06 Mar 07
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat I do here is to say that "why" is not an impossible question. The "Why"s have until today been answered a numerous times. "What" is an interesting question, but "Why" is far more interesting.
Well very possibly, but the natural numbers are a human construction, they only really became relevant to us when accountancy became neccessary to keep track of production. Natural numbers are artificial.
You are confusing theories about the thing with the thing. You don't need to invoke string theory for your argument, the Standard Model of Partic ...[text shortened]... ealing property of only working properly in four dimensions, whereas M-theory needs eleven.
We can dig deeper and deeper into the details of the axioms of Peano and String Theory and other things, but then I think we miss the very target of what we're aiming at. The target is: "Is it possible, at all, to answer the question of why gravity exists?". I think yes, you think no. And that's fine with me.
Not only me believe in an axiomatic physics, some Nobel prize winners have the same opinions. And this is my opinion and not an absolute truth. The exploration of the laws of nature progresses and the future will show the answers of "What"s and "Why"s.
06 Mar 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt is using gravity to explain gravity. It's just an analogy. I think besides some crackpots nobody thinks that he knows what gravity is. There's a lot of hings physicists don't know: why equal charges repel, and opposite ones atract? Why two electric charges, and just one magnetic charge? What is energy?
Mass bends space-time, just as a ball on a rubber sheet will cause a depression. If you roll a marble at such a ball it will tend to fall towards the mass.
That's the best explanation I've heard, but to me it sounds like using gravity to explain gravity...
Some will say that they know the answer and don't even know that they know it and that is very dangerous cause they fall victims of their own tautologies.
Some will say "we only want to know the how's and not the why's" but I think most of them mean that just for the moment. There are a lot of innteresting questions, and a lot of open problems and everybody that is somebody knows that. The thing is that some of them just seem to hard to crack at the present moment.
07 Mar 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZA concept can't exist without someone to have it. A pair of things may be able to exist, but two existing as a thing in itself? You'll be telling me that time is linear progressive next 😉.
Have you ever heard the famous phrase:
"God created the integers, all the rest is the work of Man"
?
How can the concept of a pair of things not exist?
15 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmowhat do you mean by perfect circle? And in our usual geometry, the euclidean one, Pi can't come to an end nor is digits form any kind of pattern. It was proven in the 18th or 19th century that Pi is a very strong kind of irrational number: a trascendental one.
Question? if Pi came to an end or began to repeat, would this mean that mathmatics could prove a perfect circle does exist? what would each situation mean?
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by adam warlockIf you do a circumference calculation you actually can't say what it is without any falsehood, you have to round, because as the curved line approaches meeting point it would continue to divide and decrease in length. pi is an estimation
what do you mean by perfect circle? And in our usual geometry, the euclidean one, Pi can't come to an end nor is digits form any kind of pattern. It was proven in the 18th or 19th century that Pi is a very strong kind of irrational number: a trascendental one.
Now if I'm totally wrong, which I probably am, if at all possible could you explain it in laymens terms. 😕
15 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmo"pi is an estimation", no, pi is exact. 3.14 is an estimation. You can never write pi exact with a decimal representation.
If you do a circumference calculation you actually can't say what it is without any falsehood, you have to round, because as the curved line approaches meeting point it would continue to divide and decrease in length. pi is an estimation
Now if I'm totally wrong, which I probably am, if at all possible could you explain it in laymens terms. 😕
Pi can be defined exactly by the ratio between the circumference of a perfect circle and its diameter. So pi is not an estimation, pi itself is exact.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
15 Mar 07
Originally posted by FabianFnasso I just forgot to include that our's is an estimation of pi.
"pi is an estimation", no, pi is exact. 3.14 is an estimation. You can never write pi exact with a decimal representation.
Pi can be defined exactly by the ratio between the circumference of a perfect circle and its diameter. So pi is not an estimation, pi itself is exact.
Math cannot prove that a perfect circle exists, because the number system is imperfect?
16 Mar 07
Originally posted by joe shmoMath can prove a perfect circle exists by pointing its finger and saying -> "That sir is a perfect circle."
so I just forgot to include that our's is an estimation of pi.
Math cannot prove that a perfect circle exists, because the number system is imperfect?
If we are stupid enough to define something that is later not defined, then we should consider the laws of physics as being a bad mistake and all of our buildings will falldown about... (wait for it)... now!
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
16 Mar 07
Originally posted by GastelSorry for being a moron as you so eloquently put it. 😞
Math can prove a perfect circle exists by pointing its finger and saying -> "That sir is a perfect circle."
If we are stupid enough to define something that is later not defined, then we should consider the laws of physics as being a bad mistake and all of our buildings will falldown about... (wait for it)... now!
16 Mar 07
Originally posted by joe shmoWhat do you mean, the number system is not perfect?
so I just forgot to include that our's is an estimation of pi.
Math cannot prove that a perfect circle exists, because the number system is imperfect?
Every mathematician knows that you can't write a real number as a rational number if it not at the same time rational. Our decimal way of describing numbers is rational, nothing more.
Pi is not rational, it is real, even transcendental, so you can't even describe it polynomially.
Mathematically you can deal with perfect circles. In real life, in nature, there are nothing such as perfect circles.