The job of Philosophy

Hey Farma lend a hand to you pal there he needs it!

I am pretty sure Farmerman is on my side on this one. He knows math.

I answered your questions... now can you answer mine.

You are defining the "size" of a number a the number of digits it has. That would mean that

The size of 10 is 2.
The size of 59 is 2.
The size of 123 is 3.

Is that correct?

I would like to know what the size of the following are (in your definition of size).

10.0
10.01

(I would think the 10.0 would have a size of 2 since I wouldn't count trailing zeros. The size of 10.01 would have to be 4).

Is this how you are defining the "size" of a number?

I am am not understanding what you are saying... don't respond with insult. Have patience and tell me the size of each of these numbers.

...I am dying to see Farma showing up right now! ...no comments

There is a mathematical curiosity in Fil's definition of the "size" of a number.

A number can have different sizes in different number bases.

10 (base10) is equal to 1010 (base2). This same value will have a size of 2 or a size of 4 when you change bases.

However an irrational number is irrational in any numeric base. So the size will be infinite in any case.

I've been pretty precise and i've asked you to tell me the size of an irrational number. You have failed at that grossly.
Say 1.4
What is the exact previous number or the following number?
Take into account said number is well defined in the class of irrational numbers and then proceed to answer.

Finally Infinity, thank you!
Now address the whole point if you will.
How the frack naming something say X or 1.4.7. whatever is next, has the characteristics of a number just because you named it? You cannot get to any decimal of said named number.
Where is it located in mathematical space?
How much information does it carry? And how did you arrived at said number through calculus?

I see the problem here. I am using actual mathematics. In actual mathematics, you have to define your values, operators and spaces. You are using philosophical mathematics where you have a number or operator mean anything you want.

In actual mathematics, when you use an operator like "size" on a number, you have to define what this operator means. Once you define the operator, I can then apply it to any value to get the result. Until you define the operator it is a nonsense question (what is the color of the number 10).

With your philosophical mathematics, you still haven't told me if the size of the number 10 is 2...

is it?

...hahaha! Oh boy I can see a bunch ton of REAL mathematicians angry at you right now!

I am as close to a "real mathematician" as there is on this thread. I have almost certainly studied more mathematics... and I use mathematics to solve real problems daily in my job.

This isn't a thread about mathematics. Most people agree that mathematics is useful. You are relying on a mathematical device to read this message.

This is a thread about whether philosophy has purpose.

Let me help ya for a sec with this video. Although of course, this guy fails to stress well enough that infinity is still there in between any irrational number and in the number itself, because that is/was not his point.

Still this is the best you can throw at me and I have done the work for you!
(you would never find this video)

Your basic mistake is that you are confusing the irrational number, with a set that contains the irrational number.

When you ask about the size of an irrational number, it is nonsense (unless you define the "size" operator for a specific number).

This guy is defining a set of numbers, of which an irrational number is part. The size operator for a set of numbers is already well defined.

The size operator is not defined for a specific number. That is why you still can't tell me the size of the number 10.

“Alien”? Piggy agrees with it very much because all of my human right as well as livelihood in China actually have been deprived of by the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city invisibly and piggy has no an idea how to flee to America. That means piggy actually has no chance to survive on the Earth and has to find a way to go into the cosmos and becomes an alien …
The First Order (the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city) keeps trying every means to squeeze my space of existence in the local place step by step and piggy is → 0 in China. The cruel and all around suppression of the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city has at least shorten piggy’s life 10 plus years. Piggy will post consecutive stuffs for reference to those guys who are willing to touch the elephant in an alternative way as soon as I have prepared them. Actually, most of my time is spent worrying about the perspective and safety of my family members.
Have a lovely weekend, guys.
给他江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团及新会一中九一四班谁谁一个超文革赛阎王光荣称号快快全世界全宇宙打靶啦。当今时代，全世界没有什么人能够值得如此殊荣。呵呵

I am loving the use of the word CONTAINS in your sentence. Really loving it! Grasping at straws much? Obviously you must be referring to the quality of the number since quantitatively you are getting nowhere with sets.

An irrational number is by definition uncountable. You can pull one out of you hat and name it to a certain decimal but you cannot account what that naming stands for nor the size of the actual number. ALL YOU CAN DO is an approximation with a rational number!

Oddly enough you call this "Philosophical Maths"...Mathematicians would kill you right now!

Give me a definition of the word "uncountable" and I will tell you if this is true or not. Is the number 10.5 countable by your definition?

If it is finite yes if it is infinite as in the continuum hypothesis nop. I stop at plank scale for reasons... hehehe!

PS - In all fairness I am biased is it is well know my dislike of infinities.
I have problems with the concept of "size" because of the nature of fractals.

In actual math, you need to have exact definitions for the terms you use. I am pretty sure they made this clear in Calculus 1. When you study linear algebra and start to learn about vector spaces and tensors... you definitely need to understand this.

If you are going to use the word "size" in any meaningful way, you need to define it in such a way that it will be used consistently by anyone with whom you are communicating.

This why when I ask you, what is the "size" of 10, or the "size" of 10.01... you are not able to give an answer. It is nonsense question you are asking until you define the size operator.

You have done this repeatedly now

You are talking about the "size of a number" but you can't tell me the size of the number 10.5.

You are talking about whether a number is "countable" but you can't tell me if the number 10.5 is countable or not.

You are using terms that you haven't defined, and you can't even use them yourself.

If you can answer these simple questions, it would make this conversation a little less silly.

1. What is the size of the number 10?
2. What is the size of the number 10.01?
3. Is the number 1/3 countable?
4. Is the number 10.5 countable?

These are basic questions about the terms you are using. You should be able to give a clear answer to these.

What is the reference point of the number 10? A bit, Plank scale? ...or Infinity?
Do you understand???

For any reader actually interested in applied mathematics....

I work as a software engineer. The "size" operator is defined in certain context to refer to the number of bits needed to hold a number. In some computer language, there is actually a size operator built in.

The size operator is generally a multiple of 8 bits (because of computer architecture). The size of 50 or 123 or 202 is 8 bits. The size of 257 or 1089 or 10,003 is 16 bits.

The size of an irrational number is interesting, it depends on how the irrational number is represented. The size operator may return 16 or 32, or 64.

The size operator is a perfectly valid mathematical operator, as long as everyone understands the definition that is consistently applied.

No I don't understand. What you are saying is nonsense to me.

I asked you very simple questions which you seem to be unable to answer. You are the one who started saying that numbers have sizes.

What is the size of the number 10?