A look at the kind of mechanical abacus I would try to build in order to effectively represent the rational numbers, somewhat similar to the weird way we already inscribe them into our digital systems.

Basically, each disc would display one digit at a time through a little window, allowing you to rotate them between 0 and 9.

(The size of the discs is essentially syntactic sugar, illustrating how your available space runs out as you approach the outer limits.)

Good thing we’ve got digital computers to move simplified, microscopic versions of these pieces around for us, because… yikes.

Building a functional version of one of these would be a challenge.

These “number things” can get pretty big, and sometimes you even have to manage more than one at a time!

But the power and success of the concept still lies in its utility: A mechanical system like the one above might be sufficient, but all that is truly *necessary for humans* is pen and paper.

We only need to add some kind of stylus and some kind of surface –* plus our ten digits* – and suddenly we can compute and keep track of *incredibly* large measurements with little-to-no effort.

Just by virtue of this tracking toolkit, we quickly become masters of quantity and scale.

(As for the measurements themselves, you’re on your own. This device would only help you keep track of them.)

Even in the absence of any digital technology, use this system and you will command at your fingertips as many rational numbers as you can handle.

Literally.

The rest of the animal kingdom will tremble before this immense power, but for a human, learning quasi-magical systems like these are a trivial fact of adolescence.

But like with all power extended, there inevitably comes a weak point.

And this is no different.

For it is all too easy to get lost in the curves of the symbols themselves, forgetting the hidden methods and convoluted patterns that get trapped beneath the veil of well-practiced movements.

Numbering via joined, iterative, denary functions is one extremely effective way to track measured relationships.

Yet still – there are always other ways.

But I’m sure there’s no need to worry about those.

After all, with this system we can order all of magnitude itself! And we haven’t even mentioned the power of addition or multiplication yet, let alone division.

Or… have we? đź¤”

And let’s not even get started on those pesky irrational numbers.

Or any of the other kinds of “number.”

Actually, now that you mention it this system is starting to feel… kinda messy.

I hope things don’t get out of hand.

Side note: Mathematicians will let you just slap an infinity symbol on pretty much anything, but technically this is cheating.

Real mechanical and digital systems aren’t going to be quite so friendly about it.

Deterministic systems enforce all the little rules you introduce, even if only by accident, so you better have some kind of real *strategy *or* ruleset* in place for smoothing out those rough edges.

So much for the Curry-Howard-Lambek isomorphism, I guess?