Is Maths Truly the Universal Language?
Discussion
I have always been led to believe and understand that Maths is a universal language that should be understood by any intelligent civilisation in the Universe.
For me it comes down to very simply that 1 is indicative of a single object, 2 of 2 etc, etc, etc.
Now, my mate (who is quite smarter, certainly smarter than me) suggested at the weekend that it's not, because our entire numbering system is based off of 10 (and multiples there-of, 10, 100, 1000 etc, etc.) And that this is primarily because we have 10 fingers and this is where the depiction of 10 and multiples of it come from.
An alien civilisation, that possess 12 digits would, or could, have a different way of counting and representing numbers.
But, in my mind that's just the way the numbers are represented or counted. But at the very base level 1 is still 1 and 10 is still 10 and calculations using any number work (when done correctly of course).
Does the view that other alien civilisations that represent numbers in a different or totally alien way carry any weight? I'm un-convinced.
For me it comes down to very simply that 1 is indicative of a single object, 2 of 2 etc, etc, etc.
Now, my mate (who is quite smarter, certainly smarter than me) suggested at the weekend that it's not, because our entire numbering system is based off of 10 (and multiples there-of, 10, 100, 1000 etc, etc.) And that this is primarily because we have 10 fingers and this is where the depiction of 10 and multiples of it come from.
An alien civilisation, that possess 12 digits would, or could, have a different way of counting and representing numbers.
But, in my mind that's just the way the numbers are represented or counted. But at the very base level 1 is still 1 and 10 is still 10 and calculations using any number work (when done correctly of course).
Does the view that other alien civilisations that represent numbers in a different or totally alien way carry any weight? I'm un-convinced.
Loving the responses on this thread, particularly the link about the tribe that have no concept of counting at all, which I find utterly bizarre and amazing in equal measure.
I guess that there are to trains of thought here, the concept of numbers and counting and the actual physical methods we use (going back to the non-decimal metrics we've adopted in the past).
I guess that the whole thing centers around the "scary maths" side of things, which are all equation based and can be used to show all sorts of intelligent concepts etc.
Computers obviously now all have a starting point of binary, which can be used to do complex things, although binary has been replaced by hexidecimal, is this to make the calculations more efficient?
I believe it is still a universal language for any intelligent civilisation to use, as one object will always be one object, a prime number will always be a prime number.
I guess that there are to trains of thought here, the concept of numbers and counting and the actual physical methods we use (going back to the non-decimal metrics we've adopted in the past).
I guess that the whole thing centers around the "scary maths" side of things, which are all equation based and can be used to show all sorts of intelligent concepts etc.
Computers obviously now all have a starting point of binary, which can be used to do complex things, although binary has been replaced by hexidecimal, is this to make the calculations more efficient?
I believe it is still a universal language for any intelligent civilisation to use, as one object will always be one object, a prime number will always be a prime number.
Peter3442 said:
Mr Pointy said:
But if you didn't have numbers you couldn't have maths.
There are large areas of maths dedicated to the subject of numbers. However, there's a great deal that exists without them. Very often, we need a number to make use of the maths, but by no means always. School geometry provides a lot of examples. Ask an old gardener to make an oval flower bed in the centre of your lawn. If he knows his work, he'll male a nice ellipse, centred, oriented and sized as required with a long piece of string and two sticks. It's a nice piece of applied maths all done without numbers.I'm genuinely asking, I'm fascinated by the responses so far, so thank you all who have contributed.
I understand what Esceptico said about studying maths without numbers, however, do we have that ability because the numbers came first allowing us to prove the calculations of such things?
Almost "chicken and egg", what came first, the numbers and understanding of them, or the calculations?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff