🏅 Top traders

In my extremely unbiased assessment I ultimately think that -10 is bigger than 5. The definition that I am using, which was implied by @halfaswiftie comment, is that the "bigness" property of numbers is a comparission of the length as they are written. This definition is borrowed from my intuition of how “bigness” for words is measured (e.g. it seems like people would probably say yes if you asked “is beetle bigger than tiger?”)

The main two alternative definitions that I considered were: bigness is a property of magnitude and bigger means greater.

The strongest argument to me, in favor of bigness being a property of magnitude, was from @Redact who framed their argument in two ways. The first was as a hole with -10 dirt, and a mound with 5 dirt. It’s obvious that the hole is bigger than the mound. Similarly if Asiago has -10 YES shares (aka 10 NO shares) and Brie has 5 YES shares, Asiago has more shares.

The strongest argument to me, in favor of bigness meaning “greater,” was from @PatrickAupperle, who argued that if a number X is bigger than a number Y, then it oughta be the case that X + Z is bigger than Y + Z. They noted that if we consider Z = 100, X = -10 and Y = 5, everyone unambiguously agrees that 90 is not bigger than 105, so 5 ought to be bigger than -10. (not explicitly an argument that bigger should mean greater, but )

I am not choosing to resolve based on the first definition since I didn’t really see a good argument in favor of it over any of the others. I am not resolving based on the second because I don’t think that this “additive bigness” property is necessarily more important than the opposing “bigness is how much of an effect something has” property.

Thus I’m resolving NO.

(this was a fun market and I feel like “I’ve learnt something” through this process! Thanks y’all for giving arguments, I really enjoyed pondering them all!)

Also five is a prime number which is bigger than -10 which nobody likes.

If I start with 100 and I add 5, I end up with something bigger than if I add -10. This holds true for any definition of bigger provided in the comments, I believe.

Does it really make sense that is I start with the same amount and add something bigger, I'd end up with something smaller?

@PatrickAupperle what if you start with -5 you end up with 0

@Redact In that case, you end up with the same argument as you started with, but with 0 or -15. It's ambiguous and could go either way. Better to look at unambiguous cases.

@PatrickAupperle I would assume the 'bigger' number would affect 100 more if added or subtracted than the smaller number would,

your example of 'bigger' is adding a positive number to both, while if you add -5 than -10 is bigger

is negative infinity the smallest number or is zero?

@Redact -10 is only bigger than 0 under some of the proposed definitions, but smaller under others, while there is essentially no way to make 105 smaller than 90. If we want the statement that adding a bigger thing to the same sized thing to hold for all values, a definition must be chose such that it works for the starting value of 100 (as well as other values). The only such definition I can think of is one in which 5 is bigger than -10.

@PatrickAupperle HOW ABOUT A STARTING VALUE OF -100

and you make your definition the one with the bigger magnitude.

your example works on both sides but as we approach 0 there will be more examples of -10 it being further from zero than +5

@Redact I agree that the magnitude definition works for some cases, but not all. If we use the greater number to mean the bigger number it works for all cases. Even a starting value of -100, using greater to mean bigger, we get 5 > -10, -100 + 5 > -100 + -10, -95 > -110. It works fine anywhere on the number line. With magnitude, it works fine in the negative numbers to say -10 is bigger, but fails in the positive integers. Therefore, the magnitude based definition is inconsistent with the claim that adding a larger number to an equivalently sized number should yield a larger number.

@PatrickAupperle

"With magnitude, it works fine in the negative numbers to say -10 is bigger, but fails in the positive integers."

Bruv stop with the total and Look at magnitude of change from any of your preposed numbers.

we can look at magnitude 105/100= 5% 90/100= 10% THE BIGGER NUMBER AFFECTED IT (100) MORE

@PatrickAupperle also no1 would think a bigger number has smaller change if added

@Redact That's a different property than the one that I am arguing for. I believe that combining two larger things should yield a larger than than combining two smaller things, so I don't think the magnitude definition makes sense.

The argument from magnitude of change is a separate argument, and I believe a less important property. I don't see why a bigger number has to effect something, especially if we don't expect the greater number to have a greater effect.

@PatrickAupperle your arguing for greater to equal bigger b/c other definitions are inconsistent?
I was showing magnitude can be consistent if you look at the magnitude of change instead of magnitude from Zero

@Redact I'd still argue that that is a different property. Which property is more important to Joshua is up to him.

@PatrickAupperle we'll see

For number, bigger=greater. Evidence: same word used in my language 😂 😆

@b575 Though, on the other hand, (assuming your language is Russian), larger also means the same thing as the other two (and I (weakly) believe that "larger" refers to magnitude)

@JoshuaB To express the "how many characters the number has", only the translation equivalent of 'longer' seems permissible.

Imagine you are making A structure from flat ground...

the hole with -10 Dirt, and the Mound with +5 Dirt

Which one is bigger?

The Mound Can Fit INSIDE the Hole so the Hole is bigger
(pls vote no)

@Redact the hole is +10 space, so it's bigger than +5 dirt

@MartinRandall negative dirt = positve space the ratio is -1 to 1

@Redact If I have -100 no shares I don't have a big no bet.

@MartinRandall negative yes shares = positive no shares, ratio -1 to 1.

WHO HAS MORE SHARES

Someone Who owns 5 yes shares has less shares total than someone who has -10 yes shares (or 10 No shares)

@Redact I'm not sure it's fair to say that -1 yes shares is the same as a no share, even if the math works out.

Also, the person with 5 yes shares has more yes shares than the person with 10 no shares.

@PatrickAupperle The guy with no shares has more shares total though so it's bigger

@PatrickAupperle The guy with no shares has more shares total though so it's bigger

@Redact Why measure total shares when the number specifies only yes shares. The person holding no shares could be holding all sorts of things (shares in other markets, physically items, etc) and we don't count any of that because they aren't the thing we specified the count of.

@PatrickAupperle b/c negative shares isn't a thing

Here's an example...

My 761 no shares are bigger(Amount/value) than your 11 Yes shares

you can substitute no in this example b/c i stated "negative yes shares = positive no shares"