01What

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

What a number is not

The mathematicians have gotten so involved with their idiotic discipline, certainly far beyond any

justification,

that they utter

the most stunning remarks. S

pector claims that a number, for example the

number 5, is a

physical object

. He says that a number

like a chair or

like

a rock

because he can write

them

on paper:

" Natural numbers are physical, whether material or conceptual.

Numerals obviously

are

physical, they are written on paper, and

we calculate with them according to

their written

appearance on

the page. Mathematics at every level is concerned with

physical

form."

[

]

Material numbers? What is it that the mathematicians smoke?

What are these people into?

Of course, it all starts when the mathematicians don't define the crucial words that

underlie their theories

and

sweeping

conclusions. If we define

physical

and

material

that which has shape,

the

number 5

obviously does not

qualify as

physical

This is the only manner to define the word

physical

in order to use

it consistently (i.e.,

scientifically

The

devil's advocate may

argue that the number 5 has shape. After all, we can all see a shape in front of our

eyes.

However,

is argument is easily demolished. First of all,

the proponent

is confusing

form

with

pattern

. A

chair has shape. A 5

is a pattern

an incomplete

shape.

Nevertheless,

he number

is a symbol

that represents how many times the mathematician moved his

hand

up and down to

count kangaroo jumps

The number 5

has no significance without

its relation to

other

numbers.

The mathematician cannot use

shape

in the context of calculations. The

symbol

has relevance

only for

its conceptual value.

The 'object' 5 (i.e., its shape)

irrelevant. Spector at least agrees on

that much:

" The symbol '5' or 'V' is not a number, any more than the word 'cat' will ever

say 'meeow'. "

[

]

For instance, if a mathematician points to a 5, the

would visualize a shape

, but not understand the

meaning of this 'thing.'

The word

five

does not refer the

-shape. The word five refers to the abstract value.

This is what has meaning to the

mathematician and not its shape. Indeed, the shape is incidental. For

instance, the Romans used the letter V to designate a five.

We can use any symbol we want because the

shape of the symbol is not what is important. The concept five is simply not a

physical object. It does not

have shape. What has shape is the petty symbol used to designate the value.

The

mathematicians

have no

use for the

object

5. The obje

5 does not exist in the real world any more than

God or leprechauns exist in

the real

world.

The m

athematicians have a hard time distinguishing between

objects

and

concepts

They can't seem to

tell

the

difference

between an object such as the heart and

concept

such as

love, or between the elephant

and

location

As a number, 5 is

merely a relation

: a concept

. When Spector says

that 5

is 'physical' he is

using inconsistent

language (i.

e.,

relying on an

unscientific

definition

Spector is

using ordinary speech to

draw

sweeping scientific conclusions.

Spector is clearly a

mathematician. I don't know this because he has

a degree from some

university. I

know this because of the ridiculous

definitions and outrageous

conclusions he

comes up

with.

Of course, Spector is welcome to define

unambiguously

what he means by

physical

and

material

f he

disagrees with my

assessment.

2.0 Counting is not the same as size

Some mathematicians perhaps think about magnitudes when they use the word

number

and

thus

confuse

a number with a

size.

There's not much one can say specifically about the number zero. It's just like any

other whole number: it's an abstract concept measuring the size of a set. The number

zero measures the size of the set with no elements in it, just like the number one

measures the size of the set with a unique element in it, and so on."

[

]

The mathematicians have not learned the fundamental notions about their own field of expertise. A number

is not a

size.

ize is something you

measure

You need another object or standard to compare 'size.'

number

, on the other hand,

the

result of

something you

count

It is the

mathematicians' insistence on

using unscientific language and confusing

measurement with

counting

that

leads

them

to the

ridiculous

conclusions. It is irrational in

cience to say that 5 is the 'size' of

set. Would it

make sense to say that 5

the size of

mathematician's ignorance? What th

e mathematician

is trying to say in his clumsy way

is that

the set contains 5

items.

This

is not its size (ordinary speech,

unscientific terminology).

This is how many items we counted.

An elephant may

have size, and it certainly

will not

just be a number. The number will be accompanied by a unit, for example,

feet or meters.

So what is a number?

hen asked to define a word, some of these college boys want to be as scientific as

possible and make it

much more

complicated than

it really is

Predictably, t

hey end up with an

incorrect definition.

Take the

word

number

The 'high-level' Math site at Wolfram

defines it as:

" A concept of quantity, usually a collection of units."

[

]

" The word

number

is a general term which refers to a member of

a given (possibly

ordered) set. The meaning of

number

is often

clear from context"

[

]

[

f we can infer a word's meaning from the context, why take the trouble to define

anything?

]

But is this correct? Is a number 'a member of a set'? A fellow is white,

anglo-saxon, and protestant. He

belongs to the set of

WASP

Does

qualify as

a number?

How about an apple and a gay

man?

they

belong to

the

set of

numbers known as

fruits? And then we have

the verbs

run

swim

, and

jump

. Are they

numbers?

In their

extreme

eagerness

come across as

scientific and formal

as they possibly can

, the

mathematicians at

Wolfram

end

up looking

like

fools

Other sources have more down to earth definitions that everyone can relate to and

which are more

correct.

" A n

umber is an abstract entity that represents a count or measurement."

[

]

[

The 'measurement part is incorrect. A number is NOT a measurement!

]

" a word or symbol, or a combination of words or symbols, used in counting or

noting a total."

[

]

A number is the verb 'to count'

This is all it

! T

he mathematicians

have

converted

this verb

into a noun.

End of

story!

Therefore, i

t is

misleading to say that a

number is 'an entity'. This leads some to

confuse

the shape

of the

symbol

with

physical

object. It isn't. Th

is further leads them to

believe that they can move the 5 around.

" First, carry down the

that indicates the leading coefficient...Multiply by the number

on the left,

and

carry the result into the next column"

[

]

For the purposes of

cience, a number is a concept. A number is a relation. We

cannot understand 5

without 1

or 4 or 6.

Thus, a

number

is more appropriately defined as an

adverb

. If counting is what a

number

is, a

specific number tells us how

many times we must move our hands up and down to count

something.

The

mathematicians have assigned symbols such

as 1 or 5 or 10 to distinguish these

iterations. The

number

does not say anything about the structure of a chair or of a rock.

The number 5

a qualifier that

tells you that

you must move your hand up and down one more time than 4 and one less

than 6. The

number 5

is a symbol

that tells you HOW far you've

counted.

or the

purposes of

cience

, all 'hows' are

classified

as adverbs

Therefore, it is okay

treat the word number (or the number 5) as a noun for the

purposes of

ordinary

speech. It is not okay

to do

this in

cience.

Mathematics is the discipline that deals

with numbers.

Mathematics is a discipline

that deals exclusively

with

quantitative adverbs.

My argument

may seem reasonable and straight forward to some mathematicians. So what?

The problem comes when the idiots of Mathematics believe

that numbers exist or that

zero

a number

The

problem comes

when they believe that there are such things as negative numbers or that infinity is a

number

and

propagate this

nonsense

from generation to generation.

Then, the mathematicians

unilaterally

decree that

numbers constitute the language of Physics,

but wonder why

they can't answer simple

questions asked by

a child.

What is a number?

The three 'R' verbs of civilization:

Reading Riting and Rithmetic

reading

writing

counting

I understand what
reading means. I
understand what writing
means. But I don't
understand what
numbers are.

I wouldn't worry too
much about that right
now if I were you,Newt.
You will soon
understand that this is
not a nudist beach and
that there are a couple
of cops behind you.

Module main

page

The mathematicians don't know what a number is

Pages in this module:

s p

age:

What is a number?

Do numbers exist?

Is zero a number?

Can numbers be negative?

infinity

a number?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Mathematics

General R

elativity

Special Relativity

Quantum Mechanics

String Theory

Home

Book

Glossa

Nila

Gaede 200