04-19-2017, 09:14 AM

How timely, Sparky.

I was just looking at a youtube on the site "numberphile" wherein there were four or more choices that mathematicians used as a symbol.

Let me see if I can retrieve it....

here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasyRUj7UwM

(skip ahead to 1:09 if you in a hurry.)

btw, to any curious geeks out there (imaginary lurkers) the link is a part 2 of a particular nerd-fest.)

btw, part 2:

I really don't enjoy the process of digging thru stuff to prove an obscure point I'm making.

In fact, it happened a few days ago here, when T.A. made some weird blanket statement (forgive me for not recalling it word for word) that asked something like "show me one example wherein math solutions come up with multiple solutions that are contradictory.

One of the reasons I chose not to crush his argument was that there were too many choices of examples for me, and it simply wasn't worthy of my time. If he's here, and can recall this moment, I will be glad to oblige.

Back on topic:

Di, I could try to simplify all that for you, if you'd like.

It really is a clever and simplified notation system. Essentially, he was able to express mountains of math stuff with a mere four of five different symbols...which is at the heart of its brilliance, imho.

One of the reasons for it being called 'surreal' was that Conway's system of notation had a means to differentiate between values of infinity.

(you may now ask "Why is that significant, stanky?")

Well, love, I'm glad you asked...and you might be glad for the answer, because it appeals to logic:

(Honey? are you still awake?)

Here's classic, if simplistic example:

How many whole numbers are there? Easy. Infinite.

Now, how many prime numbers are there?

Easy. Infinite.

(Hopefully, you know what a prime number is. If not, I'll explain.)

So, what is the ratio of whole integers to prime numbers?

Easy:

one to one. Both being infinite.

Yet, obviously, primes are much more rare than all the normal numbers.

Hence, something is off, logically, in that one to one ratio.

And Conway's number system was able to address that. It could ascribe different values of infinity.

I can sense the objections of the hordes of imaginary lurkers, clinging to their pragmatic out look.

To them, all i can say is "your welcome".

I was just looking at a youtube on the site "numberphile" wherein there were four or more choices that mathematicians used as a symbol.

Let me see if I can retrieve it....

here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pasyRUj7UwM

(skip ahead to 1:09 if you in a hurry.)

btw, to any curious geeks out there (imaginary lurkers) the link is a part 2 of a particular nerd-fest.)

btw, part 2:

I really don't enjoy the process of digging thru stuff to prove an obscure point I'm making.

In fact, it happened a few days ago here, when T.A. made some weird blanket statement (forgive me for not recalling it word for word) that asked something like "show me one example wherein math solutions come up with multiple solutions that are contradictory.

One of the reasons I chose not to crush his argument was that there were too many choices of examples for me, and it simply wasn't worthy of my time. If he's here, and can recall this moment, I will be glad to oblige.

Back on topic:

Di, I could try to simplify all that for you, if you'd like.

It really is a clever and simplified notation system. Essentially, he was able to express mountains of math stuff with a mere four of five different symbols...which is at the heart of its brilliance, imho.

One of the reasons for it being called 'surreal' was that Conway's system of notation had a means to differentiate between values of infinity.

(you may now ask "Why is that significant, stanky?")

Well, love, I'm glad you asked...and you might be glad for the answer, because it appeals to logic:

(Honey? are you still awake?)

Here's classic, if simplistic example:

How many whole numbers are there? Easy. Infinite.

Now, how many prime numbers are there?

Easy. Infinite.

(Hopefully, you know what a prime number is. If not, I'll explain.)

So, what is the ratio of whole integers to prime numbers?

Easy:

one to one. Both being infinite.

Yet, obviously, primes are much more rare than all the normal numbers.

Hence, something is off, logically, in that one to one ratio.

And Conway's number system was able to address that. It could ascribe different values of infinity.

I can sense the objections of the hordes of imaginary lurkers, clinging to their pragmatic out look.

To them, all i can say is "your welcome".