Yahoo Answers: Answers and Comments for Maths physics question about numbers.? [Mathematics]
Copyright © Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
From kollydogg
enCA
Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:59:39 +0000
3
Yahoo Answers: Answers and Comments for Maths physics question about numbers.? [Mathematics]
292
38
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
https://s.yimg.com/zz/combo?images/emaillogoca.png

From Rog: You could come up with a new numbering system ...
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:12:10 +0000
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.

From ?: dude its very convenient to reply those kind o...
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:05:33 +0000
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...

From El Konverse Magnifico: This is not true. Mathematicians do not assume...
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090912175939AAxePmz
Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:54:55 +0000
This is not true. Mathematicians do not assume that the HinduArabic 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 base10 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 HinduArabic 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 base8 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!