View previous topic | View next topic

7

Page 4 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

andymac
123183.  Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:04 am Reply with quote

7=seven is not true, in the definition 'having the same quantity, measure or value as another' (though to be mathematically accurate, as I recall with a shudder my number theory course with Dr. Jones and others in the dim and murky days of university, it could be if we first define what we mean by 7 and seven - and, I suppose, the equals sign). Also from that and virtually every other Pure Maths course, though, was that you can define whatever you want so long as the system is logically consistent internally, so the statement 7=six is also true if I define a system in which 1+1+1+1+1+1=7.

Taking the STANDARD definition (in English) of seven and in our numeric system of 7, then it seems true at first glance. But, for example, what about its use in '71'? Here the symbol normally represents (and is pronounced) seventy. While it still arguably represents seven (seven tens) it expresses a different meaning from the English 'Seven One'. Of course, it could be part of a phone number, where it reverts to seven one, and is now equivalent to the word seven again.

My point is, we can express 71, 710, 7100000 without modifying the symbol 7. We can't do the same with the word seven.

Of course, equals does not mean 'is the same as' anyway. They are clearly not the same, except in the value they are often designated to represent.
One is a numeral, one is a word.
One is standard throughout most of the western world, one only represents the binary quantity 111 to English speakers.
Etc. Anyone sad enough to list all the differences (I only ask, because I was almost typing a third, fourth, fifth etc.

 
mckeonj
123201.  Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:00 pm Reply with quote

andymac wrote:
Quote:
My point is, we can express 71, 710, 7100000 without modifying the symbol 7. We can't do the same with the word seven.

But we do - I feel a suzenugget coming on.

 
WordLover
123704.  Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:07 am Reply with quote

mckeonj wrote:
andymac wrote:
Quote:
My point is, we can express 71, 710, 7100000 without modifying the symbol 7. We can't do the same with the word seven.

But we do - I feel a suzenugget coming on.
In the absense of suze, may I join in? We do indeed do to "seven" what andymac has done with "7". Just as andymac used the digit 7 as part of a longer numeral, the word "seven" may be used as an element in the longer number words seventeen and seventy, and as a word in multiple-word phrases such as seven hundred, one hundred and seven, etc.

 
Gaazy
123706.  Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:10 am Reply with quote

How about the '1's in 11?

 
Flash
123708.  Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:22 am Reply with quote

In onety-one, you mean? What about them?

 
WordLover
123713.  Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:29 am Reply with quote

No, Jan, I can't let that pass.
Hans Mof wrote:
When we read an English text containing the string 7, we will utter /‘sevn/. But with this utterance there also corresponds, in English, the string “seven“. So if the spoken utterance really is an utterance of 7, then it follows that 7=seven.
So, in the context of this argument, you're using "=" between two written forms to mean "is pronounced the same as". Thus, by your argument, through=threw. Sorry, Jan, but I don't think it's QI to expect people to understand = that way.
Hans Mof wrote:
But in a similar way we could argue that 7=sieben, where sieben is the German word for seven. Ergo seven=sieben. Quod non [sic].
On the basis that = is understood to mean "equals", seven=sieben indeed, and there is no contradiction.

Hans Mof wrote:
“7“ as used in English written text and in German written text always realised the single word “7“.
7 might count as a word in the context of the word-count of, say, a thesis, but then in that context all kinds of non-words are counted as words, e.g. initialisms such as QI. More generally, 7 is not a word but a numeral.
Hans Mof wrote:
However, when we ‘pronounce’ it we substitute the pronunciation of a different, closely related, word, /‘sevn/ in English and /‘zi:bn/ in German.

 
andymac
123874.  Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:40 pm Reply with quote

WordLover wrote:
mckeonj wrote:
andymac wrote:
Quote:
My point is, we can express 71, 710, 7100000 without modifying the symbol 7. We can't do the same with the word seven.

But we do - I feel a suzenugget coming on.
In the absense of suze, may I join in? We do indeed do to "seven" what andymac has done with "7". Just as andymac used the digit 7 as part of a longer numeral, the word "seven" may be used as an element in the longer number words seventeen and seventy, and as a word in multiple-word phrases such as seven hundred, one hundred and seven, etc.


Not true.

The 7 in 71 is unmodified, except by position, but the seven in seventy-one is modified both by position and nature, it has to have -ty added to represent the tens value. So 7=seven is untrue even in this context.

 

Page 4 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group