244
>The mirror doesnt just flip reflect the photons. The is another world behind the glass.hurr durr
>Electrons dont have a negative charge they just have a positive opposite charge hurr durr.
>>7974244
Positive numbers aren't real either. When you have "four apples", you don't have more than one of anything - you have an apple, a different object grouped into the category of "apples", another different "apple", and yet another different "apple". None of these are the same object, and claiming they are somehow a single object but plural is absurd.
The only "natural" numbers are 0 and 1, and I'm not sure about 0. If you don't need a number for owing, surely you don't need one for being broke.
>>7977467
Mathematics would be greatly simplified if one was the only number.
>>7974244
If you have -3000, that means you owe someone 3000 dollars. You have to pay that person 3000 to get back to 0, or nothing. Doesn't sound absurd to me
>>7977489
But you don't HAVE -3000 dollars do you? It doesn't make ANY sense
>>7977499
It does make sense if you look as a point of distance
>>7974244
>Anyone who thinks negative numbers aren't absurd is welcome to draw a picture of -4 sheep to prove me wrong
Isn't math supposed to be about the abstract?
>>7977499
>HAVE
You don't HAVE a nose, either.
>>7977499
You own a debt.
>>7977598
So I own something that doesn't exist. Yeah ok buddy.
>>7975316
but complex numbers are the result of adding a real number to an imaginary one.
>>7977609
tell that to the bank why dont you.
also your troll thread is shit-tier. i wish it was a negative thread.
>>7977609
ok faggot let's talk about subtractions then.
billy has 10 apples and gives 5 to jerry, how many apples does he still have?
as you may know, you can't solve this shit because the subtraction 10-5 has a number that doesn't exist in it.
Testing
[math]
\begin{pmatrix} a,b,c \\ d,e,f \\g,h,i \end{pmatrix}
[/math]
>>7977738
Dude, are you legitimately mentally challenged? There are 2 numbers, 10 and 5, and they both exist.
If he gives -5 apples to Jerry then yes that doesn't make sense.
>>7977743
>hurrr im just pretending to be retarded
its like you just found this place or something...
>>7977744
I'm not pretending to be retarded, nice ad hominem dude.
>>7977747
so
10 - 5 != 10 + -5 ?
Congratulations on your claim to retard level IQ.
>>7977749
So now you are saying that he is receiving -5 apples? Make up your mind. -5 apples don't exist that is why no one says 10+-5 instead of 10-5, it doesn't make sense.
>>7977757
welcome to 4chan, kid.
this is the science & math section. i think you may be lost. head on over to the flat earth section with all the other confused and intellectually stunted individuals.
>>7974244
Here's your -4 sheep
>>7977760
Thanks bub
From an accounting standpoint if you have -$3000 that -$3000 came from something like buying a tv. So that -$3000 isn't "nothing"
>>7974584
Ayyy, that app is pretty useful desu senpai
>>7977757
Subtraction is literally defined as adding s negative number.
>>7977762
I can't sleep
>>7977848
Actually it's defined as the difference between two numbers.
>>7977476
{}, {{}}, {{},{{}}}, ...
>>7977911
No.
>>7977911
Subtraction is adding the additive inverse.
If I want to put money owed into my equation, I'll just represent the "owed" flag with a "-" sign.
>>7977609
Tfw non physical money doesn't exisst according to your law
>>7974244
Goddammit, I now see that >>7974544 beat me too it, should've read the whole thread before I did this, it was too obv I suppose.
>>7974896
WE WAZ NEGUTIV NUMBERS
>>7977739
nice latex
>>7974896
you realize this adds little to a math discussion but rather appears to be an attempt to derail this into a cultural discussion. you might as well started off by saying "as a female anon"
>>7974948
No it isn't negative it's just a slope that owes another slope.
>>7975801
hi prof. wildberger!
>>7978165
OP was purely baiting by being historically incorrect. Wasn't just the Chinese either.
>Negative numbers appeared for the first time in history in the Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art, which in its present form dates from the period of the Chinese Han Dynasty (202 BC – AD 220), but may well contain much older material. Liu Hui (c. 3rd century) established rules for adding and subtracting negative numbers. By the 7th century, Indian mathematicians such as Brahmagupta were describing the use of negative numbers. Islamic mathematicians further developed the rules of subtracting and multiplying negative numbers and solved problems with negative coefficients.
>>7974585
> Irrational numbers are absurd or "surds".
>>7977467
>when you have "four electrons", you don't have more than one of anything - you have an electron, a different object grouped into the category of electrons, another different "electron" and yet another different "electron"
>>7978412
All electrons are just manifestations of the same electron
>>7978189
Wow Europeans are so dumb...
