The "One"
-
I got me thinking about numbers, conventions and things like that. I remember talking to some people about it, but maybe I was imagining it. Anyways... The number one is a very interesting number. I was thinking how all the base systems give a 10 when we use the actual base as the number. That is, 2 in binary is 10. 3 in a ternary system is 10. 10 in our decimal system, is 10. 16 in the hexadecimal system, is written as 10. By "convention" we could say that 1 in the base 1 would give a 10... But then we hit our first crash... or we found infinity... or whatever. Let me explain: The binary system (base 2) only sees the 0 and the 1. A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else. So, it would be impossible to have a "10". But we may think about it diferently. The value for all base systems can be discovered by dividing the value we want by the base value, and we keep dividing until the value reaches zero. That is, we could divide 1 by 1. It will result in 1, but we will still have one. So, we keep dividing one by one, and we always have an extra one. To infinity! So, by trying to divide one by one, we are actually only making the one become bigger and bigger... or should I say that we discovered the true value? An interesting thing is that many basic languages consider the true value to be -1 (actually, all bits set to one)... while other languages consider true to be only 1 (not a lot of ones). I also don't know if a teacher really told me that... or if I simply imagined, but one of the rules was that it doesn't matter if we want to multiply or divide one by one... we end-up always having half of it. Let me explain: 1/1 = 1 1*1 = 1 So, we had 2 ones on one side and, on the other side, we ended up with a single one. So, half the ones, right? But to my perception, we only multiplied the number of ones by doing this. We had 2 number ones... then, after the equals sign, another one appeared. In the end, we have 3 number ones. That is, by trying to either divide or multiply one by one, we always get a kind of clone. A new one! Where am I going with this? No idea. I simply considered it funny that multiplication or division of one by one may end-up in multiplication or division of the ones... and it is only a matter on how you look at it. Are you looking at the result (after the equals sign), are you looking at the image? Are you simply counting how many ones appeared? Funny isn't? Don't try to think about this under the effect of drugs. It may halt your brain! I kn
-
I got me thinking about numbers, conventions and things like that. I remember talking to some people about it, but maybe I was imagining it. Anyways... The number one is a very interesting number. I was thinking how all the base systems give a 10 when we use the actual base as the number. That is, 2 in binary is 10. 3 in a ternary system is 10. 10 in our decimal system, is 10. 16 in the hexadecimal system, is written as 10. By "convention" we could say that 1 in the base 1 would give a 10... But then we hit our first crash... or we found infinity... or whatever. Let me explain: The binary system (base 2) only sees the 0 and the 1. A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else. So, it would be impossible to have a "10". But we may think about it diferently. The value for all base systems can be discovered by dividing the value we want by the base value, and we keep dividing until the value reaches zero. That is, we could divide 1 by 1. It will result in 1, but we will still have one. So, we keep dividing one by one, and we always have an extra one. To infinity! So, by trying to divide one by one, we are actually only making the one become bigger and bigger... or should I say that we discovered the true value? An interesting thing is that many basic languages consider the true value to be -1 (actually, all bits set to one)... while other languages consider true to be only 1 (not a lot of ones). I also don't know if a teacher really told me that... or if I simply imagined, but one of the rules was that it doesn't matter if we want to multiply or divide one by one... we end-up always having half of it. Let me explain: 1/1 = 1 1*1 = 1 So, we had 2 ones on one side and, on the other side, we ended up with a single one. So, half the ones, right? But to my perception, we only multiplied the number of ones by doing this. We had 2 number ones... then, after the equals sign, another one appeared. In the end, we have 3 number ones. That is, by trying to either divide or multiply one by one, we always get a kind of clone. A new one! Where am I going with this? No idea. I simply considered it funny that multiplication or division of one by one may end-up in multiplication or division of the ones... and it is only a matter on how you look at it. Are you looking at the result (after the equals sign), are you looking at the image? Are you simply counting how many ones appeared? Funny isn't? Don't try to think about this under the effect of drugs. It may halt your brain! I kn
All's I know is that One is the loneliest number that I'll ever do.
-
All's I know is that One is the loneliest number that I'll ever do.
That's why I gave him a girlfriend.
-
I got me thinking about numbers, conventions and things like that. I remember talking to some people about it, but maybe I was imagining it. Anyways... The number one is a very interesting number. I was thinking how all the base systems give a 10 when we use the actual base as the number. That is, 2 in binary is 10. 3 in a ternary system is 10. 10 in our decimal system, is 10. 16 in the hexadecimal system, is written as 10. By "convention" we could say that 1 in the base 1 would give a 10... But then we hit our first crash... or we found infinity... or whatever. Let me explain: The binary system (base 2) only sees the 0 and the 1. A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else. So, it would be impossible to have a "10". But we may think about it diferently. The value for all base systems can be discovered by dividing the value we want by the base value, and we keep dividing until the value reaches zero. That is, we could divide 1 by 1. It will result in 1, but we will still have one. So, we keep dividing one by one, and we always have an extra one. To infinity! So, by trying to divide one by one, we are actually only making the one become bigger and bigger... or should I say that we discovered the true value? An interesting thing is that many basic languages consider the true value to be -1 (actually, all bits set to one)... while other languages consider true to be only 1 (not a lot of ones). I also don't know if a teacher really told me that... or if I simply imagined, but one of the rules was that it doesn't matter if we want to multiply or divide one by one... we end-up always having half of it. Let me explain: 1/1 = 1 1*1 = 1 So, we had 2 ones on one side and, on the other side, we ended up with a single one. So, half the ones, right? But to my perception, we only multiplied the number of ones by doing this. We had 2 number ones... then, after the equals sign, another one appeared. In the end, we have 3 number ones. That is, by trying to either divide or multiply one by one, we always get a kind of clone. A new one! Where am I going with this? No idea. I simply considered it funny that multiplication or division of one by one may end-up in multiplication or division of the ones... and it is only a matter on how you look at it. Are you looking at the result (after the equals sign), are you looking at the image? Are you simply counting how many ones appeared? Funny isn't? Don't try to think about this under the effect of drugs. It may halt your brain! I kn
This is the Highlander effect. There can be only one.
This space for rent
-
This is the Highlander effect. There can be only one.
This space for rent
"But I was saying that the 1 multiplies instead of dividing" That was actually my first thought... but then my crazy mind kept going (it is near 5:30 here, and I usually wake up near 10)... Then I continued with: "Oh... I see... there needs to be 57 ones for maximum power". In my mind, you asked: "Why 57" (you probably wouldn't ask that, but anyways...) - 57 because it is a prime and round number. - WTF?!? Prime??? Round??? Are you crazy or stupid? - More to crazy... see, I still didn't tell you which base I am using. - OK... that makes sense. - So, I am using the base 3. That makes the 57 a prime. - Oh, oh, oh... hold on a minute. In base 3 we only have 0, 1 and 2. - Yeah.... kinda. It's convention. We can have 5, 6 and 7. Or 5, 2 and 7... or even 5, 0 and 7, like my apartment number. So, 5, 2 and 7, representing the usual 0, 1 and 2, and 57 means 19... or it did when I divided 57 by 3... in any case, a prime. - But how is it round? - Can't you find a base where it is round? I know you can!
-
I got me thinking about numbers, conventions and things like that. I remember talking to some people about it, but maybe I was imagining it. Anyways... The number one is a very interesting number. I was thinking how all the base systems give a 10 when we use the actual base as the number. That is, 2 in binary is 10. 3 in a ternary system is 10. 10 in our decimal system, is 10. 16 in the hexadecimal system, is written as 10. By "convention" we could say that 1 in the base 1 would give a 10... But then we hit our first crash... or we found infinity... or whatever. Let me explain: The binary system (base 2) only sees the 0 and the 1. A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else. So, it would be impossible to have a "10". But we may think about it diferently. The value for all base systems can be discovered by dividing the value we want by the base value, and we keep dividing until the value reaches zero. That is, we could divide 1 by 1. It will result in 1, but we will still have one. So, we keep dividing one by one, and we always have an extra one. To infinity! So, by trying to divide one by one, we are actually only making the one become bigger and bigger... or should I say that we discovered the true value? An interesting thing is that many basic languages consider the true value to be -1 (actually, all bits set to one)... while other languages consider true to be only 1 (not a lot of ones). I also don't know if a teacher really told me that... or if I simply imagined, but one of the rules was that it doesn't matter if we want to multiply or divide one by one... we end-up always having half of it. Let me explain: 1/1 = 1 1*1 = 1 So, we had 2 ones on one side and, on the other side, we ended up with a single one. So, half the ones, right? But to my perception, we only multiplied the number of ones by doing this. We had 2 number ones... then, after the equals sign, another one appeared. In the end, we have 3 number ones. That is, by trying to either divide or multiply one by one, we always get a kind of clone. A new one! Where am I going with this? No idea. I simply considered it funny that multiplication or division of one by one may end-up in multiplication or division of the ones... and it is only a matter on how you look at it. Are you looking at the result (after the equals sign), are you looking at the image? Are you simply counting how many ones appeared? Funny isn't? Don't try to think about this under the effect of drugs. It may halt your brain! I kn
Reminds me of a drunken discussion in a pub garden about using π as the base for a number system. I can't recall what the conclusion was - whether it was possible, and if it would have any uses.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Reminds me of a drunken discussion in a pub garden about using π as the base for a number system. I can't recall what the conclusion was - whether it was possible, and if it would have any uses.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I actually wanted to know more details about such a conversation. Yet I think that discovering the right precision for the PI is fundamental... if the PI is really infinite... are we going to use it with its infinity value for the calculation? In my opinion, using the base 11 would be ideal to fix bank problems. 5 numbers up and down the center, with a value for the actual center. Oh... when I woke up and saw your message, I ended up getting inspired to do this: http://cyberminds57.azurewebsites.net/CardToMyAngel.png[^]
-
Reminds me of a drunken discussion in a pub garden about using π as the base for a number system. I can't recall what the conclusion was - whether it was possible, and if it would have any uses.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Reminds me of a drunken discussion in a pub garden about using π as the base for a number system. I can't recall what the conclusion was - whether it was possible, and if it would have any uses.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
The "optimal" choice for a number base is
e(the base of the natural logarithms). (Where "optimal" is: minimizing the product of the number of distinct digits in the system and the number of digits to represent a number in that system.) See: Non-integer representation: Base e - Wikipedia[^] Base π is also mentioned immediately following."Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." - G.K. Chesterton
-
I got me thinking about numbers, conventions and things like that. I remember talking to some people about it, but maybe I was imagining it. Anyways... The number one is a very interesting number. I was thinking how all the base systems give a 10 when we use the actual base as the number. That is, 2 in binary is 10. 3 in a ternary system is 10. 10 in our decimal system, is 10. 16 in the hexadecimal system, is written as 10. By "convention" we could say that 1 in the base 1 would give a 10... But then we hit our first crash... or we found infinity... or whatever. Let me explain: The binary system (base 2) only sees the 0 and the 1. A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else. So, it would be impossible to have a "10". But we may think about it diferently. The value for all base systems can be discovered by dividing the value we want by the base value, and we keep dividing until the value reaches zero. That is, we could divide 1 by 1. It will result in 1, but we will still have one. So, we keep dividing one by one, and we always have an extra one. To infinity! So, by trying to divide one by one, we are actually only making the one become bigger and bigger... or should I say that we discovered the true value? An interesting thing is that many basic languages consider the true value to be -1 (actually, all bits set to one)... while other languages consider true to be only 1 (not a lot of ones). I also don't know if a teacher really told me that... or if I simply imagined, but one of the rules was that it doesn't matter if we want to multiply or divide one by one... we end-up always having half of it. Let me explain: 1/1 = 1 1*1 = 1 So, we had 2 ones on one side and, on the other side, we ended up with a single one. So, half the ones, right? But to my perception, we only multiplied the number of ones by doing this. We had 2 number ones... then, after the equals sign, another one appeared. In the end, we have 3 number ones. That is, by trying to either divide or multiply one by one, we always get a kind of clone. A new one! Where am I going with this? No idea. I simply considered it funny that multiplication or division of one by one may end-up in multiplication or division of the ones... and it is only a matter on how you look at it. Are you looking at the result (after the equals sign), are you looking at the image? Are you simply counting how many ones appeared? Funny isn't? Don't try to think about this under the effect of drugs. It may halt your brain! I kn
Paulo Zemek wrote:
A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else.
Actually,a base one system would only see the 1. Think of a tab at the pub. More on unary systems here[^].
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Paulo Zemek wrote:
A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else.
Actually,a base one system would only see the 1. Think of a tab at the pub. More on unary systems here[^].
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
I was still locked on the decimal System when I wrote the text. But I recovered when talked about the 57. A base one system could work if the only number was the one, not the zero. Next step on the pattern. That is: By default, 0 is the starter and 10 represents the pattern. Then, 1 is the starter... And it is eternal, as there's nothing out from them division of 1 by one in base 1 represented by one. Mind blowing? Too me, too simple. Easy and too boring. Next question please!!!
-
I was still locked on the decimal System when I wrote the text. But I recovered when talked about the 57. A base one system could work if the only number was the one, not the zero. Next step on the pattern. That is: By default, 0 is the starter and 10 represents the pattern. Then, 1 is the starter... And it is eternal, as there's nothing out from them division of 1 by one in base 1 represented by one. Mind blowing? Too me, too simple. Easy and too boring. Next question please!!!
Ooh, "them" instead of "the division" was on purpose. Did you see it on the first read? Also, then is replaced by "the" only, not "the division". Ah I to far/fast? Ok. I will sleep now. Have fun with numbers and encryption!!!..!!.!
-
The "optimal" choice for a number base is
e(the base of the natural logarithms). (Where "optimal" is: minimizing the product of the number of distinct digits in the system and the number of digits to represent a number in that system.) See: Non-integer representation: Base e - Wikipedia[^] Base π is also mentioned immediately following."Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." - G.K. Chesterton
So we can't have been that drunk, then! :-D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
I got me thinking about numbers, conventions and things like that. I remember talking to some people about it, but maybe I was imagining it. Anyways... The number one is a very interesting number. I was thinking how all the base systems give a 10 when we use the actual base as the number. That is, 2 in binary is 10. 3 in a ternary system is 10. 10 in our decimal system, is 10. 16 in the hexadecimal system, is written as 10. By "convention" we could say that 1 in the base 1 would give a 10... But then we hit our first crash... or we found infinity... or whatever. Let me explain: The binary system (base 2) only sees the 0 and the 1. A "base 1" system would only see the 0, and nothing else. So, it would be impossible to have a "10". But we may think about it diferently. The value for all base systems can be discovered by dividing the value we want by the base value, and we keep dividing until the value reaches zero. That is, we could divide 1 by 1. It will result in 1, but we will still have one. So, we keep dividing one by one, and we always have an extra one. To infinity! So, by trying to divide one by one, we are actually only making the one become bigger and bigger... or should I say that we discovered the true value? An interesting thing is that many basic languages consider the true value to be -1 (actually, all bits set to one)... while other languages consider true to be only 1 (not a lot of ones). I also don't know if a teacher really told me that... or if I simply imagined, but one of the rules was that it doesn't matter if we want to multiply or divide one by one... we end-up always having half of it. Let me explain: 1/1 = 1 1*1 = 1 So, we had 2 ones on one side and, on the other side, we ended up with a single one. So, half the ones, right? But to my perception, we only multiplied the number of ones by doing this. We had 2 number ones... then, after the equals sign, another one appeared. In the end, we have 3 number ones. That is, by trying to either divide or multiply one by one, we always get a kind of clone. A new one! Where am I going with this? No idea. I simply considered it funny that multiplication or division of one by one may end-up in multiplication or division of the ones... and it is only a matter on how you look at it. Are you looking at the result (after the equals sign), are you looking at the image? Are you simply counting how many ones appeared? Funny isn't? Don't try to think about this under the effect of drugs. It may halt your brain! I kn
Thanks for the bedtime brain teaser. ;)
David A. Gray Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
