h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Calling 23 'twenty-three' makes people think in a decimal straitjacket. i notice that real mathematicians (I'm not one) think of numbers as having particular personalities. I'm sure that the absence of any relation between 67 and 87 would be more obvious if one was called warkle and the other sunub.
All the primes could start with 'p' for example.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
" 'real mathematicians' think of numbers as having personalities"... |
|
| |
Thats why they have such poor inter-personal skills. I don't think they should be used as a model for the rest of us (particularly in number nomenclature). |
|
| |
I think jutta might say this is a little out of scope for the halfbakery - perhaps pseudodictionary or half-empty would suit it better? |
|
| |
(as an ex-physicist type bloke, I'd say that "i" has a personality a lot like UnaBubba's - makes life bloody awkward at times, but at least it keeps it interesting..) |
|
| |
Yes, and when either is acting negative it can be very vexing to get squarely to the root of their problem. |
|
| |
I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with the decimal straitjacket premise. Booleans and Unicoders houdini out of it fairly easily. I'd even go so far as to say mathematicians would begrudge this, on these grounds: since mathematicians are fully aware of the 'invisible' properties of numbers (the geometric progression motorway, the primes, the squares, irrationals, etc) they might object to these properties being flagged in order to make hoi polloi aware. Like dowlers coming across signs in the desert saying WATER HERE. Mathmos don't have much. I say let's leave them be on this one. |
|
| |
This idea is brilliant, but why restrict yourself to merely the integers up to 100? You should think of new names for all the real numbers up to 100 instead, just to be thorough. |
|
| |
great idea, pmillerchip, why don't you start us off, only up to 1, say. Post them when you're done. |
|
| |
Some numbers are so... so... Negative. |
|
| |
In which case you just spell the number's name sdrawckab. |
|
| |
I expected an idea about creating a domain name system for phone numbers. |
|
| |
Here are the names of the numbers from 1 to 35 in a format that I just now made up. If a system like this could be adapted for use by the general public, it could be highly instructive: |
|
| |
A
O
U
AS
AHA
AO
AV
OS
OA
OHO
OV
VIS
VA
VO
VIV
ASIS
ASA
ASO
ASIV
AHAS
AHAHA
AHAV
AOS
AOA
AOHO
AOV
AVIS
AVA
AVO
AVIV
OSIS
OSA
OSO
OSIV
|
|
| |
Big pastry to the first one who can say what the next few numbers would be :) |
|
| |
But of course 3 should be V and between AHAHA & AHAV should come AHAO. |
|
| |
Extra bonus point for the error catch, but I defend 3 as U as follows: |
|
| |
- First, it is a phonetic convenience, as is often allowed in linguistic paradigms, even rigid, logical ones |
|
| |
- Second, there is historical connectivity between U and V which is exploited here |
|
| |
- Finally, it throws a tiny wrinkle into the puzzle that is easily justified by the two points above. |
|
| |
Ah, ravens, if only we could croissant annotations. The main problem with your idea is we have an infinite number of primes and only a finite number of syllables. However, worth a try for comedic value alone. |
|
| |
Ah, schooldays:
one times bo is bo.
bo times bo is bobo.
chu times bo is chubo.
bobo times bo is bobobo or chuchu.
di times bo is dibo.
... |
|
| |
no, that can't be.. bobo x bo is only bobobo |
|
| |
In the same way bochu x bochu, bobo x chuchu,
bobochu x chu, bochuchu x bo,
bochuchu + bochuchu and
bobochu + bobochu + bobochu are bobochuchu |
|
| |
Is there an order of syllables, for example, are chuchubobo or chubochubo acceptable alternatives to bobochuchu? |
|
| |
Also, bobobo must be the same numerically as chuchu - what governs the order of precedence? |
|
| |
no, silly. bobobo is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8. chuchu is 3 x 3 = 9. |
|
| |
Blast - have to give back my maths degree. I wonder if I can get a refund. |
|
| |