Hacker News Reader

Comment by deltaonefour | Hacker News Reader

What a highly inefficient way to represent numbers.

Was this learned by him or is this some sort of synesthesia condition?

It seemed to me that the author was describing his instinctive mental representation of numbers, and not that mental math is only achieved by using shape-analogs.

I've never thought about it before, but while I definitely don't have as distinct models as the author, I do understand and agree with an instinct around numbers "fitting" together to make tens, and it definitely informs how I break down e.g. triple digit mental addition.

Why not make all the integers square blocks? Then everything fits together. It seems strange what's going on with the odd numbers. Especially adding something to 9 is even stranger. Seems arbitrary rather then instinctive.

not necessarily. only if you think in terms of cou ting does your sense make priority. if I were to think in terms of multiplication - circles are more useful for a lot things.

Circles cannot compose under addition or multiplication. You can combine two blocks to form a new block. You can combine two integers to form a new integer. You cannot compose two circles to form a new circle.

Composition can either be multiplication or addition. In short integers are monoidal under both multiplication and addition, circles are not as you can't physically combine circles to form a new circle without mutating the shape of the circle itself.

This means circles are a bad shape compared with blocks to use for addition and multiplication.

You seem to be carrying the impression that this is deliberately constructed -- it's not, this is just part of the author's intuitive representational system. He's not "making it" one way or the other. It's made; he's perceiving it.

I literally asked if it was a condition or if it was deliberately constructed. If I asked that question, how am I implying it was deliberate? Did you read my post?

You did not ask that. You asked if it was learned or related to synesthesia. Learned behavior are not necessarily deliberately constructed.

I used learned behavior as a synonym to deliberate construction in the sense that we construct things from what we learn.

But let's say you're right. If that's the case, then you're entire response is off base. You claim I am implying it's "Deliberately constructed." How could I imply something was "Deliberately constructed" if I asked it was "learned" or "related to synesthesia." Neither of those options involve "deliberate construction."

This is like telling an anxious person "not to worry" or a depressed person to "cheer up".

Yes, it would be grand if our minds worked in a rational, logical fashion. But that's not even remotely representative of reality.

Er. Why don't you read my post again. I don't understand how you derived all that from what I wrote. I literally said this method was inefficient and asked how about whether it's a condition or he learned it.

As another commenter pointed out, you literally did not.

In fact, you went so far as to imply that it's constructed and not synesthesia.

As the same commenter pointed out, if multiple people have interpreted your comment in a particular way, regardless of your intentions, then it's maybe time to step back and re-evaluate.

>In fact, you went so far as to imply that it's constructed and not synesthesia.

No that implication is your and the other commenters imagination. READ my comment again.

> As the same commenter pointed out, if multiple people have interpreted your comment in a particular way, regardless of your intentions, then it's maybe time to step back and re-evaluate.

So serious. If multiple commenters interpreted my intention wrong then that's my bad wording is off. I mean it's not a huge deal. If I correct my mistake, and I inform you of my true intention, What then is the big deal?

Your telling me to take a step back and re-evaluate as if problems with my wording violated criminal law? I clarified my intent all you need to do is address it.

IN addition to this, there is the factor of actual grammatical English language interpretation vs. popular interpretation. There is something to say that the English definition and intent of my sentence holds equal ground to a popular misinterpretation.

I don't have a visual representation for numbers, but numbers with a 9 at then end like say 29 in my mind is always transformed in to 30-1 , so instinctively (nobody teaches me this) computations like 29 + 15 = (30 -1) + 15 = 30 +15 -1 =45-1. This makes it more easy for multiplications 2915= 3015 - 15 . I could apply this for numbers ending with 7 or 8 but it does not fill natural for me as 9.

Oh that's a symbolic reflex. totally normal, I have shortcuts in my brain like that too. But the Article describes a visual entity... a block with a dent (the number 9) then the dent orange peeling another number until it's smaller.

It would be even better if he visualized the universe as a quantum superposition of states that collapses to a single answer when supplied a problem. That way he could solve things which NFAs can!

No why doesn't he just visualize everything as blocks like he does with even numbers. Why throw a dent in the number 9 and make it act like a can opener?

I'm not being pretentious here. Literally his model looks like some over engineered contraption.

I suspect he’s describing how it is, not claiming that it provides any utility. It’s just someone sharing some aspect of their experience with the universe, not someone prescribing a technique.

I can see how you concluded the latter, since this site frequently have posts with this style of title where the upshot is an implied “and why you should too”. This time, though? This time it’s just someone’s blog where they’re telling you how it is for them.

As far as I can tell, they didn’t share it on here and they’re not proselytizing the experience. It just is.

Read my first post. It asks the question whether he deliberately does this or whether it's a condition.

Seems like enough people have the same confusion that it might be a worthwhile exercise to evaluate whether you are effectively communicating what you believe yourself to be.

Hence my response. It clarifies my intent. Your response to me indicates that you are now aware of what I'm communicating. Thus it might be a worthwhile exercise to address that rather then go on some needless tangent on some misinterpreted wording.

Additionally grammar matters. Technically the english meaning of my sentences do not imply what most people believed I said.

In that case, I believe my response answers your question.

No it doesn't answer it per se, but you do address it with what you think it is.

I think it's more of the latter. The shapes are not there to help him do arithmetic in a more efficient way. The shapes are there just because that's how numbers are represented in the author's brain.

I experienced similar things growing up. For my case, it was usually colors. Each number was associated with a specific shade of color, but in my case it was less about the numbers themselves; it was more contextual. Eg. The number four represented different colors depending on whether it was describing the time of day, the number of floors on a building, or amount in currency.

I had brought this up in my youth only to be met with derision and threatened with being labeled "abnormal" by the authority figures, so I worked to suppress and hide this aspect. (South Korean society had a lot of backwards ideas in the 90s).

Minus the contextual thing... colors are monoidal under RGB. Its a 3 dimensional vector with all the properties of numbers.

All of this is because our eyes have 3 color detectors, RGB. The reality is, RGB is just a mapping. Actual color is a singular number scalar based off the wavelength of light. So colors are actually a GOOD choice for number representation.

The real question is how do colors compose in your brain? If you encountered two numbers 8 and 9. Could you add those numbers just thinking in terms of colors? What about for large numbers, there must be large enough numbers where no color mapping exists as colors have limited range in our spectrum of vision. How does your brain picture 9999999999999999999999?

Even if it's contextual if your brain follows consistent logic during composition of numeric entities it's still a valid analogy. The can opener number 9 just seems completely over engineered.

I'm pretty sure he's faster at 7+3 with his system...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com