But numbers are
. You can have one sheep
, two atom
s, three electron
s... you can't simply say that an arbitrary quantity is a single quanta
. An array of five
copies of TV Guide
will always be 45 copies, no matter what number base or notational scheme you're using...
In 2001, Arthur Clarke pointed much of this out. The proportions of the monolith were a message. Although they weren't in human units of measure, the proportions were exactly 1:4:9 in the first three dimensions - the first three squares of integers. In fact, Dave Bowman found that it extended well past the first three in the higher dimensions.
Additionally, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a perfect circle will always be, in base 10, approximately 3.14159265358979323846264338, at least in cartesian spaces.
The Mayans used base 20. Porcupines would use octal. The Phoenecians used base 60. The Romans didn't even use a math system even closely resembling ours - their system of mathematics was a completely different social construct, and yet the mathematical truths were identical.
You cannot deny the fundamental truth in numbers.
(For the cluefully-impaired: I was just using TV Guide as a random unit. You could say the same about atom or quark. Volume is just an integration/approximation of the number of atoms in something. In fact, notice this: The derivative of the volume of a sphere with respect to its radius is its surface area. The derivative of the area of a circle is its circumference. The integral of a circle's area is the volume of a circular cone where the radius equals the height. And so on. If I'm not talking about the right sort of math, what sort of math are you talking about? I'm talking about what Saige was - that mathematics is a constant regardless of what number system or nomenclature you use.)