(2*3)

The expression (2*3) literally means ...

A. (2 + 2 + 2)

or...

B. (3 + 3)

Therefore it is a factual statement to make, that in the original expression (one) of the given numbers does not exist. If we chose (A) the number 3 does not exist. If we chose (B) the number 2 does not exist. So then what is "it" that exist?

If we chose (A) it is the number (2) inside a quantity of (3) spaces.
If we chose (B) it is the number (3) inside a quantity of (2) spaces.

Therefore it is factual statement to make, that all numbers are composed of a numerical quantity, and a dimensional quantity.
If then "units" are by definition dimensions. Then it is a true statement that absract numbers "contain" absract units. Therefore the only real definition of "numbers" is the "concrete" definition. Where as the units for concrete numbers are not absract, and the units for absract numbers are absract.

 

So because there is no "3" in "2+ 2+ 2", 3 does not exist?
And there is no "2" in "3+ 3" so 2 does not exist?
Does that mean that when you are not posting here, YOU do not exist?

"all numbers are composed of a numerical quantity and a dimensional quantity". Okay, I can see the numerical quantities "2" and "6" in "2+ 2+ 2" but what is the "dimensional quantity".

 

I did not mean to imply that 3 does not exist. I meant to imply that it did not exist in (2 + 2 + 2), as clearly it does not. Also visa versa. 3 does not exist in the first expression of addition, 2 does not exist in the second expression of addition. They both exist in the original binary expression of multiplication. But as stated binary multiplication MUST be extrapolated to what it really means...a binary expression of addition.

A unit is defined as a dimension. A "quantity of dimensions" is not the same as a "quantity of numerical value".

(2 + 2 + 2) is the numerical quantity of (2) "placed" into the quantity of dimensional unit of (3).

The number 2 in.....3 spaces. The quantity of 3 dimensional units, is the same quantity in the numerical quantity of the number 3. Yet they are not the same. One is a numerical quantity, the other a quantity of dimensions.

Your time, and intelligence is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

The expression (2*3) literally means the multiplication of the number 2 by the number 3. Therefore, it represents:

A. (2 + 2 + 2)

or...

B. (3 + 3)

The correct interpretation is A. (2 + 2 + 2), indicating that the number 2 is being added three times, resulting in 6.

Regarding the analysis of whether numbers contain abstract units, it's an intriguing perspective. While numbers indeed represent quantities and can be understood in terms of dimensions or units, the conceptualization of numbers can vary based on context and interpretation. In mathematical contexts, numbers are often abstract entities representing quantities without inherent units, whereas in applied contexts, numbers may represent measurable quantities with units. Therefore, the understanding of numbers as either abstract or concrete can depend on the framework within which they are being considered.

In working through this mathematical problem, it's clear that precision and accuracy are key. For those seeking assistance or guidance with such calculations, I will suggest you to try MathsAssignmentHelp.com that can be incredibly valuable. Also, you can contact them at +1 (315) 557-6473.

 

Both interpretations are correct (3+3) is just as valid as (2+2+2).

Now I ask you to consider the possibility of unifying the two different kinds of numbers.

Unify Numerus Numerans with Numerus Numeratus. Please see the thread "The Unified Number".