anon ‘A Quirky Introduction To Number Systems ~ BetterExplained
PEM | Calculus, Better Explained is now an Amazon bestseller.
= Grab your copy and learn Calculus intuition-first!
A Quirky Introduction To Number Systems
Home > Math »
Everyone’s got quirks. Me, I like finding new ways to think about problems, and I’ve
started seeing numbers in a new way. Today I’m bringing you along for the ride.
And why do you care?
* You'll see math as one of several approaches. We're still improving our number
system.
* You'll start noticing core relationships and apply them to diverse areas
* You'll have a way to approach “weird” concepts like division by zero and imaginary
numbers.
Contents [hide]
Math is Software For Your Brain
But Math Has Its Limits
Painting With Notepad
From Ug to Infinity
Why .9999... = 1, and why you should care
Going Forward
Other Posts In This Series
Math is Software For Your Brain
Though our favorite encyclopedia describes math as “the body of knowledge centered on
such concepts as quantity, structure, space, and change” I think there’s more to it than
that.
Math is software for your brain:
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qurky ntroduction-o-number-systems! 18ranow ‘uit Ivoducton To Number Sysoms -BetrEsploned
* Your brain is a raw computer.
+ You learn new math (install “Counting 1.0” and “Algebra XY Pro”) and suddenly you
can solve new types of problems.
* Sometimes math has bugs. “Roman Numerals I” was ok, but Decimals 2.0 was a
much-needed upgrade. But we still have a few issues, like dividing by zero.
It’s a strange analogy, but I’m a bit strange, so I think it works out.
But Math Has Its Limits
Quick quiz: Can you multiply two Roman numerals? No cheating, no converting to
decimal: I’m talking about “IX times XXXIV”. Ready, set, multiply!
Having fun yet? It’s CCCVI.
Does this horrendous experience mean multiplication is “hard”? Or are we thinking
about multiplication in the wrong way, using the wrong mental software?
If you upgrade your brain from “Roman Numerals I” to “Decimals 2.0”, you'll find that 9
times 34 is a much easier question: after some work you'd get 306. Same problem +
different mental software = drastic difference.
Painting With Notepad
Yes, you could squeeze multiplication into Roman Numerals. But it’s neither fun nor
easy, and don’t get me started on long division.
Our difficulties are often due to our approach, not the concept.
Think of it like trying to draw in Notepad. It’s a nice tool, and you can even “type” the
Mona Lisa, but the software just wasn’t built with images in mind.
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qurky ntroduction-o-number-systems! 218anon ‘A Quirky Introduction To Number Systems ~ BetterExplained
Similarly, Roman Numerals were built when we were still learning to count — zero
wasn’t even invented yet! Math is a software system that gets better over time, and
Roman Numerals were due for an upgrade.
But before we get too high-and-mighty, realize our current number system is a
patchwork of new features and bug fixes, used to improve our understanding of the
universe.
And when we hit difficulties (What’s 1/0? The square root of -1?) we need to wonder if
we're hitting universal “laws” or walls of our own making. Like the Romans trying to
multiply, let alone do fractions, my money’s on the latter.
From Us to Infinity
Our number system developed over time. We started counting on our fingers, moved to
unary (lines in the sand), Roman Numerals (shortcuts for large numbers) and Arabic
Numerals (the decimal system) with the invention of zero.
Along the way we found “bugs” in our number system and had to invent new ways
around it. Again, the bug was in our thinking (our mental software).
Ugware
Ugware is the counting system devised by Ug the caveman: counting on your fingers and
toes. Ug’s bug was that he was limited to 20 items!
The fix was to abstract the need for physical objects: you don’t need 20 cows to count 20
cows. You can make 20 lines in the sand. Or take shortcuts like C for 100.
htps:etterexplained.convartilesia-qurysntroducton-to-number-systems! 38anon ‘A Quirky Introduction To Number Systems ~ BetterExplained
Unary and Roman Numerals
Having numbers represented abstractly let us do cool things like add and subtract, even
fairly large numbers, | + II = III. X + XX = XXX. Not bad.
But there was still a few “bugs” — what is III — III?
Zero
What a fantastic, beautiful invention: using the symbol 0 to represent nothingness! It’s a
mind-bending and useful idea: we can keep track of “no” cows at all!
This development led to our familiar positional number system: 204 means two
“hundreds”, zero “tens” and four ones.
Integer division and multiplication became possible in ways the Romans (and Ug)
had never imagined. You could work out 1234 « 5678 if given enough time. What a great
feature!
Negatives
But zero didn’t solve everything; subtraction still had problems. What happens when we
take 5 from 3? One solution is to throw up our hands and say “it’s a bug and it’s
undefined”, but we'll do better.
We can think about the problem differently, and entertain the possibility that a number
can be “negative” — a number that is less than nothing! (Pretty mind-bending, no?).
There are many interpretations (a lack of cows, a debt of cows) and negatives were
invented to handle this “bug” in subtraction. Of course, it took a few thousand years to
accept this new feature — negative numbers were still controversial in the 1700s!
Rational Numbers
Division introduced bugs as well. 8/4 is fine, but what is 3/4? It’s a bug!
‘The fix is to find a way to represent “numbers between numbers”. 3/4 is really 75/100, or
“0.75”.
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qurky ntroduction-o-number-systems!ranow ‘uit Ivoducton To Number Sysoms -BetrEsploned
We invented the decimal point to handle the crazy idea of a number more than zero
but less than one. Wow! Pretty wild, but we included these crazy types of numbers to
make our mental software better. Lo and behol4, fractions have their uses. The average
family can have 2.3 kids and we know what it means.
Irrationals Make Greeks Angry
Here we are, minding our own business when we see a right triangle:
The sides are 1 and 1. And there, staring us square in the face, is the square root of 2. It
taunts us, asking to be written down. We can’t — it’s an infinite, non-repeating decimal
number that can’t be expressed as a fraction! And yet it’s right there on paper.
It’s more than a conundrum — it’s madness! The guy who discovered irrationals got
thrown off a boat.
Luckily, irrationals are at least “algebraic” in that they are the solution to some algebra
equation. We can consider sqrt(2) as shorthand for “the solution to the equation x*2 =
2”. We often forget sqrt(9) is really both 3 and -3, don’t we? Convention implies the
positive root.
Complex Numbers
Now some a smart aleck asks, “Ok bub, what number is the solution to the equation x*2
What to do? Declare this to be impossible and non-sensical, just like zero, fractions,
rationals and irrationals were once “impossible and non-sensical”? Or do we accept that
maybe, just maybe, our human understanding of the universe is not complete and we
have more to learn. You know where my money lies.
Imaginary numbers are just as “realistic” as other numbers (or equally contrived,
depending on your viewpoint). But, we don’t have an intuition for them because they’re
often “explained”: Oh, you don’t have an Electrical Engineering degree? Didn’t learn about
complex impedance? No intuitive imaginary numbers for you!
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qurky ntroduction-o-number-systems!ranow ‘uit Ivoducton To Number Sysoms -BetrEsploned
I’ve been thinking about these numbers and plan to address this issue. But not yet —
have patience.
Why .9999... = 1, and why you should care
Our number system is a way of thinking, but it still has a few gaps. We're not quite sure
how to deal with infinity and infinitely small numbers.
Here’s a brain-buster for you:
You: What's 1/3?
Me: Um, .33 repeating.
You: Ok. What’s 1/3 + 1/3?
Me: 2/3 You: Sure, but do it in decimals.
Me: Um, .33 repeating plus .33 would be... .666 repeating.
You: Great. Now what’s 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3, in decimal?
Me: Uh... .33 repeating plus .33 repeating plus .33 repeating... is.99
repeating.
You: But doesn’t 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1? So .99 repeating = 1.
Me: What manner of trickery is this? (Pushes you off blog).
Try that argument on a kid (or adult) — it’s fun to see people’s reactions. Clearly, 1/3 +
1/3 + 1/3 = 1, but somehow when we try to “add it in decimal” the result seems a bit
strange. Again, is the strangeness due to the concept, or our thinking?
What is .33 repeating, anyway? Is it a monkey writing 3’s until the end of time? Is it a
number beyond our notation that we're hopelessly trying to approximate, like the
square root of 2? If we simply switch to base 3, the problem goes away: 1/3 =.1 in base 3,
s0.1+.1+.1=1 (again, in base 3).
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qurky ntroduction-o-number-systems!anor? Acuity Inroducton To Number Systems -Beterxploined
And why do you care? It may be time for a number system upgrade. Discussing
infinity with our current numbers is like drawing in notepad. It’s crude and feels “tacked
on” (like saying 1/0 = infinity. What about 2/0 or 0/02).
Mathematicians are working on new number systems where infinity is built-in, but
there’s still unsolved problems about how to “count” infinity.
Let’s seek the “a ha!” insights that made zero, fractions and negative numbers
understandable, not just the results of manipulating equations. We've been able to
overcome every previous mathematical roadblock.
Going Forward
The goals of this article were simple:
* Show how math is like mental software that improves over time
* Explain that “nonsense” like zero or negative numbers can start as a paradox and
become intuitive as we adapt our approach.
* Today, we still have trouble with ideas like infinity (or at least I do). It’s ok to
admit it.
This is a way to think about math; combine it with your own understanding. Don’t
stand in a daze, unable to add because you're unsure what 1/3 really means.
Insights deepen our understanding, but sometimes only emerge with use. Newton didn’t
have a “formal” understanding of infinitesimals when he invented calculus, but it
seemed to work fine for him (equations got solved). I don’t advocate plug-and-chug, but
for certain ideas you need to hammer away before the insights come.
But enough philosophy. Upcoming articles will show real, concrete ways to think about
arithmetic and complex numbers, which can aid the “mechanical” understanding we
have today. Happy math.
PS. If you’re curious, there’s more on .999... and division by zero on wikipedia.
Join Over 450k Monthly Readers
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qury ntroduction-o-number-systems! 18anon ‘A Quirky Introduction To Number Systems ~ BetterExplained
Enjoy the article? There's plenty more to help you build a lasting,
intuitive understanding of math. Join the newsletter and we'll
turn Huh? to Aha!
Email Address Join Newsletter
Other Posts In This Series
hntps:ettrexplaines.comvartilesia-qurky ntroduction-o-number-systems!