[2015-11-1] Sorf

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderator: Kimra

[2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Peon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:02 pm

Three squared isn't eight in base eleven, it's nine. Votey failed.
Ask the next question.
User avatar
Peon
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Five » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:30 pm

Because Sorf is three, eight is nine.
Five
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby fiercedeity » Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:38 pm

^^ "Sorf is three, three is four, four is five, et cetera."
fiercedeity
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:22 pm

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Peon » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:12 pm

Oh yeah, duh. I was careful with the sorf to the sorf power but I'm used to nonstandard bases adding the extra numbers after nine. Carry on.
Ask the next question.
User avatar
Peon
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby dgcaste » Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:36 am

That must be embarrassing.
dgcaste
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby VK » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:02 am

Isn't 2*sorfteen-1 in traditional decimal 25. Shouldn't it be +1?
VK
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Pauk » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:48 am

Nine is ten, so ten is eleven. So sorfteen is 14, 2*14-1=27 in decimal, twenty-four in snorf.

one two sorf three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven thelve sorfteen thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty twenty-one twenty-two twenty-snorf twenty-three twenty-four twenty-five twenty-six twenty-seven twenty-eight twenty-nine thirty
Pauk
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Five » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:49 am

Sorfteen=14
2*14=28
28-1=27
Sorf=3
3^3=27

1 2 Sorf 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sorfteen
Five
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Five » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:50 am

Pauk is such a ninja. This forum even showed me your post but I still had submit mine.
Five
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Toper » Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:03 pm

I just came in to say I'm impressed that what's-his-name actually did get it right, though it took me a couple minutes to figure out.
Pauk wrote:thelve

This, however, is my favorite part of the thread.
Toper
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:04 pm

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Mizsó » Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:53 am

Tell me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion she isn't right, not even technically. Three is two plus one by definition, unless defined otherwise previously. One can't say a word not meaning what it usually means consensually, without declare it beforehand. (Sorry if I made some grammar mistake, english is not my native language.)
Mizsó
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby muteKi » Fri Nov 06, 2015 8:54 pm

Mizsó wrote:Tell me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion she isn't right, not even technically. Three is two plus one by definition, unless defined otherwise previously. One can't say a word not meaning what it usually means consensually, without declare it beforehand. (Sorry if I made some grammar mistake, english is not my native language.)


That's only sorfta right, though. Like, in an academic context it's usually okay to not define commonly-used terms in a field, but "commonly-used" changes as soon as you get outside of that field. Not only do lots of communities studying related phenomena have a completely separate set of vocabulary for it depending on the traditions they came from, communities studying mostly unrelated stuff probably don't have any idea what the commonly-used terms in the other fields even are.

That's how you get stuff like the medical researchers who invented calculus a few years back. They didn't even know that "trapezoid rule" referred to something in the mathematical field, let alone that it was well-understood and wouldn't require specific definition in a paper.

And that's among humans, who all live on the same planet and have means of communicating with one another. Why would we assume that the aliens in the thought experiment would even agree with us on using a base-10 system for counting? Which is the point -- numbers refer to something specific in order for math to work correctly (i.e., in a math system where sorf = 3, and 2 < sorf < 3, then 0=1, 1=2, etc. and the math system we just defined prevents any useful logical inference) but numerals can be defined arbitrarily.

Like, if sorf is to represent a specific number we could say there are sorf dots in an ellipsis ("...") and not break math, but we can't say that a colon (":") also has sorf dots in it. (And if "sorf" means "less than what we'd call 4 in any other context" then we can't use it for counting.)
muteKi
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:35 am

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby sarwanov » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:23 am

sort is there.four is five , five is six etc.
Graduated from Soran University with First Class Degree with Honours in Computer Science.
sarwanov
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:51 am

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby Guest » Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:20 pm

Mizsó wrote:Tell me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion she isn't right, not even technically. Three is two plus one by definition, unless defined otherwise previously. One can't say a word not meaning what it usually means consensually, without declare it beforehand. (Sorry if I made some grammar mistake, english is not my native language.)

It has been defined ("Three is sorf* plus one", "(*)sorf is two plus one"), but the other character is not informed of this.
Guest
 

Re: [2015-11-1] Sorf

Postby dankmememaster » Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:23 pm

big math fail there ya
dankmememaster
 

Next

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests