
Re: No Below Zero... or a name for the absence of quantity...
Posted:
Oct 4, 2017 9:52 PM


On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7:02:24 PM UTC7, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:41:47 PM UTC6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Math is going forward to a simplified new. > > It is true that the original concept of numbers was to answer the question > "How many?",
Then why do we need zero? You do not know. I do. It is to set bases.
Mitchell Raemsch
and while you can have three of something, or none of that same > thing, you can't really have a negative quantity of anything  only a quantity > of some different thing which, in some sense, is opposite to the original > thing. > > So a debt of one dollar is not the exact opposite of a dollar bill. > > However, in areas where the concept of negative numbers is still useful, > nothing is made simpler  things just become more complicated and awkward  if > we give up negative numbers and the ability to do arithmetic with them. > > Saying that for clarity mathematicians should admit that complex numbers *and > even negative numbers* aren't unproblematically part of the original concept > of number, but are instead extensions to that concept *is valid*; expecting > these extensions to be dispensed with is not. > > John Savard

