4 ms·
Hmm. I dunno, I think there's something to three specifically. One is singular; AFAIK two (and any even number) has a symmetry; so three is the smallest number
by RangerScience 7y ago
Hmm. I dunno, I think there's something to three specifically. One is singular; AFAIK two (and any even number) has a symmetry; so three is the smallest number of things you can have in a set and have it be a set, instead of a unity or symmetry.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago> so three is the smallest number of things you can have in a set and have it be a set, instead of a unity or symmetry. Three is the smallest number of things you can have in a [non-empty] set and have it not be a set of one or a set of two? You don't say. :)
- RangerScience 7y agoOkay, I'll try again. AFAIK, the number 1 shows up in nature, it actually represents either an everything (this entire atom) or a 0-1 continuum. When the number 2 shows up in nature, it's always balanced opposing somethings. Newton's third law, matter / antimatter, negative/positive electric charge, n/s on a magnet. When the number 3 shows up in nature, you actually get a set of things. Proton, neutrons, electrons; and perhaps this theory now runs into a problem because I'm not thinking of another trinity. So, if you have two things, and they're not opposites, they imply more things in the category. If you have one thing in a category, and it's not an everything or a spectrum (of the everything), it implies more things in the category. If you have three things in a category, they only imply more things if two of them have a symmetrical relationship (resistors, inductors, capacitors). The category may still have more things. but it's not otherwise implied.
- lonelappde 7y agoEvery multiple of every prime number has a symmetry.