Maths physics question about numbers.?
All maths and physics and really everything is based on the assumption that our numbering system is correct. For example. Many calculations are worked out assuming that the correct way to number is 123456789 10 etc. And that there are ten tens in one hundred. And ten one hundrers in one thousand. Say the numbering system is actually supposed to contain other numbers which have not been considered, say there were extra numbers left out, wouldn't this completely void everything in science and maths? What I'm trying to say is that there could be other numbers we don't know about. How do we know there are just ten basic numbers- 123456789 could others exist? If you understand could you maybe try to answer this?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
This is not true. Mathematicians do not assume that the Hindu-Arabic numeral system is the correct one. There is no "correct" numeral system. It is used as a matter of convention and of convenience. The disciplines of physics and mathematics existed long before people started regularly using a base-10 positional numeral system, and the predating facts did not suddenly change afterwards.
For instance, Euclid proved theorems in elementary number theory without the benefit of our current number system. He discovered properties of prime numbers and wrote them out with words only; the Greek numeral system was alphabetic. Much of ancient mathematics was done this way, and mathematics can still be done this way if we want. Our numeral system does not enable us to do mathematics; it enables us to do mathematics in a systematic fashion.
We don't need the Hindu-Arabic numeral system to prove that the system of real numbers is the unique complete Archimedean field. The real numbers can be constructed without our numeral system, and if we were to actually use a different base, as people in the past have like the Babylonians, then the same properties would apply. Certainly, if humans had eight fingers and eight toes as opposed to ten fingers and ten toes, then we would likely have a base-8 numeral system.
I believe that the mistake you are making is equating numerals with numbers. They are not the same. A number is an abstract thing independent of its "name". Numerals are merely what we use to write them, to represent them with, to "name" them. Don't worry; we haven't left any out!
- 1 decade ago
You could come up with a new numbering system but you would have to have a conversion to standard numbering. It's like metric vs standard. They use different values but in the end their answers mean the same thing.
another way to look at, it's like a language. You could argue that everything we know isn't rooted in truth. Why do we call the color blue the color blue. why do we even call it a color? it's just the way things are.
- aduleLv 44 years ago
dude its very convenient to reply those kind of questions do not get confuse in those quesions... and this perhaps the query of wavelength.... so first multiply the denominator phrases after which divide with the numerator one...