So what happens if someone memorizes SCP-033?

And what happens if you try to modify it? i.e. SCP-033/π, or SCP-033 + 21? Will SCP-033 correct itself?

- SCP Series
- Tales
- Library
- Universe
- SCP Global
- Background
- Info Pages

- SCPs
- Tales
- Library
- Universe
- Guides

SCP-033 / Discussion

Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-033

This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-033.

So what happens if someone memorizes SCP-033?

And what happens if you try to modify it? i.e. SCP-033/π, or SCP-033 + 21? Will SCP-033 correct itself?

The brain is probably too irregular for it to do it's thing on it.

I'm not sure about the second question though; perhaps it will speed up the medium's destruction due to the imperfection?

Giving it Keter-like properties would be a bit of a plot hole, would it not? Given that it existed as a mathematical concept, unstored on any medium, long before anyone actually constructed it.

Rather, I think it's pretty clear that it's far better to keep something like this lying around contained; as a mathematical concept, *anyone* could rediscover it at any time (as indicated by the trailing memo), and there is a certain necessity that we study the properties of broken arithmetical systems for future comparison with any other similar SCPs that require containment.

This is bullshit. The vast, overwhelming majority of all mathematics has been done in base 10 - where there are 10 digits per place value:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

There are plenty of other bases - binary is base 2:

0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111

There's a base 16 for programmer's usage:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 20

While the idea of a 'missing number' might provide some brief entertainment, we all use base 10, not base 11:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 1A, 20

So, it's pretty much inconcievable to have an extra number, unless you're in base 11.

173 is bullshit. Everyone knows that statues don't move when you quit looking at them.

While the concept of a "missing number" doesn't particularly grab me either, I find your misplaced arrogance a bit upsetting.

Integers are not 1, 2, 3, … or even some silly intuitive idea you have of them. Integers are a pattern with much deeper properties then that

After all, consider integers as formally or even rigorously defined in mathematics, rather then just the "symbols that are on my keyboard that are placeholders for a concepts I have an intuitive awareness of". To really define the integers you need to start boot-strapping yourself up from the natural numbers using set theory.

It seems this missing number may represent not so much a corroding influence to the abstract theory of integers,

but it could represent an observation that the rigorous theory of the integers does not represent how integers work in the universe. The math of the universe might be something else.

Or perhaps, the universe runs on integers as mathematicians understand them and the entity in the article is instead a hazard inherent to computation in our universe. It represents a structure that, if computations with or contemplation of is attempted by any information acquiring and analyzing system, destroys the system in some fashion. In that case, yeah, calling it an "integer" would be a misnomer, but it's a concept that destroys systems that think about it. I would suspect that the subject of precisely what it is might be a bit unclear.

So, please, if you're going to bring the attitude at least have coherent arguments.

I leave you with Godel's incompleteness theorem, something which doesn't apply here but shows that the idea of truth, consistency, and completeness are not intuitively obvious topics.

Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem

*Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.*

-or-

*In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is sufficiently strong to define the concept of natural numbers, one can construct a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system.*

it's a concept that destroys systems that think about it.

This is the core of 033 yet all he has is one log of paper disolving and a whole lot of scary warnings about using a wide range of materials. That implies a larger test log. He needs to write a larger test log.

You lost me at "the vast, overwhelming majority" due to conjunction fallacy.

Dear god.

…now I *have* to upvote it.

Actually, there is one thing about this that bothers me.

One, it is an animal product, and animals aren't mathematically predictable. Two, human hands made it, and humans are similarly unpredictable mathematically.

What is this supposed to mean? How is math less applicable to animals, and why would this property transfer to animal products (which, being quite dead, should be perfectly predictable)? Also, humans *are* animals.

Not the tweak I would make, but it does retain the original sentiment, and this is an evolving wiki document, after all.

As I mentioned to Bouncl, who PM'd me about this, I do want to point out that the scientist being quoted regarding vellum is *theorizing*. It's a hypothesis restricted to that particular scientist. He may not be right. Vellum works, this is why *he* thinks it works, but he could just as easily be totally wrong. Vellum is just an interesting substance—one of the oldest things we inscribe writing on, so I thought it would be interesting to include it. The "high-tech" version could certainly be added in as an alternate hypothesis or even an experiment log. I think that it would represent a logical progression in attempts at new containment procedures.

I'd also like to mention that the Memo, while interesting, cites the SCP as a "nonexistent" number. I've never been comfortable with that characterization. The problem with this phenomenon is that it is **very** existent, though contained. Still, this is a community, and the addition was made with good intent and a desire to improve the piece. I'm happy the entry is interesting enough for people to want to discuss it and make contributions.

*non-fractional, non-decimal number* (probably not entirely accurate a definition, but sufficient for here), which "█.5" obvious may not be.

I was kinda hoping 033 would evolve into Missingno… too bad it's only for April Fools, because that pic works so well. Imagine if the pixel arrangement (in black-and-white) was the binary form of 033's formula…

Someone screencap this and put it up on the scpfuel photobucket, because I'm on a school computer and my computer at home got advertising-virus'd.

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2000/20001120/secret_number.shtml

I really like this. It kind of plays on the complete incomprehensability (to me anyway) of really deep pure maths.

I think why some people don't get it is they don't realise how unintuitive real hard-core mathmatical theory is.

I can imagine reading something like "an indeterminate number between 4 and 5" in an article.

To give some idea of how mathematicians think, I have a book by Penrose that includes the proof that 1+1=2.

*It runs to about eight full pages of nothing but continous symbolic notation.*!

Very very necro posting here, but just a few things to point out.

Firstly, I searched for this Penrose online, but I found nothing about a proof of one plus one is two.

Secondly, the said proof isn't valid in the first place. As in, there is no need to prove it, as 2 IS DEFINED to be 1+1. We do not prove a definition.

This can counter what PlasmaFox had said: we use the number as it is because we defined them to be that way, not the other way round.

Some more necro posting here (not as extreme) but that wholly depends on what definition you're using for the integers. Specifically, of the two definitions I know of 1+1=2 is a definition in one of them. Specifically this is a definition in the system by which the integers are the unique infinite cyclic group.

However the system most often used is that of peanno arithmetic (technically this gives the natural numbers not the integers but whatever). In this, the nth natural number is defined to be the nth successor of 0 (or 1 if you prefer) and addition and multiplication are defined recursively. In this system it does require proof that 1+1=2; that is, the first successor of zero plus the first successor of zero is the second successor of zero.

That said it absolutely does not take 8 pages to prove this, so I'm assuming Penrose is using some other system. Or maybe he was constructing a full formal proof with no logical assumptions in which case he's lucky it didn't end up being 100 pages.

/forum/t-81427/scp-033#post-

page revision: 6, last edited: 24 Oct 2020 20:36

Powered by Wikidot.com

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

Click here to edit contents of this page.

Click here to toggle editing of individual sections of the page (if possible). Watch headings for an "edit" link when available.

Append content without editing the whole page source.

Check out how this page has evolved in the past.

If you want to discuss contents of this page - this is the easiest way to do it.

View and manage file attachments for this page.

A few useful tools to manage this Site.

See pages that link to and include this page.

Change the name (also URL address, possibly the category) of the page.

View wiki source for this page without editing.

View/set parent page (used for creating breadcrumbs and structured layout).

Notify administrators if there is objectionable content in this page.

Something does not work as expected? Find out what you can do.

General Wikidot.com documentation and help section.

Wikidot.com Terms of Service - what you can, what you should not etc.

Wikidot.com Privacy Policy.