New number???

A new (Whole.) number wouldn't get along with the human consciousness at all. Our minds define things with the set of numbers we have in use. There's no room for a new number, especially not between three and four, as like Pasithea said, there's the 3. scale.

You could give a specific irrational number it's own name for certain formulas (Pretty much like Pi.) but that doesn't define a whole number. For example, Pi can also be defined with the x. scales. (I think.)

At least I think that's somewhat right, I'm not a real mathematical expert and walking on thin ice there.

I think that if we do start using another number I'm going to move to a base 8 system.

a number between 3 and 4? that means i'll need to add a new finger to my hands and toes so they can be counted as 20 (10 and 10) in total again... I don't know how you can discover a new WHOLE number but we haven't needed it yet so i doubt we'll be using it now.

EDIT: ZOMG http://www.glorf.com/ it's all coming together now.

WTF thats too much of a coincidence

Dun dun da.

it actually creeps me out a little bit

I just wana hear what you guys have to say on the matter. I thought that just MAYBE I was wrong in thinking this was stupid. Apparently I wasn't. don't worry though, the scientific community just dismissed the idea. BTW a friend of mine who looks up all sorts of wierd shit on the internet found this. I guess he wasn't bullshitting me.

Depending on which set of numbers you use, assuming you use one of the standard sets(Complex, Real, Rational, Integers, Whole, Counting), there are either zero or infinite numbers between 3 and 4.

However, it's all abstract, and if you want to form a set consisting of a shoe, an apple, and a chair, and then attempt to discern which one should be between which, feel free to do so.

Only thing I could find on discovering a new number is the discovery of the 44th Mersenne Prime in September 2006.

http://www.mersenne.org/

It's 232,582,657-1.

-Reokue

So yeah....how about that link now?

What the @#%$! some people said yes. That would mess up my entire lif not to mention my daily schedule. Should i get on the public transprotation bus at "glorf thirty glorf instead?

bad post is bad.

Lol well said. The concept of glorf just doesn't seem to work out. I googled "glorf" but haven't found much about it yet. Maybe it won't work out.

like calculus and quantum and those blah blah is not hard enough as it is....

seriously,what's that glorf guy is thinking?

math is never an easy subject(at least for me)
so why complicate things up?
idiots.

Well at least this "glorf" could result in an easier way to solve some equation. like "eulersche figure" aka "e" for the infinitesimal calculus or "PI" for the trigonometric functions. But because no one of us is a mathematician, we will probably never know, what this new figure is used for.

i accidentally voted for the 2nd choice~
:shock:


now... i kinda actually pity the glorf guy..
i mean.. just imagine everyone he knows start calling him mr glorf... :shock:

hmm.. on the other hand.... :twisted:

NUMBERS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

this glorf thing is just pointless.....i mean the numbers between 3 and 4 is 3.0 etc etc there's just no point in adding a whole number there....

You would totally mess up all the calculations and formulae that has existed and founded since ancient times. Not to mention throwing away what people learned and discover in Maths and Science.

rofl, definitely.