Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 89

Thread: Positive and Negative

  1. #31
    Senior Member apricissimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Malden, MA, USA
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    That's not true, when numbers are used as they should be. "2" is a number which means "two-ness." That can be a quality of reality, described accurately: 2 bicycles, 2 wheels, 2 pies, etc.
    What about 3/4 of a pie? Is that real? How about 3/4 of a bicycle?

    How long is the diagonal of a square with side length 1 inch? Is that number "real"?

    All numbers are abstractions, even 1, 2, 3 . . .

  2. Likes jegreenwood liked this post
  3. #32
    Senior Member jegreenwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    That's not true, when numbers are used as they should be. "2" is a number which means "two-ness." That can be a quality of reality, described accurately: 2 bicycles, 2 wheels, 2 pies, etc.
    The first thing I thought about when I read this was my recent visit to the Australian outback. We were staying near Uluru, an area originally inhabited by the Anangnu. Our guides reminded us (incessantly) that the Anangu did not believe in private property. Thus they used a different numerical system: 1, 2, 3, many. So I guess for the Anangu 2 described a quality of reality, but 4 - not so much.
    Last edited by jegreenwood; Jun-17-2019 at 15:18.

  4. Likes millionrainbows liked this post
  5. #33
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apricissimus View Post
    What about 3/4 of a pie? Is that real? How about 3/4 of a bicycle?

    How long is the diagonal of a square with side length 1 inch? Is that number "real"?

    All numbers are abstractions, even 1, 2, 3 . . .
    Those are fractions, and of course they exist, backwards from "1" to infinity this side of zero. But not the other side of zero.

    The diagonal of a square is "real." The Egyptians used lengths of rope to construct buildings from a central stake, which inscribed a circle. Reality consists of many relations (ratios) which cannot be expressed numerically.

    No, numbers are not abstractions if they are used to identify or count objects. I have 3 sheep, the "three-ness" is a real description.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Jun-17-2019 at 15:36.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  6. #34
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
    I have no idea what you are trying to say, so I'll just let you have whatever it is. Enjoy!
    Actually, this can be related to Nelson Pass' paper on the Zen amp.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  7. #35
    Senior Member apricissimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Malden, MA, USA
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    Those are fractions, and of course they exist, backwards from "1" to infinity this side of zero. But not the other side of zero.

    The diagonal of a square is "real." The Egyptians used lengths of rope to construct buildings from a central stake, which inscribed a circle. Reality consists of many relations (ratios) which cannot be expressed numerically.

    No, numbers are not abstractions if they are used to identify or count objects. I have 3 sheep, the "three-ness" is a real description.
    The ancient Greeks did not think that the length of the diagonal of a square is a "real" number in the same sense as counting numbers (or even what we would call fractions). We would call this diagonal length "irrational". They called it "incommensurable" with the length of the sides. It is literally impossible to measure the length of the diagonal in terms of any kind of subdivisions of the length of the sides (and you can prove this). The diameter or radius of a circle is similarly incommensurable with the circumference of the circle. This was a sort of spooky thing first discovered by the Pythagoreans. There are still some mathematicians who regard irrational numbers with suspicion, but they are a small minority.

    As for fractions, there's a reason why a many kids have trouble learning how to use the in math classes, and it's because they are actually much more sophisticated and abstract things that adults who (mostly) learned them by rote tend to take for granted. I would even argue that the kids who have difficulty with fractions somehow realize this better than many adults, or even their teachers.

    Fractions, or rational numbers, do have a certain correspondence to certain real world situations (3/4 of a pie) but not so much to others (3/4 of a bicycle). Ultimately they are numbers (in a sense) that are conjured from thin air by declaring that we want every kind of division of integers (except for division by zero) to make some kind of sense. Negative numbers are similar in that they exist simply because we want every kind of subtraction of whole numbers to exist and make sense. Negative numbers are just as "real" and sensible as positive fractions are.

    You can keep going. Normally you'd say that there's no numbers whose square is a negative number. That is, until you declare that such a number exists, like the "imaginary" unit i, for example, then all of a sudden you have the complex numbers, an extension of the "real" numbers that allow you to take square roots of anything. But the so-called "imaginary" numbers are no less "real" than whole numbers, or integers or rational numbers, or real numbers.

    As for the counting numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., these are abstractions too. Suppose you have two piles of things, say, three apples and three bicycles. They really don't have anything in common except for the fact that there are three of them. And these three piles (let's call these piles "sets", why not) have this same "three-ness" in common with all other sets of three things. This "three-ness" in the pile of apples is some property that is not redness, or sweetness, or shape, or anything else you can say about piles of apples. Ditto for bicycles, and for every other set of three things. So what is it then? It's sort of slippery.

    There are different ways to define what we mean by "three", that aren't worth getting into here. But I think if you really try to pin it down, it'll prove to be a lot more elusive than you think.

    Edit: I should add that the reason why the Greeks and even some modern mathematicians view irrational numbers with suspicions is because defining them in terms of other numbers (like integers) always involves some kind of infinite process, or infinite set, the existence of which is dubious to some people. But that's an entirely different discussion. And negative numbers really do not suffer from any kind of similar challenge to their "real-ness".
    Last edited by apricissimus; Jun-17-2019 at 16:10.

  8. #36
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apricissimus View Post
    The ancient Greeks did not think that the length of the diagonal of a square is a "real" number in the same sense as counting numbers (or even what we would call fractions). We would call this diagonal length "irrational". They called it "incommensurable" with the length of the sides. It is literally impossible to measure the length of the diagonal in terms of any kind of subdivisions of the length of the sides (and you can prove this). The diameter or radius of a circle is similarly incommensurable with the circumference of the circle. This was a sort of spooky thing first discovered by the Pythagoreans. There are still some mathematicians who regard irrational numbers with suspicion, but they are a small minority.
    The Pythagorans worshipped number, and are abstractionists by nature, and are a poor choice for representing "number as reality." Still, the diagonal of a square is a "real" thing, as is Pi and circles.

    As for fractions, there's a reason why a many kids have trouble learning how to use them in math classes, and it's because they are actually much more sophisticated and abstract things that adults who (mostly) learned them by rote tend to take for granted. I would even argue that the kids who have difficulty with fractions somehow realize this better than many adults, or even their teachers.
    That's because fractions are not quantities, they are relations. "Half" could mean 1/2 a million, 1/2 of ten, half of any quantity.

    Fractions, or rational numbers, do have a certain correspondence to certain real world situations (3/4 of a pie) but not so much to others (3/4 of a bicycle).
    That's determined by the nature of the objects, not numbers: a bicycle is considered to be a "unity" as an object, almost like it was a "being" like a human. Fractions are best applied to QUANTITIES of things which are inherently not unified, can be "used" as materials, like pies. Why else?

    Ultimately they are numbers (in a sense) that are conjured from thin air by declaring that we want every kind of division of integers (except for division by zero) to make some kind of sense. Negative numbers are similar in that they exist simply because we want every kind of subtraction of whole numbers to exist and make sense. Negative numbers are just as "real" and sensible as positive fractions are.
    Yes, but I am emphasizing how they are NOT, not how they ARE similar.

    You can keep going. Normally you'd say that there's no numbers whose square is a negative number. That is, until you declare that such a number exists, like the "imaginary" unit i, for example, then all of a sudden you have the complex numbers, an extension of the "real" numbers that allow you to take square roots of anything. But the so-called "imaginary" numbers are no less "real" than whole numbers, or integers or rational numbers, or real numbers.
    You're already getting lost in more abstraction. Keep it simple.

    As for the counting numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., these are abstractions too. Suppose you have two piles of things, say, three apples and three bicycles. They really don't have anything in common except for the fact that there are three of them. And these three piles (let's call these piles "sets", why not) have this same "three-ness" in common with all other sets of three things. This "three-ness" in the pile of apples is some property that is not redness, or sweetness, or shape, or anything else you can say about piles of apples. Ditto for bicycles, and for every other set of three things. So what is it then? It's sort of slippery.
    No more slippery than any other quality. "Three-ness" is easy, and real.

    There are different ways to define what we mean by "three", that aren't worth getting into here. But I think if you really try to pin it down, it'll prove to be a lot more elusive than you think.
    Oh, I'm sure there are, in the abstract world of numbers.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Jun-17-2019 at 16:27.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  9. #37
    Senior Member apricissimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Malden, MA, USA
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    No more slippery than any other quality. "Three-ness" is easy, and real.
    Okay, what is three-ness?

  10. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5,612
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apricissimus View Post
    Okay, what is three-ness?
    Easy peasy, threeness is one more than twoness.
    Last edited by Mandryka; Jun-17-2019 at 17:14.

  11. Likes apricissimus liked this post
  12. #39
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mandryka View Post
    Easy peasy, threeness is one more than twoness.
    And believe me, three-ness is real.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  13. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    When you think about speakers and amps and sound itself, a speaker has a negative and a positive travel; it goes from a + number to a - number.
    Real sound is not like this; it exerts a positive force on our ears. It does not "suck" our ears, because it is a positive pressure of air, always starting from zero.

    So how can any amp or speaker be accurate, unless it is totally positive?
    Your ears are internally pressurized with atmospheric pressure. They do not detect absolute pressure, they detect the pressure difference between their internal pressure and the external pressure. Sound is a compression wave which causes pressure to fluctuations above and below mean atmospheric pressure so your ears detect positive and negative excursions of relative pressure. Your ear drum is effectively "sucked out" during the negative phase of a sound wave when external pressure is below the internal pressure of the ear. It is therefore totally appropriate for an acoustic signal oscillate between positive and negative values.

    You can reach the same conclusion by considering how sound is produced. Sound is produced by vibration of the instrument. In a stringed instrument the sounding board moves up and down in response to the vibration of the string, producing positive and negative perturbation to the pressure. The same is true of a loudspeaker cone, with moves forward and backward producing positive and negative pressure perturbations.

    It is also true that there is no need for an audio signal to be bipolar. If you were to build an audio amplifier where +10V was the equilibrium output and the signal fluctuated above and below 10V the effect would be the same. The speaker cone would move forward and backward with respect to its equilibrium position creating positive and negative pressure fluctuations. You would, however, needlessly dissipate a lot of energy in your output transistors and speaker coils.
    Last edited by Baron Scarpia; Jun-20-2019 at 19:54.

  14. #41
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Scarpia View Post
    Your ear drum is effectively "sucked out" during the negative phase of a sound wave when external pressure is below the internal pressure of the ear.
    You say "effectively sucked out," but the sound pressure is only positive; it cannot go below zero in the real world. Only by comparison can you say sound has a "negative" value in reality.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

  15. #42
    Senior Member apricissimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Malden, MA, USA
    Posts
    608
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    You say "effectively sucked out," but the sound pressure is only positive; it cannot go below zero in the real world. Only by comparison can you say sound has a "negative" value in reality.
    In a longitudinal wave, like a sound wave, how would you measure the opposing back and forth motions involved, if not with positive and negative numbers? I'm not sure why you're hung up on this.

  16. Likes jegreenwood liked this post
  17. #43
    Senior Member jegreenwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apricissimus View Post
    In a longitudinal wave, like a sound wave, how would you measure the opposing back and forth motions involved, if not with positive and negative numbers? I'm not sure why you're hung up on this.
    Sort of like this.

    parts-of-a-wave.gif
    Last edited by jegreenwood; Jun-21-2019 at 14:53.

  18. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    1,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    You say "effectively sucked out," but the sound pressure is only positive; it cannot go below zero in the real world. Only by comparison can you say sound has a "negative" value in reality.
    Read again. The ear is not filled with vacuum, it's internal pressure is the mean atmospheric pressure (maintained by the eustachian tubes). When the trough of the sound wave brings the external pressure below mean atmospheric pressure the ear drum is "sucked out." If you like you can say that it is pushed out by the internal pressure, which exceeds the external pressure. But that's what "suck" means. When you suck liquid through a straw there is no negative pressure, there is pressure lower than the ambient atmospheric pressure.
    Last edited by Baron Scarpia; Jun-21-2019 at 16:56.

  19. Likes jegreenwood liked this post
  20. #45
    Senior Member millionrainbows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,546
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Scarpia View Post
    Read again. The ear is not filled with vacuum, it's internal pressure is the mean atmospheric pressure (maintained by the eustachian tubes). When the trough of the sound wave brings the external pressure below mean atmospheric pressure the ear drum is "sucked out." If you like you can say that it is pushed out by the internal pressure, which exceeds the external pressure. But that's what "suck" means. When you suck liquid through a straw there is no negative pressure, there is pressure lower than the ambient atmospheric pressure.
    But both conditions, normal or higher pressure, are both "positive" values. There is no negative pressure, as you say. The sound wave is acting upon values of pressure which are all positive.

    Mean atmospheric pressure is a force which is constantly positive, and which is "pushing in" on the eardrum. The natural state of the eardrum, then would be no pressure at all. So all of this "pushing and pulling" and "waves and troughs" are occurring under atmospheric pressure which is, to begin with, a state of positive pressure. Anything less than that is not a "negative" value, only a lesser positive one.
    "The way out is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"
    -Confucious

    "In Spring! In the creation of art it must be as it is in Spring!" -Arnold Schoenberg

    "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made us." -Jean-Paul Sartre

    "I don't mind dying, as long as I can still breathe." ---Me

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •