Discussion » Questions » Math » What would math be like with no numbers? Wouldn't it make for a confusing world?
[W]e[y]lon Musk

What would math be like with no numbers? Wouldn't it make for a confusing world?

Posted - January 12, 2018
Tags : None

Responses


  • 5451
    I think so.

      January 12, 2018 11:01 AM MST
    6

  • 44619
    I guess that would be like chicken soup without the chicken.
      January 12, 2018 11:39 AM MST
    7

  • 14795
    Ahh , Thats Heinz soup you mean I think....in England it has less than one percent chicken inits can....:(
      December 3, 2018 4:50 PM MST
    2

  • 22891
    it wouldnt be math
      January 12, 2018 2:50 PM MST
    3

  • 5835
    Duh, the world does not use numbers. Only people use them.
      January 12, 2018 3:09 PM MST
    3

  • 46117
    The world already knows deep within how numbers work.  

      November 30, 2018 11:14 AM MST
    1

  • 5354
    That is how advanced math is all about. no numbers needed ;-))

    ref: wiki:  Ring (mathematics)

    1. R is an abelian group under addition, meaning that:

    • (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) for all a, b, c in R   (that is, + is associative).
    • a + b = b + a for all a, b in R   (that is, + is commutative).
    • There is an element 0 in R such that a + 0 = a for all a in R   (that is, 0 is the additive identity).
    • For each a in R there exists −a in R such that a + (−a) = 0   (that is, −a is the additive inverse of a).

    2. R is a monoid under multiplication, meaning that:

    • (a · b) · c = a · (b · c) for all a, b, c in R   (that is, · is associative).
    • There is an element 1 in R such that a · 1 = a and 1 · a = a for all a in R   (that is, 1 is the multiplicative identity).[5]

    3. Multiplication is distributive with respect to addition:

    • a ⋅ (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c) for all a, b, c in R   (left distributivity).
    • (b + c) · a = (b · a) + (c · a) for all a, b, c in R   (right distributivity).
      January 12, 2018 10:18 PM MST
    3

  • 53509

      I see a lot of numbers in there. 
    :|
      November 30, 2018 6:31 AM MST
    3

  • 5354
    I only see 2 numbers: 0 and 1 (unless you count the paragraph numbering)
      December 7, 2018 3:13 PM MST
    0

  • 53509

      Hence, numbers. 
    ~
      December 7, 2018 7:36 PM MST
    1

  • 5354
    Hence, idle pettyfoggery
      December 10, 2018 3:18 PM MST
    0

  • 1812
    Jakob, 

     Thanks.  I got that memorized.
      December 16, 2018 11:09 PM MST
    1

  • 3719
    You could not have Algebra because there would be no numerical rules to describe algebraically, and conversely, no numerical way to prove the rules of algebra!

    More to the point perhaps, try considering the results of having no numbers, consequently their being neither Arithmetic nor Mathematics ... we certainly would not be able to discuss it like this!


    (Although the question here is clearly either humour or intriguing philosophical puzzle, by and for educated adults, it reminds me of a question someone once posted on "Answers.com". That forum's Maths section used to be infested with what were obviously homework questions - often eliciting replies from adults who loved to show their own ability at making easy topics so difficult they confused themselves!

    The question had posited a world without Trigonometry, to which someone had responded using that meaninglessly ambiguous slang word, "awesome". Suspecting that these two were not adults amused by wry Mathematics humour, but school-children frustrated by their own inability to understand the topic, I added tartly that they would not be able to boast of their ignorance on an Internet forum, because without Trigonometry, nor indeed a lot of other Maths, we would have no mains electricity supplies, let alone computers and telecommunications!)  


    XX
      November 20, 2018 4:05 PM MST
    5

  • 1812
    Thanks for a thoughtful reply. 
      December 16, 2018 11:09 PM MST
    0

  • 5835
    When kids ask for help with homework it is almost always simple arithmetic and I copy and paste my standard answer:

    Get a ruler in your hands. Measure things until you start to understand how a ruler works. Measure some stuff and figure out where the center is. Say you measure a book and it's 7/8" thick. You look at your ruler and see that every eighth is divided into two sixteenths, so obviously half of 7/8" is going to be 7/16". If you write that out you have 1/2 x 7/8 = 7/16. And you notice that 1/2 is divided into 2/4 and then into 4/8 and so on, so you can convert anything to anything by multiplying all the numbers on top and then all the numbers on bottom.

    Other rulers are divided into 10 and 100 parts. But an inch is still an inch, so anything on one ruler can be translated to the other ruler. A half inch on one ruler is 5/10 or 50/100 on the other. An eighth inch is just 12.5 marks when you have 100 marks per inch. A metric ruler divides an inch into 25.4 parts, so a half inch would be 12.7 of those parts. Pretty simple, isn't it? Practice this a bit and people will think you went to wizard school.

    Percent is simply a ruler with 100 marks. The only confusion is trying to keep track of what the marks represent, since that changes from time to time.

    Quite often some dingbat will object that I have not answered the question. I reply that the asker needed to get some experience working with numbers, and then the question would no longer exist. There is a reason why the cash registers at the hamburger stand have pictures instead of numbers.
      November 30, 2018 6:22 AM MST
    5

  • 3719

    On several occasions I replied by giving the method for the actual question, rather than the final answer.

    What annoyed me far more than the questioners' laziness in wanting the actual answer rather than help to determine it personally, were several regular respondents who set themselves up as mathematical experts, for a section on Imperial - Metric conversions. These characters gave utterly ridiculous "methods" for solving simple "How many miles in so-many km?" or "How many litres in so-many gallons?" type questions, and sometimes managed to tangle themselves so much their own numerical answer was wrong!

    Typically they'd use terms like "algebra" and "dimensional analysis" - clearly not understanding that these are wrong, and why they are wrong, in such an application! No wonder the poor children struggled to learn ISO units - which will be their future as the USA, the only major nation still using Imperial as a matter of course, is reluctantly having to adopt the metric-based ISO scales.

    (I heard on the radio yesterday, a NASA flight engineer commentating the happily-successful descent of a Mars lander. She was using metres, not feet, for its altitude.) 

    I did have to be careful - I am in the UK and I know the US invented its own "gallon", of different volume.   I would though insist on spelling the ISO-standard unit names correctly: '~tre' not '~ter', and saying why (French words, and I think the ISO itself respects that)!

    Your last sentence raises a question... A vicious circle? Are the pictorial keyboards actually contributing to their own need by removing the cashiers' need to maintain simple numerical ability?

    I recall one of my young nephews reckoning you don't need to learn much maths because the calculator does it for you. He seemed right puzzled when I said it's only an arithmetical tool - you need to know the maths so you can ask it to perform the right calculations!

      November 30, 2018 10:00 AM MST
    3

  • 13277
    "much maths?" Apparently you reckon you don't need to learn much English either!
      November 30, 2018 10:23 AM MST
    2

  • 3719
    Sorry - I don't understand your comment. You seem to be criticising me for something, but what? 
      December 3, 2018 3:26 PM MST
    1

  • 13277
    Never mind. "Maths" is not commonly used in the US - we say "math," but it is in the UK.
      December 3, 2018 3:58 PM MST
    1

  • 3719
    Ah, I see! Thankyou!
      December 3, 2018 4:19 PM MST
    2

  • 5835
    That's English for you. They drive on the wrong side of the road, too.
      December 6, 2018 10:41 AM MST
    3

  • 13277
    LOL. People also drive on the wrong side in current and former English colonies like Jamaica.
      December 6, 2018 12:54 PM MST
    2

  • 46117
    It's impossible.  

    Even earliest man needed to count.  

    It is innate within us to construct foundations to build upon.   We cannot do much without language and we can do even less without some form of counting.
      November 30, 2018 11:13 AM MST
    4

  • 6023
    We'd use letters ... like the Romans.

    LOL
      November 30, 2018 11:38 AM MST
    5