3 ms·
I’m not saying our current system isn’t capable, more that it might not be best suited to describe our physical existence—like how base 16 allows you to visuali
by dcow 8y ago
I’m not saying our current system isn’t capable, more that it might not be best suited to describe our physical existence—like how base 16 allows you to visualize the underlying bits better than base 10. Is there any physical law that demands negative numbers? I think not. We just like them.
- nine_k 8y ago> physical law that demands negative numbers Representing velocities relative to a given point? Representing charges?
- dcow 8y agoPositive/negative is really just semantics for something that is the opposite of something else. In both cases you have a quantity of something so you can e.g. take the square root of it perfectly fine. However in a discrete system the square root is only defined for whole number results anyway. For velocities perhaps a polar coordinate system is more “simple”.
- michaelcampbell 8y agoSo taking your last 2 posts... > Is there any physical law that demands [semantics for something that is the opposite of something else]? I think not. Does this sound as absurd to you as it does to me?
- dcow 8y agoMy point is that the mathematic negative/positive duality is often either too specific (doesn’t allow for scenarios where you may have more than two “directions” so we invented dimensions) or too general (allows for negative values where you don’t want them, so we use abs or square things to correct).