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-033 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-033
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-033.
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?
Considering the danger it poses, there doesn't seem to be a reason to store 033 at all in lieu of disposal, considering the Foundation tries to dispose of things that have viral qualities. Perhaps there should be an edit saying it has Keter-like qualities if it isn't stored on any medium?
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.
Another thought. Is it possible that SCP-033 has been misinterpreted? Instead of missing a number in our current mathematic system, perhaps Theta Prime is a new number that has been invented from whole cloth. This, I believe, would explain many of its properties just as well as he current explanation.
I think the alternative hypothesis ought to be documented, especially as it doesn't really changes much to the effects.
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.
Nah bra, that's just cause the statue moves through quantum tunneling and it warps reality to do so. Their tunneling distance is limited by the presence of an observer. If the last remaining observer has their attention averted for a time, 173's position becomes unknown, thus it is granted enough momentum for being at a new position when interacting with an observer (such as the observer bringing their gaze to where 173 happens to be given the momentum it had. In close quarters, 173 is able to quickly get behind what it recognizes as observers and finish them off before they can observer 173. It is possible that doing this multiple times in a short period may empower 173's abilities…
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.
"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."
The problem is math doesn't represent things in this universe, it represents things in math. All math is is a self consistent collection of symbols and operations. It has nothing to do with our universe, or how it functions. I get that SCPs are science fiction, but I genuinely don't understand what the author is trying to express here. This is like saying "We found a previously unknown state of a rubiks cube" (which is also an abelian group).
You lost me at "the vast, overwhelming majority" due to conjunction fallacy.
This is precisely why i decided to downvote this scp, the mathematicians have the doom and gloom of people with art degrees who can imagine storylines but don't notice the breadth of conceptual knowledge we have worked with.
Yeah, I feel like this SCP only works if you haven't really thought about what a number is very deeply.
Maybe it just destroys something physically so that you cannot get the number
but it can’t destroy math
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.
Agreed; if it were up to me i'd strike that bit. Maybe specify that 033-Safe material has to be hand-made due to the irregularities it introduces as opposed to a regular machine process. Or that if it is machine-made, errors are to be introduced via shot noise or quantum phenomena or some other random phenomenon that's difficult to model. Same for the "It is theorized the…hand-crafting by mathematically unpredictable humans somehow disrupt the logic which allows SCP-033 to function" bit. Other than that, this is actually one of my favorite SCPs, if not my favorite period.
Propose inscribing the formula in a sheet of glass (which has an amorphous molecular structure) with edges machined according to periodization of radioactive decay. Careful to not get cut.
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.
This entire SCP seems to require a completely different understanding of mathematics to make any sense whatsoever. A number "of intermediate value between █ and █." would just be █.5, wouldn't it? Attaching a new symbol to it doesn't make it a new number.
Your statement requires a thorough change in mathematical terminology to be accurate, since an integer is a 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.
I was just stumbling around websites when I found this story. It vaguely reminded me of 033 because of the idea of a missing integer that mathematics just forgot about. It's a good read for a short story.
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.
I'm sort of glad I'm not the only person this SCP made mad enough to want to necro post.
/forum/t-81427/scp-033#post-
page revision: 1, last edited: 02 Apr 2021 15:16
