4 ms·

You're missing something. If 6 doesn't exists 7 can't exist. You can't just say 7 - 1 doesn't exist, while 7 - 2 does. If you remove 6 from the real numbers a

by cbuq 9y ago

You're missing something. If 6 doesn't exists 7 can't exist. You can't just say 7 - 1 doesn't exist, while 7 - 2 does. If you remove 6 from the real numbers and say anything that would result in 6 is impossible, doesn't 6 exist anyways? The article isn't trying to make any claims of relativity, but suggests that 3 + 3 = 0

kobeya 9y ago
Sure it does. You can have a collection of 5 objects and a collection of 2 objects. Push them together and you have 7 objects. But for whatever reason you just can't push any combinations together to form (a multiple of?) 6, or break up any larger group in such a way that one of the resulting pieces would have six elements. If you did it'd instantly break up into smaller clumps of 1-5 elements, or disappear, or whatever. This isn't even that crazy. Sulfur with atomic weights 32, 33, 34, and 36 are stable. S-35 is extremely unstable and decays rapidly enough to be dangerous. You could say that 35 doesn't exist in the world of sulfur. You can start with S-32 and throw a neutron at it and get S-33. Do it again and you get S-34. Do it again and you get.. chloride. But hit S-34 with two neutrons and you get stable S-36. The universe just doesn't allow 35 it seems, for some sulfur-centric definition of "allow." ---- I thought the article was going to be more interesting than it actually was, to be honest. I thought the experts would talk about benzene and its six carbon atoms, and how a vital molecule needed for life would not be possible and the ramifications of that. Instead benzine got just an off-hand remark. Or the kind of mathematical system you'd get if you struck out multiples of six, and what implications that might have for physics and chemistry. Or whether a game of life is possible on a six-state (0..5) grid and if life could plausibly evolve, etc. Instead we got a boring counting argument that was trivially defeated :\

by cbuq 9y ago

kobeya 9y ago

Sure it does. You can have a collection of 5 objects and a collection of 2 objects. Push them together and you have 7 objects. But for whatever reason you just can't push any combinations together to form (a multiple of?) 6, or break up any larger group in such a way that one of the resulting pieces would have six elements. If you did it'd instantly break up into smaller clumps of 1-5 elements, or disappear, or whatever. This isn't even that crazy. Sulfur with atomic weights 32, 33, 34, and 36 are stable. S-35 is extremely unstable and decays rapidly enough to be dangerous. You could say that 35 doesn't exist in the world of sulfur. You can start with S-32 and throw a neutron at it and get S-33. Do it again and you get S-34. Do it again and you get.. chloride. But hit S-34 with two neutrons and you get stable S-36. The universe just doesn't allow 35 it seems, for some sulfur-centric definition of "allow." ---- I thought the article was going to be more interesting than it actually was, to be honest. I thought the experts would talk about benzene and its six carbon atoms, and how a vital molecule needed for life would not be possible and the ramifications of that. Instead benzine got just an off-hand remark. Or the kind of mathematical system you'd get if you struck out multiples of six, and what implications that might have for physics and chemistry. Or whether a game of life is possible on a six-state (0..5) grid and if life could plausibly evolve, etc. Instead we got a boring counting argument that was trivially defeated :\