Math without even numbers?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Math without even numbers?
What would math be like if 1+1=3 and 31=1?
7x7=59
Basically, if two objects are introduced to each other, this causes a third object to be generated.
In this universe, even is only hypothetical and can't exist in real life.
Humans would have 3 legs, 3 eyes, or only one. So on and so forth.
7x7=59
Basically, if two objects are introduced to each other, this causes a third object to be generated.
In this universe, even is only hypothetical and can't exist in real life.
Humans would have 3 legs, 3 eyes, or only one. So on and so forth.
Last edited by liberonscien on Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:11 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 stopmadnessnow
 Posts: 84
 Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.
Re: Math without even numbers?
It's the Chocolate Chip thing, the mods are ruining the posts (hence why it now says fence post tree). It'll be gone by April 2nd.
For comic writing or short story writing posthaste, contact the offthe peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
liberonscien wrote:What would math be like if 1+1=3 and 31=1 and 32=0?
Basically, if two objects are introduced to each other, this caused a third object to be generated.
Edit:
What's up with my post?
I know I posted 2, the word, but the forum replaced it with 7, the word.
Huh, it is fixed.
Anyways, I figure that even numbers wouldn't really exist in this world.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26453
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
If even numbers don't exist, what's the 2 doing in "32=0"?
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
gmalivuk wrote:If even numbers don't exist, what's the 2 doing in "32=0"?
Touche.
Hmm.
I'll get rid of that.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.

 Posts: 35
 Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:01 pm UTC
Re: Math without even numbers?
0 is an even number as well. What is 11 supposed to be, or is subtraction even going to be defined at all? (Without zero, you don't have an additive identity, so it seems silly to speak of an additive inverse.)
 chridd
 Has a vermicelli title
 Posts: 824
 Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
 Location: ...Earth, I guess?
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
Well, with 1+1=3, my first impression is that it's just relabelling the numbers... calling 1 "1", calling 2 "3", calling 3 "5", etc. Which doesn't change much; it's base 5 instead of base 10, but there are less confusing ways to write base 5. (Also how would you write 0? If it's written as 1, then  means something different...)
If you want instead to keep the results of operations the same, then you can no longer add anything, because odd + odd = even. You could still multiply just as you could before, because odd × odd = odd; however, I believe that's isomorphic to ordinary integer multiplication, so it would still be relabelling numbers, and also removing a useful operation. (Although I guess you could make addition a ternary operation, so 1+1 is not a wellformed expression but 1+1+1 is... or an anyoddnumber–ary expression) On the other hand, if you instead removed the odd numbers, the even numbers are closed under both addition and multiplication, and multiplication would be different since there's no 1.
If you always round either up or down to an odd number, then addition can work (assuming you had a consistent rule for which direction to round), but if you always rounded in the same direction, I believe it's still equivalent to addition, but with relabelled numbers again. Addition's relationship to multiplication would be different, though; e.g., if you rounded up, 3+3=7, but there isn't anything you can multiply by 3 to get 7.
If you want instead to keep the results of operations the same, then you can no longer add anything, because odd + odd = even. You could still multiply just as you could before, because odd × odd = odd; however, I believe that's isomorphic to ordinary integer multiplication, so it would still be relabelling numbers, and also removing a useful operation. (Although I guess you could make addition a ternary operation, so 1+1 is not a wellformed expression but 1+1+1 is... or an anyoddnumber–ary expression) On the other hand, if you instead removed the odd numbers, the even numbers are closed under both addition and multiplication, and multiplication would be different since there's no 1.
If you always round either up or down to an odd number, then addition can work (assuming you had a consistent rule for which direction to round), but if you always rounded in the same direction, I believe it's still equivalent to addition, but with relabelled numbers again. Addition's relationship to multiplication would be different, though; e.g., if you rounded up, 3+3=7, but there isn't anything you can multiply by 3 to get 7.
You don't need to have an additive inverse to do subtraction, though; subtraction can still work e.g. in the natural numbers (though it's only defined for some combinations of numbers, then).curiosityspoon wrote:0 is an even number as well. What is 11 supposed to be, or is subtraction even going to be defined at all? (Without zero, you don't have an additive identity, so it seems silly to speak of an additive inverse.)
What exactly do you mean by "introduced"? I mean, we can talk about two things, even if those two things have absolutely no connection with each other and aren't near each other.liberonscien wrote:Basically, if two objects are introduced to each other, this caused a third object to be generated.
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"
chridd (on Discord) wrote:SYG'DDummy wrote:Sorry You're Gay Dads
 phlip
 Restorer of Worlds
 Posts: 7554
 Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
 Location: Australia
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
Well, my first impression (based on the few examples in the OP) that we were defining a new "addition" over the odd numbers, which is their normal sum plus one. "Subtraction" would then be their normal difference minus one.
The resulting group would be isomorphic to normal addition over the integers, with 1 being the additive identity. Basically nothing interesting happens.
It's very similar to just doing math without the odd numbers, only using even numbers, and keeping addition/subtraction defined the same  everything behaves the same, the numbers are just twice as big. Then you just subtract 1 from every number, and redefine addition/subtraction so the mappings don't change.
The resulting group would be isomorphic to normal addition over the integers, with 1 being the additive identity. Basically nothing interesting happens.
It's very similar to just doing math without the odd numbers, only using even numbers, and keeping addition/subtraction defined the same  everything behaves the same, the numbers are just twice as big. Then you just subtract 1 from every number, and redefine addition/subtraction so the mappings don't change.
Code: Select all
enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
 stopmadnessnow
 Posts: 84
 Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.
Re: Math without even numbers?
Would 11=0 or 1? Is 0 an even number or an odd number?
Would you have to always deal with an odd number of figures? So you couldn't say 1+1, you can only add them together an odd number of times  1+1+1? Are fractions and ratios also banned? Also you couldn't square numbers, you could only cube them or use the 5th power or so, so numbers would get very huge quite quickly. Nor could you use square roots. Pi might or not be banned, but no one knows yet.
Would you have to always deal with an odd number of figures? So you couldn't say 1+1, you can only add them together an odd number of times  1+1+1? Are fractions and ratios also banned? Also you couldn't square numbers, you could only cube them or use the 5th power or so, so numbers would get very huge quite quickly. Nor could you use square roots. Pi might or not be banned, but no one knows yet.
For comic writing or short story writing posthaste, contact the offthe peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
0 is odd. 1+1=3, 3+3=7, 5+5=11, 7+7=15, 9+9=19, 11+11=33.
Addition always rounds up to the next odd number, even when the odd number is in the tens place as evidenced by 11+11=33.
Subtraction does the opposite. 93=5.
Addition always rounds up to the next odd number, even when the odd number is in the tens place as evidenced by 11+11=33.
Subtraction does the opposite. 93=5.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26453
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
It definitely isn't.liberonscien wrote:0 is odd.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
gmalivuk wrote:It definitely isn't.liberonscien wrote:0 is odd.
Then what is it?
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 Xanthir
 My HERO!!!
 Posts: 5321
 Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
 Location: The Googleplex
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
It's even. That's the other possibility, after all.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
Xanthir wrote:It's even. That's the other possibility, after all.
I meant,  Never mind.
I figure math is rather exponential this way.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 chridd
 Has a vermicelli title
 Posts: 824
 Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
 Location: ...Earth, I guess?
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
So if you're going by digits (since you're disallowing e.g. 23), and treating 0 as odd, then does that mean that you're treating 10 (and 30, 50, 100, 37050, etc.) as odd?
(In which case, it's actually, math without numbers containing the digits 2, 4, 6, 8?)
(In which case, it's actually, math without numbers containing the digits 2, 4, 6, 8?)
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"
chridd (on Discord) wrote:SYG'DDummy wrote:Sorry You're Gay Dads
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
chridd wrote:So if you're going by digits (since you're disallowing e.g. 23), and treating 0 as odd, then does that mean that you're treating 10 (and 30, 50, 100, 37050, etc.) as odd?
(In which case, it's actually, math without numbers containing the digits 2, 4, 6, 8?)
Oh, *smacks forehead* right.
0 is even.
Basically, in this kind of math, the universe hates even numbers.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 chridd
 Has a vermicelli title
 Posts: 824
 Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
 Location: ...Earth, I guess?
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
Yet it still uses base 10 (an even base)?liberonscien wrote:Basically, in this kind of math, the universe hates even numbers.
In odd bases, though, there are numbers that odd but end in an even digit... on the other hand, in odd bases, if you have an odd number where all the digits are odd, then there's an odd number of digits in the number. (Although I'm not sure how the roundtonearestodd thing would work there.)
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"
chridd (on Discord) wrote:SYG'DDummy wrote:Sorry You're Gay Dads
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
chridd wrote:Yet it still uses base 10 (an even base)?liberonscien wrote:Basically, in this kind of math, the universe hates even numbers.
In odd bases, though, there are numbers that odd but end in an even digit... on the other hand, in odd bases, if you have an odd number where all the digits are odd, then there's an odd number of digits in the number. (Although I'm not sure how the roundtonearestodd thing would work there.)
Yes, I think this universe also allows perpetual motion devices. I could be wrong though.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 stopmadnessnow
 Posts: 84
 Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.
Re: Math without even numbers?
liberonscien wrote:0 is odd. 1+1=3, 3+3=7, 5+5=11, 7+7=15, 9+9=19, 11+11=33.
Addition always rounds up to the next odd number, even when the odd number is in the tens place as evidenced by 11+11=33.
Subtraction does the opposite. 93=5.
Still two operands though?
For comic writing or short story writing posthaste, contact the offthe peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
stopmadnessnow wrote:liberonscien wrote:0 is odd. 1+1=3, 3+3=7, 5+5=11, 7+7=15, 9+9=19, 11+11=33.
Addition always rounds up to the next odd number, even when the odd number is in the tens place as evidenced by 11+11=33.
Subtraction does the opposite. 93=5.
Still two operands though?
?
There is still multiplication and division.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 MartianInvader
 Posts: 795
 Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC
Re: Math without even numbers?
So, we replace even numbers with the next odd number? So "11" is a threedigit number. We have five operations: Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And when describing my dinner last night, I'd say "I nine an elevenderloin with a fivek"?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!
 stopmadnessnow
 Posts: 84
 Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.
Re: Math without even numbers?
liberonscien wrote:stopmadnessnow wrote:liberonscien wrote:0 is odd. 1+1=3, 3+3=7, 5+5=11, 7+7=15, 9+9=19, 11+11=33.
Addition always rounds up to the next odd number, even when the odd number is in the tens place as evidenced by 11+11=33.
Subtraction does the opposite. 93=5.
Still two operands though?
?
There is still multiplication and division.
I meant addends, not operands.
For comic writing or short story writing posthaste, contact the offthe peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
Re: Math without even numbers?
gmalivuk wrote:It definitely isn't.liberonscien wrote:0 is odd.
If one can define math to only have odd numbers, 0 surely can be defined to be odd.
Or going the other way round: the symbol "0" represents the neutral element in respect to addition, so while that may be 1 in the notation of regular math, in the proposed system it could be 0. That's also very close to what most people consider a "real world" definition of 0.
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/
http://decodedarfur.org/
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26453
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
So are you saying that 1+(1)=1, while 11=1?
Re: Math without even numbers?
How many are these? * * *
How many are these? * * * *
How many rows of asterisks are there?
Jose
How many are these? * * * *
How many rows of asterisks are there?
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam  bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith  bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
ucim wrote:How many are these? * * *
How many are these? * * * *
How many rows of asterisks are there?
Jose
In our universe, when I see this:
* * *
* * * *
It stays this:
* * *
* * * *
In this hypothetical universe, when I see this:
* * *
* * * *
This is generated:
* * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
In this universe, perception matters. In this universe, if, by natural forces, two rocks are brought together and no one sees this happen, then nothing happens.
However, if two rocks are brought together, and someone sees this, then a third rock spontaneously comes into existence.
In our universe, if one sees * *, it stays * *.
In this hypothetical universe, if one sees * *, it generates another *, turning it into this * * *.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 stopmadnessnow
 Posts: 84
 Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.
Re: Math without even numbers?
But 2 is really 1.9999 recurring anyway. Apart from pi and decimals divided by 7, 13 and so on (and possibly zero) aren't all numbers odd?
For comic writing or short story writing posthaste, contact the offthe peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
Re: Math without even numbers?
From the perspective of addition, this just looks like a straightforward base 5 system. However, multiplication no longer follows the pattern of "repeated addition" that we're used to. To use the initial example, 7x7 is 59, but 7+7+7+7+7+7+7 is only 55.
Also, how does subtraction work? If we take the assumption that all evens are "rounded up", then 53 is 3, but this violates the idea that subtraction is the inverse of addition since 3+3 is 7. We can fix this by letting 1 be the additive identity, and 3 be the additive inverse of 1, and 5 be the additive inverse of 3, etc.
Once you do that, though, why not just "add one" to all your symbols and work in a universe of only evens? Zero becomes zero again, and the negatives and positives work out as they ought. you still have a base 5 system that does the same job, but without weird consequences.
Edit: ok, there are still very weird consequences to multiplication and exponentiation if you assume 2x2 is still 4  you no longer have a multiplicative identity.
Also, how does subtraction work? If we take the assumption that all evens are "rounded up", then 53 is 3, but this violates the idea that subtraction is the inverse of addition since 3+3 is 7. We can fix this by letting 1 be the additive identity, and 3 be the additive inverse of 1, and 5 be the additive inverse of 3, etc.
Once you do that, though, why not just "add one" to all your symbols and work in a universe of only evens? Zero becomes zero again, and the negatives and positives work out as they ought. you still have a base 5 system that does the same job, but without weird consequences.
Edit: ok, there are still very weird consequences to multiplication and exponentiation if you assume 2x2 is still 4  you no longer have a multiplicative identity.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
Gwydion wrote:From the perspective of addition, this just looks like a straightforward base 5 system. However, multiplication no longer follows the pattern of "repeated addition" that we're used to. To use the initial example, 7x7 is 59, but 7+7+7+7+7+7+7 is only 55.
Also, how does subtraction work? If we take the assumption that all evens are "rounded up", then 53 is 3, but this violates the idea that subtraction is the inverse of addition since 3+3 is 7. We can fix this by letting 1 be the additive identity, and 3 be the additive inverse of 1, and 5 be the additive inverse of 3, etc.
Once you do that, though, why not just "add one" to all your symbols and work in a universe of only evens? Zero becomes zero again, and the negatives and positives work out as they ought. you still have a base 5 system that does the same job, but without weird consequences.
Edit: ok, there are still very weird consequences to multiplication and exponentiation if you assume 2x2 is still 4  you no longer have a multiplicative identity.
53=1
Also, in additive things like addition and multiplication, all even numbers in the answer are bumped up by one.
In subtracting things like subtraction and division all even numbers are reduced by one.
5+5=10. 10 is bumped up to 11. So 5+5=11
115=6. 6 is bumped down to 5. 115=5
5x5 is 25. 2 gets bumped up to 3. So 5x5=35
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 phlip
 Restorer of Worlds
 Posts: 7554
 Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
 Location: Australia
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
liberonscien wrote:5x5 is 25. 2 gets bumped up to 3. So 5x5=35
Which means that multiplication doesn't satisfy our normal expectation, that multiplication is like repeated addition, and that it should distribute over addition.
5 = 1+1+1, so by distribution we'd expect 5x to be x+x+x, if it were to satisfy distribution... and 5+5+5 = 11+5 = 17, under your definition of addition. This would then match up with the base5 mapping (5_{odds} => 3_{10}; 3*3 = 9_{10} = 14_{5} => 17_{odds})
If we go with your definition, where 5*5 = 35, then we also can't have true division  5*7 is also 35, which means that 35/5 is undefined... same way you can't divide by zero, with normal numbers.
Code: Select all
enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
 Soupspoon
 You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
 Posts: 3573
 Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
 Location: 531
Re: Math without even numbers?
chridd wrote:(Also how would you write 0? If it's written as 1, then  means something different...)
c.f. Two's Complement and One's Complement negatives in binary, but now rather than there being "two zeros" (in the latter, and less useful for using binary addition of a negative number to perform a binary subtraction), there could be none at all. Theoretically like just as there is no year 'zero' in 'proper' AD/CE or BC/BCE numbering systems.
I'm not sure if it'd be a useful mathematical system, but consider the following alternate 'integerandahalf' numbers on a numberline:
...5.5, 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, 0.5, +0.5, +1.5, +2.5, +3.5, +4.5, +5.5...
That's a regular list, moving up and down the line by one spot always adds or removes the same value (1) at every step, and yet there's no 'zero', it is skipped over. Imagine, instead, that each number is represented by its double:
...11, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, +1, +3, +5, +7, +9, +11
Maybe that's mathematically 'useful', in some way (even in ways that the "only on the halves" version is not). It doesn't have a 'zero' or any other even number, but for simple accounting purposes you might be able to restrict yourself to odd numbers only.
But if you did have two threelegged men and counted the legs... They'd have <the number between 5 and 7> legs in total, for which you'd be forced to have something (5.5, being the number half way between adjacent numbers 5 and 7?) to let you deal with that. And you'd surely get that enough times that it'd ruin your attempt to 'forget' that even numbers are a thing.
You'd have to quite explicitly contrive to never have such an 'imaginary' even number of things that all had 'real' odd numbers, or else you'd end up with an 'imaginary' total. (c.f. trying to deal with products of actual Imaginary numbers. An even number of Imaginary numbers, multiplied together, gives you a number within the Real set. It's easy to avoid encountering Imaginary numbers if you're using just Real numbers in everything that you do (save for actually forcing an RealandEven root of a RealandNegative number) , but under what system do you stop an Imaginary system from often manifesting back into the Real dimension..?
Really, if your society had an odd number of limbs with an odd number of digits upon them, you could quite easily have an oddbased numbersystem, but at any level of mathematical enquiry, there'd likely be need to know that a number is even. In an odd base using digits true to our own (albeit extended or truncated from our 0..9), you'd do something similar to^{1} the trick in working out whether a number is divisible by three. Add the parities of the digits of the numbers together^{2}, and see if it's a 'special' number, however much you try to ignore the possibility of even numbers...
.....
^{1} But not identical. An explanation for why, with decimal numbers, you find that Sum(digits(number_divisible_by_3)) recurses down to 3, 6 or 9 and Sum(digits(number_divisible_by_9)) recurses down to only 9 is that 9 comes down to the basenumber minus 1, and 3 is a (the only!) divisor of that number.
In Base 17_{dec} (as a contrived example), numbers that are multiples of 16_{dec} include 1F_{17} which deconstructed into decimal is 1x17^{1} + 15x17^{0}, whose digits which sums to 16_{dec}, with 2E_{17} (i.e. 2+14), 3D_{17} (i.e. 3+13), etc to follow. And numbers divisible by 4 in Base_{17} are G (16_{dec}), 13, 17, 1B, 1F (as above), 22, 26, 2A, 2E (also as above), 31, etc, and digits sum to numbers that reduce to '4' numbers, and even numbers (those already listed, plus the like of 15) are also roots from Baseminusone. (15_{17} digitsums to 6, which is not 16, nor 4divisible, but is 2divisible. The next footnote also applies to this.)
I'm sure someone (if not in antiquity prior even to Pythagoras or Plato, definitely someone more modern) has already fully explained it all, because it's simple enough that I worked this all out myself almost as soon as I learnt about Hexadecimal. 32_{16} > 3+2=5, is thus dividable by 5 (=50_{dec}) and 111_{16} > 1+1+1=3, whilst also being 273_{dec} > 2+7+3=12 > 1+2=3. Also 15 (F_{16}) works exactly as per 9 in decimal, but 9 in hexadecimal doesn't work so well (9, 18_{dec}=12_{16} > 1+2>3, 27_{dec}=2A_{16} > 2+(A_{16}==10_{dec})=(C_{16}=12_{dec}) which is a multiple of 3 ... all obviously confirmable as 'divisible by three' with the hexadecimal digitsums, but the 'divisible by nine' clue just isn't there.
And, with binary, you can only look for "multiples of 1". Which, amazingly, if you add up the digits of any binary number and then recurse the process (still in binary) until you get down to a single digit will give you 1 for every number... because every number (technically) has '1' as a factor. And every other base has '1' as a factor of the number that is 'Baseminusone', as well, for completeness.
^{/1}
^{2} Even+even=even ('0'2=even, 22=even); even+odd=odd ('0'3=odd, 23=odd); odd+even=odd (12=odd, 32=odd), odd+odd=even (11=even, 33=even); X+Y+Z=f{X,f{Y,Z}} (123=1+(even+odd)=1+odd=odd+odd=even)
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
Just like introducing two rocks to each other would cause the universe to generate a third rock, the same would occur for living things.
Also, in this system, there wouldn't be a sex binary, but a sex trinary.
Just throwing that out there.
Also, trinary is a word, right?
Also, in this system, there wouldn't be a sex binary, but a sex trinary.
Just throwing that out there.
Also, trinary is a word, right?
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
Re: Math without even numbers?
liberonscien wrote:Also, in this system, there wouldn't be a sex binary, but a sex trinary.
Just throwing that out there.
Also, trinary is a word, right?
Not only is trinary a word, you should look up plant sexual reproduction. It's... well, not even.
How about normal vectors? Or even Normal numbers? Rumor has it that abnormal numbers are odd ducks indeed.stopmadnessnow wrote:Apart from pi and decimals divided by 7, 13 and so on (and possibly zero) aren't all numbers odd?
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam  bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith  bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.
 liberonscien
 ce
 Posts: 121
 Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:04 pm UTC
 Contact:
Re: Math without even numbers?
ucim wrote:liberonscien wrote:Also, in this system, there wouldn't be a sex binary, but a sex trinary.
Just throwing that out there.
Also, trinary is a word, right?
Not only is trinary a word, you should look up plant sexual reproduction. It's... well, not even.How about normal vectors? Or even Normal numbers? Rumor has it that abnormal numbers are odd ducks indeed.stopmadnessnow wrote:Apart from pi and decimals divided by 7, 13 and so on (and possibly zero) aren't all numbers odd?
Jose
It is almost even and odd.
Warning: This user is currently questioning its beliefs. This user offers its sincerest apologies if it accidentally offends another user. This user never offends others on purpose and may accidentally offend other users because it lacks knowledge regarding how to be a normal human.
 stopmadnessnow
 Posts: 84
 Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
 Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.
Re: Math without even numbers?
Even with nearly all numbers being 1.999999... and so on? And Jose refers to numbers (like e) where the last digit is not known.
For comic writing or short story writing posthaste, contact the offthe peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.
Re: Math without even numbers?
ucim wrote:Not only is trinary a word,
The standard word is "ternary" actually (but Wikipedia acknowledges "trinary" enough to redirect to ternary).
Re: Math without even numbers?
Derek wrote:ucim wrote:Not only is trinary a word,
The standard word is "ternary" actually (but Wikipedia acknowledges "trinary" enough to redirect to ternary).
So, you're telling me that even trinary is an odd word?
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam  bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith  bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

 Posts: 63
 Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:56 pm UTC
 Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Re: Math without even numbers?
Careful. If you can't have even numbers, what's 1+1? It's a term with *two* numbers, but even numbers don't exist! So you can't have 1+1, you need to use 1+1+1. Now you might want to say 1+1+1=3 ... except that you can't, because you'd get a formula with *four* numbers!
I don't think that you can get this to work without running into a paradox.
I don't think that you can get this to work without running into a paradox.
Re: Math without even numbers?
Mike Rosoft wrote:Careful. If you can't have even numbers, what's 1+1? It's a term with *two* numbers, but even numbers don't exist! So you can't have 1+1, you need to use 1+1+1. Now you might want to say 1+1+1=3 ... except that you can't, because you'd get a formula with *four* numbers!
I don't think that you can get this to work without running into a paradox.
We could get around the problem of sums by leaving any sums with a notodd number of terms undefined. So sum(1,1,1)=5, but sum(1,1) wouldn't be allowed. It's like how 1/0 and (2)^(1/2) can't be evaluated if you restrict yourself to just the real numbers. What's the problem here?
Re: Math without even numbers?
cyanyoshi wrote:We could get around the problem of sums by leaving any sums with a notodd number of terms undefined. So sum(1,1,1)=5, but sum(1,1) wouldn't be allowed. It's like how 1/0 and (2)^(1/2) can't be evaluated if you restrict yourself to just the real numbers. What's the problem here?
They are thinking the problem is that you can't do 1+1+1=3 because it has a total of four numbers; But it's ok  it just contains (3+1) numbers  whatever that is
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests