#
Tag Archives: numbers

One of my earliest posts was *Analog vs Digital*. A few years later, I wrote about it in more detail (twice). Since then I’ve touched on it here and there. In all cases, I wrote from the perspective that *of course* they’re a Yin-Yang pair.

Recently I’ve encountered arguments challenging that “night and day” distinction (usually in the context of computationalism), so here I’d like to approach the topic with the intent of justifying the difference.

I do agree the grooves on a record, and the pits on a CD, are both just physical representations of information, but the *nature* of that information is what is night and day different.

Continue reading

17 Comments | tags: analog, continuous, digital, discrete, frequency response, numbers, transfer function | posted in Basics

Folded into the mixed baklava of my 2018, was a special mathematical bit of honey. With the help of some excellent YouTube videos, the light bulb finally went on for me, and I could see **quaternions**. Judging by online comments I’ve read, I wasn’t alone in the dark.

There does seem a conceptual stumbling block (I tripped, anyway), but once that’s cleared up, quaternions turn out to be pretty easy to use. Which is cool, because they are very useful if you want to rotate some points in 3D space (a need I’m sure many of have experienced over the years).

The stumbling block has to do with quaternions having not one, not two, but three *distinct* “imaginary” numbers.

Continue reading

16 Comments | tags: complex numbers, math, math theory, mathematics, natural numbers, number systems, numbers, octonion, quaternion, real numbers | posted in Math, Sideband

But my brain is full!

You may have noticed that, in a number of recent posts, the topic has been math. The good-bad news is that there’s more to come (sorry, but I love this stuff). The good-good news is that I’m done with math foundations. For now.

To wrap up the discussion of math’s universality and inevitability — and also of its fascination and beauty — today I just have some YouTube videos you can watch this Sunday afternoon. (Assuming you’re a geek like me.)

So get a coffee and get comfortable!

Continue reading

6 Comments | tags: algebraic numbers, math, math and sex, math ontology, mathematics, numbers, Philosophy of Math, Theory of Mathematics, transcendental numbers | posted in Math, Opinion

Take a moment to gaze at *Euler’s Identity*:

It has been called *“exquisite”* and likened to a *“Shakespearean sonnet.”* It has earned the titles *“the most famous”* and *“the most beautiful”* formula in all of mathematics, and, in a mere seven symbols, symbolizes much of its foundation.

Today we’re going to graze on it!

Continue reading

9 Comments | tags: complex numbers, discrete mathematics, Euler's Formula, Euler's Identity, geometry, irrational numbers, Leonhard Euler, natural numbers, numbers, rational numbers, real numbers, transcendental numbers, trigonometry, Yin and Yang | posted in Math, Opinion, Philosophy

Oh, no! Not *math* again!

Among those who try to imagine alien first contact, many believe that mathematics will be the basis of initial communication. This is based on the perceived *universality* and *inevitability* of mathematics. They see math as so fundamental any intelligence must not only discover it, but must discover the same things we’ve discovered.

There is even a belief that math is more real than the physical universe, that it may be the actual basis of reality. The other end of that spectrum is a belief that mathematics is an invented game of symbol manipulation with no deep meaning.

So today: the idea that math is *universal* and *inevitable*.

Continue reading

41 Comments | tags: alien math, cardinal numbers, cardinality, counting, counting numbers, first contact, Leopold Kronecker, math, math origins, math theory, mathematics, natural numbers, numbers, Philosophy of Math, rational numbers, real numbers, Theory of Mathematics | posted in Math, Opinion

It’s **pi** day! Be irrational!

Earlier this week I mentioned that *“this coming Saturday is a doubly special date (especially this year).”* One of the things that makes it special is that it is **pi day** — 3/14 (at least for those who put the month before the day). What makes it *extra-special* this year is that it’s 3/14/15— a **pi** day that comes around only once per century. (*Super-duper extra-special* **pi** day, which happens only once in a given calendar, happened way back on 3/14/1529.)

I’ve written before about the magical **pi**, and I’m not going to get into it, as such, today. I’m more of a **tau**-ist, anyway; **pi** is only half as interesting. (Unfortunately, extra-special **tau day** isn’t until 6/28/31, and the *super-duper extra-special* day isn’t until 6/28/3185!)

What I do want to talk about is a fascinating property of **pi**.

Continue reading

138 Comments | tags: cake, Carl Sagan, Contact (book), Ellie Arroway, irrational numbers, Magnum Pi, normal sequence, numbers, pi, pi day, pie, real numbers, tau, tau day, transcendental numbers | posted in Math

We’re still motoring through numeric waters, but hang in there; the shore is just ahead. This is the last math theory post… for now. I do have one more up my sleeve, but that one is more of an overly long (and very technical) comment in reply to a post I read years ago. If I do write that one, it’ll be mainly to record the effort of trying to figure out the right answer.

This post picks up where I left off last time and talks more about the difference between numeric *values* and how we *represent* those values. Some of the groundwork for this discussion I’ve already written about in the L26 post and its followup L27 Details post. I’ll skip fairly lightly over that ground here.

Essentially, this post is about how we “spell” numbers.

Continue reading

1 Comment | tags: base 10, base 2, base 8, Frederik Pohl, Heechee, irrational numbers, Leopold Kronecker, natural numbers, number bases, number names, numbers, pi, prime numbers, rational numbers | posted in Math, Sideband

In this post I’ll show how Set Theory allows us to define the natural numbers using sets. It’s admittedly a very abstract topic, but it’s about something very common in our experience: counting things. Seeing how numbers are defined also demonstrates (contrary to some false notions) that there is a huge difference between a *number* and how that number is “spelled” or represented.

**Note:** *I am not a mathematician!* This topic is right on the edge of my mathematical frontier. I wanted this addendum to the previous post, but be aware I may misstep. I welcome any feedback from Real Mathematicians!

But go on anyway… keep reading… I dare ya!

Continue reading

6 Comments | tags: counting, counting numbers, natural numbers, numbers, set theory, successor function | posted in Math, Sideband

Be warned: these next Sideband posts are about Mathematics! Worse, they’re about the *Theory* of Mathematics!! But consider sticking around, at least for this one. It fulfills a promise I made in the Infinity is Funny post about how Georg Cantor proved there are (at least) two kinds of infinity: *countable* and *uncountable*. It also connects with the Smooth or Bumpy post, which considered differences between the discrete and the continuous.

This first one is pretty easy. The actual math involved is trivial, and I think it’s fascinating how the Yin/Yang of separate units versus a smooth continuum seems a fundamental aspect of reality. We can look around to see many places characterized by “bumpy” or “smooth” (including *Star Trek*). (The division lies at the heart of the conflict between Einstein’s Relativity and quantum physics.)

So let’s consider Cantor.

Continue reading

4 Comments | tags: Cantor, Cantor's Diagonal, finite, Georg Cantor, infinity, integers, irrational numbers, natural numbers, numbers, rational numbers, real numbers | posted in Math, Sideband

This one’s mine!

So I was conversing with a fellow I know, and the right side of my brain asked the left side, “So just how much square footage per person *is* there these days?” We both agreed that seemed like an interesting question (given all the people running around these days), so we looked around for a body to help us research the answer.

We just happened to find one handy, so off we all went to the virtual library and math lab. Unfortunately our math consultant was a Communications Arts major and made a small error thinking *square* kilometers to *square* miles was the same as kilometers to miles. Fortunately everyone involved obsessively double-checks their work, so we caught the error in time.

Pity, though. The original answer would have been fun to write about.

Continue reading

15 Comments | tags: big numbers, Earth, Earth population, math, numbers, square feet per person | posted in Life, Math