Q: about sets & realism & art
N
for instance, is a set arranged in some pattern, and then
catagorized, or can it be a jumble, thats simply some order
of random parts that is then catagorized as a 'set'?.
I know it sounds like a silly question, but I've read that
the maximum number that can be 'counted' without counting
each 'article' (they could be spots on a white screen) is
about 5 or seven, after that they have to be enumerated.
To cut a long story short, this works fine for for me doing
visuals, and the logic (to me) is ok, but I'm left with two
questions,
1.If we couldn't count to ten (the 'invention' of zero is only
a few thousand years ago..and people calculat/ed using 9 with
sophistication), how would the world look if numbers stopped
at 7 ?
2.Is there any difference in calculations between those done
in lower bases and in decimals that might alter a philosophical
persective in any way?
If visual 'realism' is accurate at such a low number, (i.e.
we can be sure that our perceptions are 'right') it suggests
to me that most higher numbers are abstract and should therefor
be unconvincing. The sense of touch will undoubtably affect our
perception of realism, if only in order to confirm that (what we
see is a 2D picture, or real),
thanks
N.
.....................................
geocities.com/nickielson/index.html
tgde...@earthlink.net
This sounds like an interesting question, but it is hard to get what
you are talking about with 'visuals'.
Could you elaborate on that? I've always thought that the rule of 7 had
to do with memorizing numbers.
Also, zero doesn't have anything to do with ten.
-tg
N
Thanks, I was trying to get to grips with spacial stuff, but the
question sort of goes like this;
If a set is a proscribed area within which an unknown quantity is
confined, a 'set' would be a category heading of the area, not of the
quantity of parts. If on the other hand a set is seen as a fixed
although random group some parts which are similar, others dissimilar,
a 'set' might suggest the arrangement into groups of those parts,
bound in some way, regardless of catagory heading.
(I'm trying to avoid 'subgroup' here as it suggests hierarchy)
I suppose what I was wondering about was the idea of imaginary numbers,
where they start & how. If quantities above certain low numbers
are perceived in abstract, or enumerated into an organised pattern/form
does this suggest that in the process of thinking high numbers we will
necessarily have to have 'disassociated' ourselves from the subject
of our attention (the real set) during our muse?, and will the subject
of our attention become the object of it the moment we try to classify
or enumerate it in any way?
N.
tgde...@earthlink.net
This does what you are doing only much better. Keep going back to the
site.
-tg
tgde...@earthlink.net
N
Well, it doesn't seem to answer my questions, and I find Google
far more entertaining :)
P.S. I found this recent thread which refers to numbers and memory.
Message-ID: <4224d800$1...@news.unimelb.edu.au>
tgde...@earthlink.net
If you are serious and not just trying to attract replies with
gibberish, then give an actual concrete example of what you are talking
about.
-tg
N
A set might either be a description of an unknown quantity
(e.g. a scatter of blue beads on a white table), or as an unknown
or specific quantity from a mixed group, as a subset(e.g. mixed blue
and yellow beads).
If I throw some beads on the table, and have a short time to see them,
(but too short to count each one), my 'guess count' will be accurate
at between 5 and 7..(that is unless I already recognise that the pattern
they accidently fall into reminds me of say two sqaures= 4 corners each=8,
etc,etc)
>If quantities above certain low numbers
>are perceived in abstract, or enumerated into an organised pattern/form
>does this suggest that in the process of thinking high numbers we will
>necessarily have to have 'disassociated' ourselves from the subject
>of our attention (the real set) during our muse?, and will the subject
>of our attention become the object of it the moment we try to classify
>or enumerate it in any way?
thinking that last part over again, if 'objective' loosely refers to a
process of classification, and subjective is 'actuality' something known
with absolute certainty, how has the mind converted a Gestalt-ian ordinal,
into a Platonistic cardinal?,(from subjective to objective) without being
confronted with a paradox?, without making an error of assuming that the
paradox is evidence of something deeper and more significant than shunting
a few bits of information backwards or forwards?. Logic can prove that
black is white tho I can't remember how, nor the puzzle about getting
three goats and three hyenas over a river in a boat for two....
N
> three goats and three hyenas over a river in a boat for two....
The puzzle goes this way;
There are 3 hyenas & 3 goats, only one of them, a hyena
can operate the outboard motor on a boat that carries 3.
The puzzle is how to get all of them, the goats and the
hyenas across a river in the shortest number of trips,
without the hyenas making a meal of the goats either
during transit or when they're waiting on the banks...
(it may not have answered the question but it is a interesting
sidetrack!)
N
>'if 'objective' loosely refers to a process of classification, and
>subjective is 'actuality' something known with absolute certainty'
instead of actuality I should say 'real'. In actuality, there may
be many more. If the limit to understanding falls within a certain
range, that range is dependant upon the indvidual circumstance, it
does not encompasses every possibility beyond the momentary present.
I wonder.... There is no zero, because there is no memory of there
being 'one' present BEFORE. (they wern't counted, so they can't be
grouped and tagged), although there can be a concept of absence (zero)
afterwards (absence of a pattern or individual unit in this pattern)
Actual numbers seem to have to be proved in a way.
So, to me; real = there-at-the-time
actual = real+potential, to be proved or disproved.
imaginary = potential
So if I paint a picture of an imaginary scene, and someone mistakes it
for a physical extension of real space, I shouldn't describe it in terms
of 'realism' but 'actualism'!.The viewer is 1. place removed from the
real.
But what about reading?, Hmmm, the reader seems to already be two places
removed from the real (1.temporally/spacially from the real moment,
and further confined by the definitions of the meaning of the text)
HAPPY EASTER!