4 ms·
I mean philosophically what is a "number" is a hard concept. I don't think any of the children saying 0 is not were really wrong so much as had a different defi
by bawolff 3y ago
I mean philosophically what is a "number" is a hard concept. I don't think any of the children saying 0 is not were really wrong so much as had a different definition of number.
If you asked most adults what a number is, probably many would come up with a definition that didn't include i.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoProbably the simplest concept is that they're for counting things, but that doesn't lead to a clear answer as to whether you can count zero things. When you count things, zero has a physical meaning (if you have one apple and give it away, how many apples do you have?), so maybe they should be considering it a number, but not negative numbers until they get a more abstract understanding.
- asddubs 3y agomaybe measuring is more accurate to say than counting. that way you include things like units of speed, and negative numbers (you can't really count -3)
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoThat means "huge" and "small" are numbers.
- MrRolleyes 3y ago[dead]
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoYes, measuring is a more advanced concept than counting as it introduces fractions. I don't think simple measuring would include negative numbers though as that would include a measuring direction concept (i.e. vectors) as rulers don't have negative numbers on them and you can't have a speed of -5kph.
- asddubs 3y agoyou can measure -5°c though
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoYeah, but that's just an artefact of that particular scale. You'd have trouble measuring -5K
- asddubs 3y agoyou can measure negative pressure, negative acceleration
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoNegative pressure is usually a comparison with e.g. atmospheric pressure, so I wouldn't consider it a simple measurement. An actual negative pressure would presumably be less empty than a vacuum e.g. the Casimir effect. Negative acceleration has a directional component, so again, it's like a negative velocity and is a vector.
- ksaj 3y agoI've read articles about negative Kelvin where they surmise it would get hotter. Keeping in mind what heat actually is, the atoms would just be out of phase.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoYes, temperatures below absolute zero are possible and have been achieved (something to do with flipping the high and low energy states), but I stand by my comment that it isn't easy to measure and definitely a far more advanced concept for kids than negative numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature
- MrRolleyes 3y ago[dead]
- kaetemi 3y agoTerminology questions are very very ambiguous in general without academic context bias. Ask toddlers if 0 is a round number. :')
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago"Round number" is specifically an ambiguous terminology though. You could use "integer" instead, but it's really more to do with the concept of significant figures. e.g. 129 is an integer, but 130 is a "rounder number" than 129 and 100 is rounder still. To make it more confusing, decimal numbers ending in 5 (before the zeros) are often considered round, 150 is rounder than 130. However, mathematically there's a totally different definition: A round number is a number that is the product of a considerable number of comparatively small factors. That means that 24 is rounder than 25.
- wiredfool 3y ago8 is twice as round as 0. Source: parent of 3.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoPrecisely. With ambiguous terminology, that seems perfectly logical to me.
- ksaj 3y agoTechnically 3 is equally round as 0, but half as round as 8. It's just split and flipped.
- hhjinks 3y ago0 is round because it's a circle.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoExcept that it isn't
- ksaj 3y agoIt's a number in Base 18. Or is that my imagination?