Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Our Numbers System - A candidate for reengineering


"Die ganzen Zahlen hat Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk"
-  Leopold Kronecker


At one point numbers were only used to count. The number system was created by men based on their own observations of reality, for instance: 1 sheep, 2 cows, 3 rocks, etc. Later on, the definition Number was extended, not just to count things, but also measure their properties. Therefore, the numbers used for counting were grouped as “Natural Numbers” and the new extended system became known as “Real Numbers” to include such numbers as zero, negative numbers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, and finally complex numbers.



Zero
What is zero? Is it a number? How can it be a number if it does not count anything? Does it even behave like a number? The definition of a mathematical operations states that they are certain procedures that take one or more numbers as input and produce a number as output. This how normal numbers act, therefore, the “zero” should behave as this.

Test 1:  0 + 1 = 1
Test 2: 3 – 0 = 3
Test 3: 1 × 0 = 0
Test 4: 2 ÷ 0 = #¡DIV/0!

Thus, we cannot divide a number by 0, because there is no solution to the equation “X × 0 = 3”

Negative Numbers
Afterward, mathematicians were forced to fill a void when they had 4 sheep and wanted to subtract 5 of them. It was like playing god, creating a sheep out of the blue (Actually they were trying to solve the equation X + 1 = 0, not playing god) But this meant that numbers no longer represented reality. Therefore, negative numbers were the first imaginary numbers.

Rational and Irrational Numbers
Additionally, this sheep has also 2 ears, 4 legs, 231 bones, millions and millions of cells and so on. So, how exactly do these numbers explain reality? Is 1 leg the same as 1/24 of a sheep? As I was told in school: "Es como comparar papas con camotes" ("It´s like trying to compare apples and oranges")



Complex Numbers
Mathematicians love to solve equations, so let us consider this equation: X – 1 = 0
This equation has only one “real” solution… x = 1

Another would be:  x2 – 1 = 0
This equation has two “real” solutions… x = 1, -1

Nevertheless, what if we have the equation: x2 + 1 = 0
Actually, this equation has no solution because there is no number that when squared the result is -1. Thus, what should we do? As we need to have an answer for everything we cannot have this unsolved equation over our heads, consequently, why not extend the number system one more time to include solutions to equations of this type? So everyone settled and said: “OK, as there is no solution for √-1, let us call it “i” and save us the trouble”

Subsequently, this equation has two “imaginary” solutions… x = i, -i

However, why does this number appear? Why is there a mathematical operation that we cannot do?

If mathematicians have created a symbol for an operation we cannot do, why don't they create another for the division by zero (“X × 0 = 3”)?

Taken from: http://xkcd.com/
Reengineering

What if we don’t need to settle? What if the problem is our numbers system?
As stated before, our number model was developed by people and then patched up as new discoveries appeared. As it is a system developed by men, it has the same restrictions and constrains as men.

As I see it, this model can be only applied until certain level, but if we want to reach the next level (or go back one level, or go to a level within a level) then it gets complicated and we have to settle for negative numbers, fractions and even “i”.

We need to start by assessing the reason for negative numbers existence. Negative numbers are the lack of something, meaning something being lost. If someone loses something, then another one gains that something. First example would be debt: If I owe the bank $2,000 in my credit card, it show as negative in my balance; but it is also positive from the banks perspective (apart from the interest rate). Another example would be heat transfer: if we put ice on a glass of water then we need to see it not as the water loosing temperature, but as the ice gaining it. 


It is all a matter of perspective.

No comments:

Post a Comment