Printable View
No one in my class will not believe me that one is not a number. I can explain it but they can't seem to understand that one is a unit rather than a number representing how many units there are. Is there a way to prove it mathmatically or a better way to express it?
One could be a unit but how would you express a single unit of one then? You have to include 1 as numbering cant start at 2 units of 1. ;)
one is number.
because you can count any no. of units starting from 1 i.e 1 no.of people then 1 no.of computer
I think it is dipend on the situation where we going to use 1.
As shukla said "you can count any no. of units starting from 1 i.e 1 no.of people then 1 no.of computer" if you want you can say that something, there is one.
eg: 1 book, 1 pen, etc:
And also you can say that there is one unit. Let consider a apedo meter of a vehical. We said that it displayed in units of distance(if it is start from zero and comes to one, we say that ther is one unit). That it why I thought it dipends on the situation.
So then from your example you can say that you have a count of one (1) unit of distance. You need to specify the count of units as its meaningless to say that you have x number of units. One does count and cant think of any situation where it wouldnt?
Well it turns out I have some sentimentalist for what I believe in, as shown in this quote from wikipedia:
"Some Ancient Greeks did not consider one as a number: they considered it to be the unit, two being the first proper number as it represented a multiplicity"
Anyone else see things my way?
Edit: I will try to explain it how I think of it as best I can. 1 represents a single unit of an obect. 2 doesn't represent that there are two units, but that their is 2 of the 1 unit.
The 1 in 1km represents that there is no multiplicity of km's. A single kilometre. The 2 in 2km tells you there is a multiplicity of that single kilometre, that there is two of them. When you have a variable x, and there is only 1 of it then you do not write 1x as it is just a single x. When another x is added then an number to represent that there isn't a single x, so you write 2x. It kind of comes down to the language aswell as the maths, how we communicate it.
If you want to take our system of counting apart, then the decimal system does represent "Hundreds, Tens, Units" etc, and the number 1 on its own represents 1 lot of the unit in question, but that does not always mean that it is a unit. It is a number which is used to tell you how many units you have got.
In the case of pure numbers, 1 is both a representative number to tell you how many Hundreds, Tens, Units you have, and also it is the unit itself. However, it is still a number. In all other cases, the unit is not 1. The unit is metres, or degrees, or whatever.
zaza
Exactly I agreed with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
You can also have 0 no. of units.Quote:
Originally Posted by shukla
And depending on the situation even a negative count of units. (like -10€ went into my wallet)
Simple answer:
(!Plural) = 1
The end.
:D
chem
If 1 is not a number then how would you identify having 1 of something?
Any number system that alows the inclusion of non-numbers and numbers together is as flawed as it is archaic and pointless. Lets not forget that the ancient greeks also came up with a lot of very stupid notions about the universe (the 4 elements theory) as well as a lot of good ones.
That said, at least the greeks weren't using roman numerals.
Every number from -infinity to +infinity is a number, this includes 0, 1 and anything else you care to mention, treating certain digits as "not" numbers is frankly laughable.
You can also argue that 0 is not a number as its none.
Anything is arguable, it just depends how foolish you are prepared to look.
:D Not very...
Correct :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by wossname
One is a number, it's the loneliest number...
Your arguement seems to be "Since One is not a multiple, then 1 is not a number".
Exactly where, outside of a bunch of nonexistant Greeks, is it a requirement that, to be a number, you must be a multiple?
BTW, Isn't 3 a multiple of 3 and 1? Which then DOES show that 1 is another numbers multiple?
And if you argue that 1 is not a multiple of 3, that 3 is its only multiple, then I would argue that you can't have a multiple if there is only 1 number, in which case then 3 is not a multiple, which would then, per your requirement, would then have established that 3 is not a number. And then, ALL primes, theoretically, cannot be numbers. Which then would destroy ALL NUMBERS, since 4 is a multiple of 2 and 2, but since 2 isn't a number, therefore 4 isn't a number, because a multiple must be a number, but since 2 isn't a number, 4 has no multiples, so since 4 isn't a multiple, it can't be a number....
ehhh,
Just be satisfied that 1 isn't a prime.
:wave:
I suppose black isn't a colour either.
But not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
plsss. tell me from where would we start the counting.
2,3,4,5,6,7,8.....
like that :o
Colour is a human word for the sensory input that comes through the eyes, nothing more. The eyes require photons to discern colours. Black is the absence of photons and therefore, QED, black is not a colour, it is the absense thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Its like saying "cold" is not a temperature. Both black and cold are "privatives" both are more properly defined in terms of the lack of things that already have names, in these cases light and heat.
umm, where's the OP??
Before deciding whether 1 is a number or a unit, May be we should first agree upon the definition of a unit and a number.
Well we programmers have a problem now. We only count with "0" and "1".
I think the confusion , rightly or wrongly , is due to the way we speak and write.
Example: "There is an apple on the table". Here one is implied. But if I say , "There are apples on the table". Then the question , "How many?" , arises. Here more than one is implied but not the exact count. Probably Greek philosopher's mentioned earlier had this thing on mind when it was said that one is a unit and not a number.
what is definition of number by your point Prodian?Quote:
No one in my class will not believe me that one is not a number
That seems to be more a linguistical than a mathematical distinction.
There would be no mathematical error with "there are one apples on the table".
"unit" from the Latin "unity" meaning one.
See also "uno".
Simple question, please give simple answer if you can:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodian
what if there is one of the one unit?
In your example, the "1" is the denominator - it is used to denote the "size" of a unit, and the "2" is the numerator - it enumerates how many of the denominators there are. Oh holy cow, you probably recognised those really big words back there as we use them so goddamn often I want to hurt them.
Anyways, in your case you have 2 as the numerator, expressing how many of the denominator we have. Now, what if 1 is the numerator? It can still be the denominator, the "unit" denominator, but it is also the enumerator, expressing the quantity of the denominators.
Another thing:
There is no such thing in mathematics as a "number". There are real numbers, rational numbers, whole numbers, complex numbers and so on, but no actual meaning is attributed solely to the term "number". If you wrote it in a paper, there would be people (picky enough to vocalise their thoughts? I dunnow...) who would wonder what you meant - an integer, a real, an imaginary numeber... so according to strict definitions, there is no such thing as "just a number".
I want the five minutes of my life I spent reading this back.
One is multiplicative unity.. I see where the poster is coming from since any relation holds when multiplied by unity.. What about 1 itself though? (1)*(1UNIT) = 1 = 1UNIT.. By the original premise, 1 must therefore be both a number AND a unit (unit of integers I suppose)..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_(number)
BTW, the first statement on this page is "1 (one) is a number, numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number. It is the natural number following 0 and preceding 2. "
number n. & v.
_ n.
1a an arithmetical value representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations. b a word, symbol, or figure representing this; a numeral. c an arithmetical value showing position in a series esp. for identification, reference, etc. (registration number).
2(often foll. by of) the total count or aggregate (the number of accidents has decreased; twenty in number).
3a the study of the behaviour of numbers; numerical reckoning (the laws of number). b (in pl.) arithmetic (not good at numbers).
4a (in sing. or pl.) a quantity or amount; a total; a count (a large number of people; only in small numbers). b (in pl.) numerical preponderance (force of numbers; there is safety in numbers).
5a a person or thing having a place in a series, esp. a single issue of a magazine, an item in a programme, etc. b a song, dance, musical item, etc.
6company, collection, group (among our number).
7Gram. a the classification of words by their singular or plural forms. b a particular such form.
8colloq. a person or thing regarded familiarly or affectionately (usu. qualified in some way: an attractive little number).
9(Numbers) the Old Testament book containing a census. :)
BTW the argument that one is just a unit flaws as well...
some things can not be measured and therfore there is no unit for them but you can qauntify them with one although you won't have a clue how large small or any other propperty it wil have.............
1 thought for instance
I'm more used to this argument be whrther 1 is a prime or not a prime..
It is a known fact that 1 is not a prime, as stated exactly halfway ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by triggernum5
Of course, the reason for that is purely definitional at best, as to what a prime is.
Quote:
from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html
"A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for short) is a positive integer p > 1 that has no positive integer divisors other than 1 and itself. (More concisely, a prime number p is a positive integer having exactly one positive divisor other than 1.) "
This already excludes 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by NotLKH
Thanks for mentioning definitions.. 1 is what we have defined it to be.. Its not even a factor of drawing lines in the sand and crossing them or not as with species identification etc.. Pure definition needs no explanation, it actually defies it.. Sometimes implications with other definitions demand that something be redefined, but still its only a label for a concept..
lay off the crackQuote:
Originally Posted by triggernum5
Why do ppl who don't care to delve into this kind of thought process bother reading/responding to threads like this? Its a predicate discussion, expect predicate responses..