heroicjanitor Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 You knew a discussion of group theory would follow? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Yeah, but presumably the numbers in question are in R (or N), and however you define binary functions in other systems, you should want them to align with Z and N when only integers/natural numbers are involved... right? Or not right? (and what's H? should probably take this out of this thread...) Not quite sure what you're asking. Things are defined from the "bottom up", so binary operations on N are defined first, then they naturally extend to "bigger" number systems, so things that work in something lower works in something higher (but not the other way round -- you can't necessarily square-root in things lower than R.) H is the Hamiltonians, which are kinda like higher-dimensional complex numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Not quite sure what you're asking. Things are defined from the "bottom up", so binary operations on N are defined first, then they naturally extend to "bigger" number systems, so things that work in something lower works in something higher (but not the other way round -- you can't necessarily square-root in things lower than R.) H is the Hamiltonians, which are kinda like higher-dimensional complex numbers. Yeah sorry, my terminology is probably kind of wrong anyway. What I mean is so long as "x" and "+" are defined, then they'll be defined for N, right? So it doesn't matter if the system we're working in is larger than N, because the numbers are all in N (or R) anyway. Although of course the definitions of "x" and "+" do matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I B4 E XCEPT AFTER C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Yeah sorry, my terminology is probably kind of wrong anyway. What I mean is so long as "x" and "+" are defined, then they'll be defined for N, right? So it doesn't matter if the system we're working in is larger than N, because the numbers are all in N (or R) anyway. Although of course the definitions of "x" and "+" do matter. Yes. [but people debate whether 0 is a natural number, hence why I said Z.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Wait, I thought the answer is 0 because 0 is nothing so you would be multiplying nothing to which you'd get nothing, which is 0.... So wait, it's 10??? Colour me effing confused right now! lmao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I feeled smart. Then chair and Grunch started to talked. Now I feels stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 In normal maths (or at least maths that I understand) it works out the same as 10 + (10 x 0) = 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) Yes. [but people debate whether 0 is a natural number, hence why I said Z.] Sorry, I keep writing R when I mean Z - replace R for Z in the previous post. I know about the Z/N thing, what I really mean is isn't the first assumption here unnecessary because the numbers involved are in Z/N anyway, and even if we're in something "bigger" like C, the behaviour will be defined for these numbers as it would be if we were just in Z/N? Well, making the assumption that we're working in Z (the integers, or whole numbers), and that multiplication is distributive over addition (ie. times'ing happens before plus'ing), the answer is 10 + (10x0) = 10 + 0 = 10. Edited May 28, 2011 by Supergrunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I think chair is saying the guy could have defined his own group that we don't know about. Which is a bit of weird, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Wait, I thought the answer is 0 because 0 is nothing so you would be multiplying nothing to which you'd get nothing, which is 0.... So wait, it's 10??? Colour me effing confused right now! lmao. The order of maths is BIDMAS, Brackets, Indices (powers of and shit), Division, Multiplication, Addition, Subtraction. Therefore you do the multiplication before the addition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Sorry, I keep writing R when I mean Z - replace R for Z in the previous post. I know about the Z/N thing, what I really mean is isn't the first assumption here unnecessary because the numbers involved are in Z/N anyway? Well we could be working in the set {0, 3, 녫, 10, ī, 99920}, which could have it's own crazy rules which tells us (10 x 0) = 3. So I assumed we were working in Z, so standard arithmetic would apply. [Z is a subset of everything "above" it, so if you're working in Z, you're also working in Q, R, C, H etc etc] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Facebook: "Grawr, people are idiots! It's obviously [wrong answer]!" N-E: *Discussion on advanced mathematics* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 녫 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) Well we could be working in the set {0, 3, 녫, 10, ī, 99920}, which could have it's own crazy rules which tells us (10 x 0) = 3.So I assumed we were working in Z, so standard arithmetic would apply. [Z is a subset of everything "above" it, so if you're working in Z, you're also working in Q, R, C, H etc etc] Ah, fair enough. I wish I could have done more maths... I half count as an applied mathematician, but too applied for anything too cool. I think chair just put that in for the lols, it's a Korean character (which might as well be in a set, as they can contain anything). Unless it has some mathematical meaning I don't know. On a different but funny note, lolthing in my supervisor's latest monograph: Déchaîne and Wiltschko (2002, 426) also cite the nonexistence of first- or second-person pronouns in compounds, but examples such as me-generation and fuck-you (as a compound adjective, as in fuck-you mentality) are attested; note also Germaine Greer's coinage fuck-me shoes. I'm not sure if he's trying to insult them or not. Edited May 28, 2011 by Supergrunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Oh my God...it's 10! I feel so stupid right now... I just read the question again and basically stared at it for 20 seconds and I totally get it now... 10 + (10 x 0) = 10 Because 10 x 0 is 0 and so the actual sum is 10 + 0 = 10. I feel so stupid right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Ah, fair enough. I wish I could have done more maths... I half count as an applied mathematician, but too applied for anything too cool. You didn't do group theory? I just finished a degree in mathematical physics and I did group theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Can we get a thread rip,.....this isn't very funny. :p Obviously title of thread should be "10 + 10 x 0" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I found it incredibly funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Really? Repeat the word group a few times and it sounds a bit funny :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Seriously, how on Earth can you guys remember all of that? I've read through that about five times and I have no clue what you're all talking about, lmao. Can we get a thread rip,.....this isn't very funny. :p Obviously title of thread should be "10 + 10 x 0" The thread should be called the Confusing Brainy Stuff, haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I don't understand why anyone ever calculates anything. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I don't understand why anyone ever calculates anything. Ever. I'm too brainy....okay, that was a lie! :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 You didn't do group theory? I just finished a degree in mathematical physics and I did group theory. I did a little for further maths A-level. My other maths training is in biomathematics and mathematical linguistics, the latter of which touches on group theory but doesn't go into much detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Oh my God...it's 10! I feel so stupid right now... I just read the question again and basically stared at it for 20 seconds and I totally get it now... 10 + (10 x 0) = 10 Because 10 x 0 is 0 and so the actual sum is 10 + 0 = 10. I feel so stupid right now! If it's any consolation, for day-to-day arithmetic, there's not very many reasons why you'd need to know the salient piece of information that multiplication happens before addition, and I don't think it's that great a measure of someone's intelligence whether they can or cannot carry out that sum correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts