Is one strictly a quantity?
|
Yes
Consider another thought experiment. We presume that if a descriptor is not a quantitative one, then it is surely a qualitative one. We presume that the definition of a qualitative descriptor is something that is strictly inherent to types of entities (for example retarded is an inherent quality of the type of people born with the wrong number of chromosomes). Now there exist entiti(es) Z containing a type X. X has an all-inclusive set of qualities Q. "Being the color blue" is contained in Q, as is "Being one (the only one, alone, singular, etc.)". Let us imagine another X which is green. If it is "Being the color green" then it is not "Being the color blue" so it is not an X because it does not satisfy all of Q. We may also imagine another X which satisfies all of Q, and we may even imagine that is one. However, because there are now two X, both of them do not satisfy all of Q, but we have already established that the first X satisfied all of Q (by definition), so an X satisfying all of Q cannot exist. This is because "being one" cannot be part of Q because it is not a quality. And since it is not a quality, it must surely be a quantity.
|
No
But that thought experiment is completely stupid. A descriptor can be neither qualitative nor quantitative, for example, the descriptor "Being God" is neither because God is everything; including all the other qualitative and quantitative stuff. Same idea with "Being Jesus". Jesus is everything. Also, 27 is an inherent quality of retarded people, so the definition of qualitative is false if they're trying to prove that one's a number. Also, just because you can imagine something doesn't make it real (that will be my next argument). So I don't see how one can't be a quality, nor do I see how such a fine line between qualities and quantities should be drawn. Or even can be drawn. I saw you attempt it there, but you failed. That makes you a fag.
|
Is one even a thing?
|
Yes
This is an awfully silly question. Everything that is used by other things is a thing; if we can say that there is one pig then one must be a thing, or else what thing would we say about the pig? If you're going to say that one isn't a thing because it is a badly-defined, unobservable concept made by people, then you might as well say that about all numbers. But that still doesn't make one not a thing, and it is a great argument for one being a number.
|
No
One is just a stupid synonym for "a" and "the". I could say "Hey, look at the pig" just, even more, easily as I could say "Hey, look at there is one pig". In fact, I doubt that anyone ever says that. Similarly, I could be in the lab making crank and I could say "I need a centiliter of hydrogen peroxide" and my partner could say back to me "Is that point oh a of a liter?" and there would be no confusion. So if one is just a synonym, then one doesn't exist by itself, it is "a" and "the" that exist, and one is just holding on. But you can't say the same thing about the other numbers, I mean, what are you going to say for the number bazillion? You can't say "There is lots of pig" and expect that to be the same as saying "There are a bazillion pigs". On the one hand, you have something unspecific and nontechnical, while on the other you have a specific, well-defined term. Also, one is not a thing because it just isn't popular anymore. People like bigger and bigger numbers, and it is ridiculous to include this guy:  with all the cool guys.
|
Is one compatible with the other numbers?
|
Yes
One is undeniably necessary for mathematics. Without it, the integers would not be closed under multiplication, and the distinction between prime and composite numbers would be even less clear, not more clear. One is the identity element of all operations higher than addition, but addition is itself defined through repeated additions of the number one. One and e have a very close relationship in calculus, and statistics make no sense without it; let alone logic. The very foundations of mathematics rely on a subconscious conception of the number one, and though we may not want to accept it, it is clearly there.
|
No
Life would be much simpler without one. Imagine going to the store and buying a nice sofa for $79.99. You pay the cashier $80, and then the cashier gives you... Two pennies back! At first, he looked confused, but it's obvious. If a number is an integer, and if a number is greater than zero, and if a number is smaller or the same as every other integer greater than zero, then the number is... Two! You're certain that your horse will win the fight? You think you have a 200% chance of winning! Clearly, though, that's wrong. And that's a good thing. Not having the number one challenges our ideas about certainty, truth, and precision. Nothing is like that in the real world.
|
Can you count to one?
|
Yes
Yes. 0, 1. Duh. Wait, is zero a number?!?
|
No
Nope. You just can't!
|
|
