Jump to content
N-Europe

Recommended Posts

Posted
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.

Posted
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.

Posted
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.]

Posted

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??? :wtf::confused:

 

Colour me effing confused right now! lmao.

Posted (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 by Supergrunch
Posted
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??? :wtf::confused:

 

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.

Posted
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]

Posted (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.

 

ScannersExplodingHead.gif

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. :heh:

Edited by Supergrunch
Posted

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! :sad:

Posted
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.

Posted

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.

Posted
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.

Posted
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! :sad:

 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...