10 Most Important Numbers

  • 125 Replies
  • 23396 Views
*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
e
« Reply #60 on: June 17, 2013, 04:32:24 PM »
e
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #61 on: June 18, 2013, 07:57:12 AM »
I have to ask, why do people bother trying to argue with Sandokhan?  Do you guys seriously even bother to read his posts?  He'll stop posting if you just ignore them.

I bother because I don't want his piffle about mathematics to be left unchallenged. I couldn't care two hoots about his other piffle.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #62 on: June 18, 2013, 03:16:52 PM »
But it's all so transparently piffle. 

His ability to engage multiple people in debate with those monstrous walls of nonsense is astounding.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35373
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #63 on: June 18, 2013, 04:33:01 PM »
I wouldn't call it nonsense.  I don't agree with it, of course, but there is a certain logic to it.  It's based on something; it's not simply gibberish.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5418
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #64 on: June 18, 2013, 06:39:17 PM »
It's just so hard to not skip over the wall of text and reference to discontinued work from the 1800s.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #65 on: June 18, 2013, 08:02:48 PM »
The most important numbers in the universe are numbers themselves, for if they did not exist, neither would you.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #66 on: June 19, 2013, 05:18:21 AM »
The most important numbers in the universe are numbers themselves, for if they did not exist, neither would you.

How so?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #67 on: June 19, 2013, 06:52:02 AM »
Numbers exist because existence demands it. Numbers represent reality. Without reality, no numbers would exist, even zero, because the concept of nothing cannot exist if the universe did not exist, because the concept of nothing requires there be a concept of something you can have nothing of.

This all goes along the same philosophical thinking as the question to whether one can change a physical law and still have an internally consistent universe.  A general consensus is either one universe or an infinite amount exist. The people who believe in the one universe theory propose that if the universe were any other way, it simply can't exist. The idea that the laws of physics are the laws of physics because if they were not, physics would not exist at all. The science of answering "why" instead of "how." Why do quarks behave the way they do? The answer may simply be because they must.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #68 on: June 19, 2013, 07:27:18 AM »
Numbers exist because existence demands it. Numbers represent reality. Without reality, no numbers would exist, even zero, because the concept of nothing cannot exist if the universe did not exist, because the concept of nothing requires there be a concept of something you can have nothing of.

This all goes along the same philosophical thinking as the question to whether one can change a physical law and still have an internally consistent universe.  A general consensus is either one universe or an infinite amount exist. The people who believe in the one universe theory propose that if the universe were any other way, it simply can't exist. The idea that the laws of physics are the laws of physics because if they were not, physics would not exist at all. The science of answering "why" instead of "how." Why do quarks behave the way they do? The answer may simply be because they must.

I think I see the Anthropic principle lurking in there some where...

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #69 on: June 19, 2013, 07:38:13 AM »
I think I see the Anthropic principle lurking in there some where...

Which is a fundamentally flawed perspective in comparison to my previous statements, since they make direct claims for the universe supporting life (rather than my explanation of internally consistent physics). They're reasoning is flawed because if the universe did not support life, they would not be here to argue about it. The Anthropic principle is unfalsifiable, even from a thought experiment standpoint. My statements, however, can be falsified, but only in a metaphorical fashion. One can not literally change physical laws.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #70 on: June 20, 2013, 05:40:28 AM »
Raunchy the Fairest, in all these years you have proven yourself to be one of the most gullible and uninformed persons who ever took place in debates here.

You are unable to prove your point (whatever that was) each and every time you debate: no bibliography, no intelligent approach, no overall cognitive goal.

There was never any nonsense in my messages: I was the ONLY one able to debunk the BEAM NEUTRINO, RING LASER GYROSCOPES, HAM RADIO EARTH-MOON DISTANCE and AXIAL PRECESSION threads precisely.

You are nowhere to be found in any serious discussion on flat earth theory.

Please refrain from further personal attacks, or I will have to pull you by the ears and bring you in front of the classroom to show to everybody your catastrophic background as a scientist.


conker, I appreciate your response but you did not address the main points of my message at all. Please read again: Kronecker demonstrated to both Cantor and Dedekind their faulty approach to mathematics.

Real numbers are a simple mathematical invention with no connection to the real world.


mathsman, your effort is noted.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #71 on: June 20, 2013, 06:02:04 AM »
Which is a fundamentally flawed perspective in comparison to my previous statements, since they make direct claims for the universe supporting life (rather than my explanation of internally consistent physics). They're reasoning is flawed because if the universe did not support life, they would not be here to argue about it. The Anthropic principle is unfalsifiable, even from a thought experiment standpoint. My statements, however, can be falsified, but only in a metaphorical fashion. One can not literally change physical laws.

I don't believe the principle is flawed when used in its most common form, that is the weak anthropic principle, I most certainly do not indorse the strong version.

"the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld"

Which is pretty self-explanatory. If it is the case that this universe is the only universe that will and has ever existed, the weak anthropic principle inevitably collapses.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #72 on: June 20, 2013, 06:12:45 AM »
now, conker, I have more time at my disposal to address your concerns.

I did not post any bibliographical references on Borel's work on real numbers, I thought you already knew what was going on; I was wrong.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf

So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.


Clear enough for you?

http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+integers%252C+all+else+is+the+work+of+man


A continued fraction algorithm is a method for calculating that root to a certain degree of accuracy.

Exactly! The square root of a, always results in a periodic continued fraction (CF) when a is a square-free integer.

Yet the root is not defined like that. It's defined as the limit of such a succesion.

There was no need to specify this: we are all here discussing at a level where such things are understood; it is exactly what was meant in my message.

The square root of 2 is a continued fraction algorithm which in turn is a sequence of finite fractions, used to a desired accuracy.

Moreover, a2 + b2 = c2 is a formula involving natural or rational numbers; its geometric representation is a right triangle with sides a and b, c being the hypothenuse. 12 + 12 = (rad(2))2 is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.


My demonstration that Newton's differential equations could not possibly represent the movement of the heliocentric planetary system comes from the very best bibliographical references on bifurcation theory, a subject of mathematics way beyond your means at the present time.

Read it again, and you will see that what I wrote is true and correct.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 06:14:44 AM by sandokhan »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5418
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #73 on: June 20, 2013, 06:50:12 AM »
So numbers like sqrt2 can be calculated to a desired significance using the algorithm.   At what point are they actually solved and end?  What is the finite solution to sqrt2 without it being an approximation?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #74 on: June 20, 2013, 07:08:53 AM »
Unless I am mistaken Sandokhan, are claiming that the square root of 2 does not exist because it results in a number that cannot be applicable to reality? We cannot use root 2 in real life, it makes no physical sense, therefore it doesn't exist? What?

The square root of -1 is used extensively in many fields including fluid dynamics, electrical engineering, quantum mechanics and signal processing.

Obviously the square root of -1 has no physical, tangible value. But mathematics is system utilised to solve problems, it doesn't need to make intuitive sense to YOU to be the truth.

The ratio between the length and width of a piece of paper is root 2. Of course it isn't exactly root 2, it is root 2 which an accuracy the same as the accuracy of the length and widths of the paper.

The maximum number of digits of pi needed, theoretically, in a calculation is around 32. This is to find the circumference of the universe. Just because the numbers after the 32nd digit in pi are essentially useless in real life terms, doesn't mean the number is not irrational and it is nonsensical to think of pi as an irrational number.

You seem to have the false premise that unless mathematics produces answers that make sense in the real world, it is wrong. When that is demonstrably not the case.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #75 on: June 20, 2013, 07:27:14 AM »
12 + 12 = (rad(2))2 is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.

Modern mathematics has made all kinds of assumptions which have no link to the real world.

There are no perfect circles and squares: Pythagoras' formula a2 + b2 = c2 is only solvable in the set of natural and rational numbers (as I have explained earlier).

It does not matter if it ever ends: at each step of the approximation we have a proper solution (for a certain desired number of decimals).


The greatest mathematician who ever lived was S. Ramanujan.



The most incredible thing is how he obtained his results: from dreams.

In a letter to his relative SESHU IYER Sri Ramanujan has mentioned that when he went to sleep the GODDESS of NAMAKKAL appeared in his DREAMS AND REVEALED THE MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS TO HIM. ( Namakkal is a small village in South India and RAMANUJAN used to go and pray in a temple for GODDESS LAKSHMI ( also called GODDESS OF NAMAKKAL)there in his young age.


See for example his On Highly Composite Numbers article in The Collected Papers of S. Ramanujan (a must read for any serious mathematician).


The second place on the list is received by G.F. Riemann for a single formula discovered by C.L. Siegel more than 80 years ago in Riemann's unpublished notes:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5uLAoued_dIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=riemann+zeta+function+edwards&source=bl&ots=7p76yI78Tb&sig=WHzbwx0RB7XcCHOL2clK0HgvdOM&hl=ro&ei=Lep2S-uZDYuz4QaPg7maCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false (the asymptotic expansion of the Zeta function, I recommend to everybody to read this fascinating work)


ryantg, do not confuse the APPLICATION of complex numbers to obtain certain results; in reality, complex numbers do not exist (just like the real numbers).

My favorite work on complex number analysis is:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vmZ6PVtaexwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Please read again the commentaries by L. Kronecker and the work done by Borel: real numbers are a mathematical pipe dream with no connection to the real world.

Your logorrhea speech contained in the rest of your message has already been answered.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5418
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #76 on: June 20, 2013, 07:32:53 AM »
So you're not claiming that they continue forever,  just that it is irrelevant if they do?   That doesn't prove they end, thus making them rational numbers.  If they cannot be demonstrated to have a fine solution that is not an approximation or truncation,  then they are irrational. 
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #77 on: June 20, 2013, 08:15:06 AM »
Quote
I did not post any bibliographical references on Borel's work on real numbers, I thought you already knew what was going on; I was wrong.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/olympia.pdf

So, in Borel's view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical
fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely. Most reals are
inaccessible to us, and will never, ever, be picked out as individuals using any
conceivable mathematical tool.
No, I didn't asked you for a soure of Borel's work (I've found several). I told you that the term "Borel's constant" does not seem to appear anywhere, so I asked you to give me sources, preferably sources from actual mathematicians with knowdlege of information theory.

Once again, you ignore that your key proof by contradiction (?) is not correct, as this effect is treated by information theory.


Quote
A continued fraction algorithm is a method for calculating that root to a certain degree of accuracy.

Exactly! The square root of a, always results in a periodic continued fraction (CF) when a is a square-free integer.

Yet the root is not defined like that. It's defined as the limit of such a succesion.

There was no need to specify this: we are all here discussing at a level where such things are understood; it is exactly what was meant in my message.

As you claim that reals do not exist, we can not give anything for sure. You claim  that reals do not exist, yet you claim that the square root of a is the limit of it's continued fraction? What number will it be at a infinite preccission? Or at another example, how do we express a number like 0.31313131313131313131... at it maximun accuracy? The lattter has a rational expression. It is infinitely long, yet it is a valid solution to equations. How do you define "realness"? If it has to be fully linked to the real world, nothing employing infinite could be used, neither nothing using zero. Anyway, you are yet to give a valid demostration. And, once again, I would like you to stop assuming what my mathematic knowdlege is. I have more to think at this moment than to make a proof for real numbers for a guy called Sandokhan on the Internet.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42324
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #78 on: June 20, 2013, 09:06:54 AM »
Irrationality Is The Square Root Of All Evil -- Douglas Hofstadte
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #79 on: June 20, 2013, 03:27:56 PM »

The greatest mathematician who ever lived was S. Ramanujan.


You do know his most famous work was in infinite series and continued fractions, something you seem to refute the existence going off your previous comments...

And he most certainly believed in irrational numbers.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #80 on: June 20, 2013, 07:16:54 PM »
You are nowhere to be found in any serious discussion on flat earth theory.

Well, neither are you.  You prefer to lurk in the insane corner of flat earth theory.

Quote
Please refrain from further personal attacks, or I will have to pull you by the ears and bring you in front of the classroom to show to everybody your catastrophic background as a scientist.

Um, I'm not a scientist.  ???  But to be fair, neither are you.  You are a lunatic.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #81 on: June 21, 2013, 05:36:22 AM »
12 + 12 = (rad(2))2 is a meaningless formula with no geometric representation.

What is wrong with a right-angled triangle whose legs are 1 meter long and whose hypotenuse is then sqrt2?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35373
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #82 on: June 21, 2013, 05:40:28 AM »
Quote
Please refrain from further personal attacks, or I will have to pull you by the ears and bring you in front of the classroom to show to everybody your catastrophic background as a scientist.

Um, I'm not a scientist.  ???  But to be fair, neither are you.  You are a lunatic.

You were warned.  Grab his ears, sandokhan.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #83 on: June 21, 2013, 06:00:34 AM »
conker and ryantg...the notion of an infinite number of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual invention, with no connection to the real world.

In this context, in a pure mathematical realm of existence, we can play with infinite series, continued fractions, n-roots.

I think we have dealt enough with this topic, the existence of irrational numbers, in this thread: my previous messages brought to your attention the things that you cannot find in any textbooks: Borel's proof that reals do not exist, Kronecker's legacy, and H. Poincare amazing discoveries about transverse homoclinic points.

(Ramanujan never questioned the existence of irrational numbers)

What is wrong with a right-angled triangle whose legs are 1 meter long and whose hypotenuse is then sqrt2?

The answer is to be found virtually in your very question: we no longer have A TRIANGLE. In the real world, there are no perfect circles, squares, or "triangles" with sides 1, 1, sqrt2 - this is the point Kronecker, Borel and myself are trying to make.


raunchy, you are a homo ignoramus: you have chosen to live in a delusional world of your own order.

You actually wrote:

Kind of like his explanation of lunar eclipses.  The conventional explanation is elegant and fits perfectly well with what we observe in the RE model

How are galaxies affected so strongly by gravity without being pulled into a sphere?  I mean, I'd get it if you said they're so massless on average that they aren't held together by gravity.  But obviously that's not the case.

The same goes for our solar system.


So Einstein was wrong when he said that gravity happens as a result of mass curving spacetime? 

This is the kind of crap you are posting here each and every day.

You have a complete ignorance of the experiments performed by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century which do show and prove that gravity (either terrestrial or planetary) is not an attractive force.

You are also ignorant of the fact that the space-time continuum hypothesis was created out of thin air by Minkowsky; the extraordinary works by Barbour and Kozyrev on the subject of time do prove that time could not possibly be represented by single variable (added incorrectly to another abstract concept, that of space); indeed, their experiments prove clearly that time is a function of torsion.


The reason you cannot contribute to any FE serious discussion is obviously related to the above findings: your scientific education is inexistent.


Insanity is a hallmark of delusion, irrationality,  unreasonableness; since there is no attractive gravity, and you believe that 1000 billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a spherical earth without such an attractive gravity, your belief qualifies you as being insane.


Each assertion that can be found in my messages is accompanied by copious bibliographical references and very precise proofs.


Choose any subject related to science, mathematics, FET vs RET for debate with me: I promise you it won't take more than 2 minutes to dismiss your doggerel.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5418
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #84 on: June 21, 2013, 06:10:28 AM »
So Sandokhan, enlighten us as to the finite solution to sqrt2 without truncation or approximation.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #85 on: June 21, 2013, 06:31:32 AM »
Trick questions do not work with me.

At each step of the continued fraction approximation we have a proper solution (for a certain desired number of decimals).

An infinity of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual fancy of the mathematical imagination.


*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #86 on: June 21, 2013, 06:41:49 AM »
This thread has been thoroughly Levee'd.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #87 on: June 21, 2013, 06:51:27 AM »
I think the most convincing piece of evidence Sandokhan is that the system of mathematics and science the rest of us advocate on these forums are being used in real life, in real world applications to build new devices, buildings and technologies and gain a more thorough understanding of some phenomenon.

Your idiosyncratic ideas on the absence of irrational numbers and others are NOT being used in real life. Nobody cares for it, nobody needs it. You can carry on believing in all this nonsense, I certainly won't be believing in it until you can apply this to real world situations, something the mathematics currently in use does without problem.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #88 on: June 21, 2013, 06:58:37 AM »
ryantg, Borel's proof on the inexistence of real numbers speaks for itself, as do Kronecker's comments.

Please reread the message on transverse homoclinic orbits and Poincare's comments.

No nonsense at all, perhaps you were reading on someone else's messages.


This thread has been thoroughly Levee'd.

Not at all.

Each and every measurement/dimension relating to the great pyramid of Gizeh is a multiple of the sacred cubit.

http://thegreatpyramidofgiza.ca/

Then the discussion was diverted into a very interesting debate about the existence of irrational numbers.

Certainly you had no idea and no knowledge about Borel's findings, Kronecker's comments, or the original quotes by Poincare.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2013, 07:07:39 AM by sandokhan »

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5418
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: 10 Most Important Numbers
« Reply #89 on: June 21, 2013, 07:02:10 AM »
Trick questions do not work with me.

At each step of the continued fraction approximation we have a proper solution (for a certain desired number of decimals).

An infinity of decimals is a cerebral and intellectual fancy of the mathematical imagination.
It is not a trick question.   Sure an approximation or truncation can work in real world situations when absolute precision isn't necessary, a large part of why we have estimated error is because we can't have absolute precision.   But this doesn't mean that the value is these approximations.   If you can continue to calculate it to a desired precision,  is there a point when it stops?  The entire idea behind irrational numbers is that they can continue to be calculated to any number of decimals.  If it doesn't stop,  doesn't that mean it's irrational?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.